Gene Complexity Eludes a Simple Definition

In the early days of molecular genetics in the 1960s and ’70s, it was widely held that a gene could be defined as a single entity that encodes the information to make a protein. However, as genetic studies have progressed, our understanding of what defines a gene has become incredibly more complicated.1 We still hear evolutionists claim “this and that creature have the same genes and are therefore related through common descent in evolution,” but in light of recent genetic studies, this claim is grossly oversimplified.

I’m sorry but I’m a very stubborn and, I’m sure infuriating person.

First, every “child” is merely the combination of its parents DNA. There is no definable monster child. For instance, there was no monster zebra that sprang complete from two horses. Over time the isolated zebra/horses accumulated differences until they became a separate species. There were a long series of somewhat different children.

Second, an low oxygen environment is one of many ways fossils can be preserved but it is perhaps the best. Also in China, the apparent collapse of sand dunes has preserved some remarkable fossils, in part through the rapid formation of the sandstone strata. One reason the lake bottom fossil depositions are so handy is that the silt layers are sandwiched between occasional volcanic ash layers which make for good radiometric bookend dating.

The search for what the creationist web sites call “transitional” fossils is doomed to failure precisely because the web sites have constructed a straw man which is absurd by their intention. To paleontologist sand geologists, a transitional fossil is one which has some characteristics of one species and some characteristics of another. Going back a long ways, fossils have been found of fish with lungs and gills with leg like fins. Slightly later fossils of amphibians have a lot of structural similarities to these lung fish but their legs are clearly legs and their lungs are apparently the same as current amphibians. The change from fish to amphibian took place incrementally over a long period of time with each creature in the chain being a successful creature and the product of its parents.

There is no mutation. Even the example you cite is gene expression. The genetic information is there and it is complex, it is not random.

Care to address this issue. My point is that it takes effort and design to make things happen. They do NOT happen at random. Mutations are DAMAGING TO THE SYSTEM. There is so much redundancy to CORRECT mutation but of course, that is random also I suppose.

If anything there is evidence for devolution, defined as losing genetic information.

Richard Goldschmidt and the theory of saltation disagree with you.

And the zebra horse explanation has nothing to do with what I said. There HAS to be an offspring, two actually, at some point with a discernible chromosome difference from its progenitors. There can be no way around this fact, which is the reason that the saltation theory came up.

As for radiometric dating, I have held in my hands doctoral thesis's which show the total lack of integrity in that style of dating. Dates which do not match the mentally predetermined dates are discarded, not even reported in the thesis, and discordant material is removed from the sample till they get the dates they want. Total rubbish and if a financial company operated with those rules they would all be in jail.

Anything can be construed as a transitional when you set the basis for what a species is or is not. Researchers do it by claiming new species when there is a small physiological difference in two supposedly related fossils. But unless there is someway to get DNA from these fossils, there is no proof that anything was related.

If you are talking about Tiktaalik, then that is only conjecture with no proof for any of the suggestions. This is reminiscent of the Coelacanth conjectures which were all proven wrong when a living one was found. And there are creatures alive today that have both working gills & lungs.

But the ultimate point is still that there had to be a change in the chromosomal makeup at some point into another real species, which has never been shown or proven. Even the possibility is not explained by any evolutionist, except for Dr. Goldschmidt.

I, and most scientists, emphatically disagree with you. I will quote wiki on the potential for beneficial mutations. As I'm getting quite weary of creationist pseudo science: Although mutations that cause change in protein sequences can be harmful to an organism; on occasions, the effect may be positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection. For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[70] One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[71] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, which remained untouched by bubonic plague. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[72] Another example is Sickle-cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[73] because, in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle-cell trait).[74] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells that it infests.

And I accept the majority position for the last seventy + years as do most paleontologists and geologists who make basic sense to me. Goldschmidt did his work at the same time as did those promoting eugenics with which I also disagree completely.

Radiometric dating gives a very accurate date for the formation of the rock being tested. Period. Errors are always attributable to sampling error. Clastic inclusions make sampling painstaking and difficult. The difficulty can be overcome and the isotopes being used are improving age calculations.

I am not a pathological liar as you seem to believe. How can I just accept on faith that you have held in your hands doctoral thesis that disprove radiometric dating? I’ve neither heard of nor have I read any such thing.

You are obviously and certainly entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. The mines at which I have worked have ore bodies and geological compositions which could not have formed six thousand or even one hundred thousand years ago. Geology works. It helps locate to oil and metals you daily use.

Wow, simply wow. I never said anything about lying or believing or not believing you. However, you decide to question my veracity on the thesis, then turn around and make me out to be the pathological liar.

As for the radiometric dating, Richard Leakey did that specific “testing” regime for skull 1470 and the KBS tuff. He shopped the testing around until he got the dates he wanted, ignoring other evidence found in the dig.

As for geological bodies which could not have formed, do some real studies of the deposits laid down by the St Helen's volcanic explosion. Many of the geological formations you might be talking about were formed within a few weeks to a few months by the hydrological processes there.

And I really am bothered how you keep turning this back onto me personally. I am not a Luddite and understand that the oil and metals I use daily come from the work of science in the field. But I do know there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Then Leakey didn’t follow scientific procedure. So? Does that somehow disprove the procedure he wasn’t following.

I do believe that the physical processes (gravity, speed of light, etc.) we observe now also applied in the past. Uniformitarianism. That does not mean that geological processes cannot occur quite quickly. Of course new rock was formed very quickly at St. Helens. Strata of rock were laid down in hours. The lower layers of ash became rock strata with the pressure of the ash above accomplishing what might take a great deal of time otherwise.

Lahars also entrap trees, animals, etc. However they do not immediately become fossils if they ever do. The most likely result is the formation of casts with the flesh or wood rotting away afterwards. You can see lots of examples of that in Pompeii.

There are clearly catastrophic events, some of which have happened quickly and changed much. The Boxing Day Tsunami created several strata that is or in some cases has become rock, mudstone or sandstone. None of that disproves uniformitarianism as these events, like St. Helens, conformed to natural law. Nor do any of these occurrences raise questions about deep time.

Thinking about the situation with Leakey a little bit more, sampling protocol in radiometric dating can be difficult. Clastic rock can give data that, at first glance makes no sense. Lava picks up pieces of older rock on the way up so you can get valid results for a sample that only make sense if you are sampling older rock included in new rock. The zircon crystal dated as the oldest rock was part of a clastic rock. As a related aside, diamonds are picked up by kimberlite lava on the way up from fairly deep in the mantel and, thus are crystals predating the lava in which they are found.

Now I am not saying that clastic rocks were Leakey’s reason for going back and redoing dates but it’s likely.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.