Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for macro-evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sfs" data-source="post: 77678680" data-attributes="member: 8727"><p>Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.</p><p></p><p>All of which is to say that we have <em>very</em> good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sfs, post: 77678680, member: 8727"] Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away. Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species. All of which is to say that we have [I]very[/I] good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for macro-evolution
Top
Bottom