Case of gene duplication and new function

[a_haworthroberts]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... scientists
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... sts&page=2
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/384.abstract

Science deliberately mangled by Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11032012 (item 4)
"Despite implicit faith that “gene duplications allow evolution of genes with new functions,” no one has actually shown how that could happen."
"Since mutations actually don’t add any new information..."
"The main problem with using this discovery to support evolutionary theory is that no new function actually came into existence. The dual-function gene already existed in the organism. The genetic information was not new; it was already there."
"These bacteria did not evolve an innovation. They did not acquire new genetic information, as duplication of an existing gene is nothing new."

But as reported in the Abstract of the scientific paper: "Gene duplications allow evolution of genes with new functions. Here, we describe the innovation-amplification-divergence (IAD) model in which the new function appears before duplication and functionally distinct new genes evolve under continuous selection".

If this does not also support the idea of bacteria evolving into something more complex, why do YECs pretend it isn't happening ie there is 'no' new function?

As in other similar cases, the duplication meant that two functions were being carried out instead of just one.

"Cornell University evolutionary geneticist Richard Meisel cautions that this evolutionary mechanism may be limited to bacteria and viruses, which brings up another rather obvious point: nothing about this discovery provides a mechanism for Salmonella to become any new kind of more complex organism, only another variety of Salmonella." That does not necessarily follow. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/316 (cited by AiG)

AiG wants their fans to think that scientists are STUPID.

[a_haworthroberts]

And now we have THIS: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... on-or-not/
Will comment shortly.

[a_haworthroberts]

I have just flagged this thread at the 'rabble rouser' thread at 'free for all', at 10.35pm GMT.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2967&start=705

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... on-or-not/
GEORGIA PURDOM IS NOW (PRESUMABLY TAKING HER CUE FROM KEN HAM'S BLOG POST OF 12 SEPTEMBER WHERE HE WRONGLY CLAIMED THAT THE HUFF POST MADE A 'FALSE STATEMENT' ABOUT DR PURDOM) DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING THE HUFFINGTON POST IE PRETENDING IN EFFECT THAT THEY ARE LYING ABOUT HER. (See http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -creation/ for what Ham wrote in September.)

"Huff Post decried my supposed ignorance of Lenski’s work that they acknowledged as “evolution that has been observed in a laboratory setting.” Obviously, as I stated in a response to Huff Post, they didn’t do their homework!" This is the Huff Post article in question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 49375.html

They may not have done their homework but THEY DID NOT 'DECRY HER SUPPOSED IGNORANCE'. In their article about the Creation Museum's video featuring her and David Menton 'rebutting' Bill Nye they stated: "Purdom did not comment on studies that have shown that evolution has been observed in a laboratory setting". AS FAR AS THE CREATION MUSEUM VIDEO IS CONCERNED THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. They merely failed to discover that Purdom had sought to question interpretations of the Lenski Experiment on E coli in a previous blog post in 2008 (the one she is referring to at the start of today's blog post).

WHY DO YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS CONSTANTLY CLAIM THAT EVERYBODY ELSE LIES ABOUT THEM EVEN WHEN - AS IS NORMALLY THE CASE - THEY ARE BEING TRUTHFUL? ARE YECS DEVIOUS/STUPID/BRAINWASHED BY THE BIBLE AND FEARS ABOUT SATAN/PARANOID/LOCKED INTO A 'VICTIM' MENTALITY/COMPULSIVE PROPAGANDISTS PLAYING TO THE GALLERY?
Or is there some other explanation?

As for the discussion of the Lenski Experiment, I reported on 10 September (in another thread at the 'free for all') that in her blog post of 7 September Purdom had stated even though she could not know that this was true: "In other words, the types of changes in E. coli observed by Lenski do not add new genetic information that over eons of time can lead from microbes to man. They simply alter (in a degenerative fashion) genetic information that was already present".

THIS is the 2012 paper by Lenski, Blount and others: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11514.html

Purdom rejects POINT BLANK the notion that these E coli bacteria developed a key innovation and insists: "Imagine how many changes would be necessary to generate truly novel proteins with truly novel functions necessary for molecules-to-man evolution. Impossible!".

Thus speaks someone who is compelled to deny that findings they detest can possibly be scientifically valid.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Ken Ham discusses NO science here with his own words. He merely flags a blog by a YEC 'expert' at AiG. I suspect that is because (a) he knows little science and (b) he is an enemy of the scientific method and a closed-minded reality-rejecting religious ideologue. After all, he starts with the highly emotive comment: "Over the years, I have found that many students have been brainwashed into believing evolution because their teachers and professors supposedly showed them that bacteria evolve."

I think the YECs are feeling desperate right now. They are now trying to drum up artificial controversies about evolution by highlighting their skewed interpretations of the ongoing E coli bacteria, dinosaur soft tissue and Horseshoe Bend stories (among others).

[GrumpyBob]

Apologies for coming in rather late to your posts (and not having looked at all the links), but I have thought for a long time that the Intelligent Design creationist position that there is no known mechanism for an increase in genetic information is so completely bogus that I am surprised they still parrot it. But they do.

I work in Drosophila molecular genetics, and we can see this kind of increase in information content happening in the lab, in real time. Not to mention the genomic evidence for such events, sometimes really major, in the past. We see genome duplications, chromosome duplications, duplications of sections of chromosomes, gene duplications, gene fusions. And in some taxa, horizontal transfer of genes.

Robert

[a_haworthroberts]

Glad to see I'm not the only one (from the UK) who sometimes posts in the small hours!

Perhaps the creationists should admit to these sorts of observed events - and just use the "they are still fruit flies" argument.

[GrumpyBob]

Well, here I am again, but mostly posting to check whether the Tapatalk integration is working properly - I requested this to help forum use with mobile devices such as iPads, iPhones, Android, Blackberry etc.

Robert

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD