Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/818219078557061120
Post Reopened by Oddthinking
Refocused question to avoid the individual claims and focus on the single big question.
Source Link
Oddthinking
  • 144.8k
  • 48
  • 565
  • 657

Duplication as way as a way to create Are new genes created through duplication?

In an creationist article, about molecular virologist, Dr Yingguang Liu, it says:

Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory.

Are these claims truesome new genes created through the mechanism of gene duplication?

Duplication as way as a way to create new genes

In an creationist article, about molecular virologist, Dr Yingguang Liu, it says:

Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory.

Are these claims true?

Are new genes created through duplication?

In an creationist article, about molecular virologist, Dr Yingguang Liu, it says:

Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory.

Are some new genes created through the mechanism of gene duplication?

Post Closed as "Needs more focus" by Oddthinking
Formatting
Source Link
Oddthinking
  • 144.8k
  • 48
  • 565
  • 657

In a creationist article aan creationist article, about molecular virologist claims that:

"Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Yingguang Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory."it says:

Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory.

Are these claims true?

Here is the link to the original article:

http://creation.com/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=us&utm_campaign=emails

In a creationist article a molecular virologist claims that:

"Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory."

Are these claims true?

Here is the link to the original article:

http://creation.com/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=us&utm_campaign=emails

In an creationist article, about molecular virologist, Dr Yingguang Liu, it says:

Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory.

Are these claims true?

added 93 characters in body
Source Link
DavePhD
  • 109.5k
  • 24
  • 462
  • 493

In a creationist article a molecular virologist claims that:

"Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution.1 [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory."

Are these claims true?

Here is the link to the original article:

http://creation.com/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=us&utm_campaign=emails

In a creationist article a molecular virologist claims that:

"Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution.1 First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory."

Are these claims true?

Here is the link to the original article:

http://creation.com/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=us&utm_campaign=emails

In a creationist article a molecular virologist claims that:

"Evolutionists commonly invoke ‘duplication’ as a way to create brand new genes. A copying error can lead to an extra copy of a gene, which supposedly can then go on to evolve into something else (‘neofunctionalization’) without compromising the original gene. Dr Liu discussed what happens after a theoretical duplication, and the picture was not pretty for evolution. [reference 1] First of all, degeneration is expected, because a non-important (‘neutral’) gene can freely mutate or even be deleted with no threat to the organism. With no selection pressure to maintain the gene, the opportunity for neofunctionalization is quite limited. Also, the main difference between the various forms of life is how genes are regulated, not the number of genes. Gene duplication does not help evolutionary theory."

Are these claims true?

Here is the link to the original article:

http://creation.com/molecular-virologist-Dr-Yingguang-Liu-interview?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=us&utm_campaign=emails

Source Link
Lucian09474
  • 855
  • 6
  • 13
Loading