Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RightWingNilla
It is entirely plausible that the promoter remains intact after gene duplication. Initially, you have simply duplicated an entire stretch of DNA and end up with an identical copy with promoter, introns and the whole shebang.

That's very interesting and another evolutionist coverup. Before the promoter DNA was discovered evolutionists were calling all that other stuff 'junk DNA' and swore up and down that it was totally useless and in fact it was the remains of genes discarded by evolution. Now this junk DNA turns out is so essential that they add it to the fairy tale that not just the gene, but the promoter region gets copied. As I said before, a xerox copy of the promoter region would not do the job you assign to it. All it would do, being a xerox copy, is do exactly what the original gene's promoter region did - it would assign the same cells to do the original gene's job and it would assign the original gene to produce as it was doing already. So as I said, this would be a useless gene.

1,755 posted on 06/24/2002 6:11:40 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1696 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
Blue-skipping placemarker.
1,756 posted on 06/24/2002 6:14:42 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1755 | View Replies ]

To: gore3000
Before the promoter DNA was discovered evolutionists were calling all that other stuff 'junk DNA' and swore up and down that it was totally useless and in fact it was the remains of genes discarded by evolution. Now this junk DNA turns out is so essential that they add it to the fairy tale that not just the gene, but the promoter region gets copied.

**Groan** Promoters were never, EVER included under the heading of junk DNA. And yes when you have a duplication of a signficant stretch of the chromosome you will copy EVERYTHING nucleotide for nucleotide and that gene should be expressed - the same transcription factors which bind to the parental gene will bind to the duplicate's upstream promoter. Can you tell me why on Earth you would assume otherwise? Sheesh!

So as I said, this would be a useless gene.

No you actually suggested earlier that it would spell "disaster" for the whole organism. And truth be told, you dont have the **faintest** idea what it would do to the to organism. Some of the best geneticists in the world can't predict......I am supposed to believe you?

1,770 posted on 06/24/2002 8:18:20 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1755 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson