Timeline for Are new genes created through duplication?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:21 | comment | added | Jasmine | Yes, the edits address those concerns, but turn it into a Biology question, more than a skeptics question. I see you did get a pretty good answer though. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 22:13 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/818219078557061120 | ||
| Jan 8, 2017 at 20:52 | vote | accept | Lucian09474 | ||
| Jan 7, 2017 at 20:42 | comment | added | Lucian09474 | @Oddthinking yes, if you look through the article you noticed there were a lot of claims. I was originally just going to ask the whole "Dr Liu research" but then I thought that would be too broad so I decided to just focus on the last section. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | keshlam | This is less a skeptics question than a biology and definition-of-terms question, methinks... The objection is based on a misunderstanding, nothing more. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 5:51 | answer | added | hdhondt | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 3:08 | comment | added | user11643 | You should ask on biology.stackexchange.com. In short, yes, duplication occurs in several forms, so therefore a mutation in one copy will not affect the expression of the other. Sometimes the duplication itself is harmful (e.g. Down Syndrome) but other times not (e.g. hexaploid wheat). | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 0:03 | history | reopened | Oddthinking♦ | ||
| Jan 7, 2017 at 0:02 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | I've refocussed the question to try to avoid this problem. @Jasmine: Does that satisfy your concern? | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 0:02 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Refocused question to avoid the individual claims and focus on the single big question.
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 23:59 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | Further to @Jasmine's concerns: all the preceding statements might be true, but the final conclusion be wrong. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 23:55 | history | closed | Oddthinking♦ | Needs more focus | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 23:54 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formatting
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 19:44 | comment | added | Jasmine | There are too many claims made in this question. Are genes duplicated? Are there copying errors? What is the result of mutation? Does lack of selection pressure "maintain" a gene and limit further mutation? Is the regulation of genes more significant than the inventory of genes? This is a typical creationist "claim" - it's actually ten or more misunderstood scientific principles all mushed together. A proper debunking of this would be really really long. Please be more specific. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 17:14 | history | edited | DavePhD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 93 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 17:00 | history | asked | Lucian09474 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |