I've been avoiding the fossil record because these discussions get highly varied and detailed and so its easier and clearer to have one discussion topic at the time. (this is the reason I ignore the insults and general strawmen arguments against creationists that are often included in these discussions).

I don't mind starting that discussion now, maybe you guys would like to shelve the "added gene" discussion seeing as the discussion seems to be frustrating you, I have summarised below my feelings on that whole discussion topic, and I do feel we have both stated our cases quite clearly.

Regarding the fossil record, just for starters, let me tell you what would happen if there was a small landmass, an anoxic and sulphuric ocean filled with bacteria and trilobites. The bacteria have the shortest life-spans, many generations would be found dead before the first dead trilobite. As oceans got more oxygenated over time, so a few unique freshwater fish could adapt to the saltwater conditions (experiments have shown that some freshwater fish can adapt, agreed through natural selection). Parts of the ocean floors rise above sea lavel, meaning land fauna and flora can take hold on what was previously ocean floor. Their fossils are obviously found above bacteria and trilobites and fish.

So the first mistakes of evolutionists is incorrectly assuming that trilobites evolved from bacteria, and land fauna and flora evolved later. The geologic record is showing the layers in that sequence, and yet simultaneously geologists admit to very little landmass during the widespread trilobite stage. The fossils of the original insertion of land fauna and flora could have been simultaneous and already discovered and yet that particular enclave is not yet dated, or even currently sitting under the oceans. The assumption of "evolving" is merely an assumption not fully taking into account the already admitted small landmass of that era. So creationists are missing land fossils of the same radiometric dating as the trilobites, evolutionists are missing these intermediate transitional fossils in the correct places on the geologic timescale. (half bacteria/half trilobite plus more intermediate stages).

These types of arguments can follow through the entire geologic column, with obvious reasons for the proliferation of each type of layer put forward by both evolutionists and creationists. Both parties are missing fossils and giving specific reasons why those types of fossils would be rare in that particular layer. Neither view has an advantage over the other view, because of the lack of respectively "transitional fossils" and "carboniferous mammal/human fossils".




When did you show me an example of an additional unique beneficial functional gene being introduced by nature into the genome? The examples given in this thread were for example: artifically inserted "clones", or of a "dead gene" (Duffy gene), or of a changed gene (plastic eating bacteria). Each time an example was given, I explained how that example is an irrelevant process to explain the observation of modern genomes containing many thousands of unique active genes.

I'm not ignoring simple explanations, I'm emphasizing that your beliefs are not supported by observation, and each example given by pro-evolutionists in this thread has not explained how nature adds a unique functional protein-coding gene to the genome. Duplications and insertions are not such. They can add hardiness , but they are duplicate genes, not unique functional genes.

Hmm we seem to be going in circles here. The mutations that are observed are nearly always damaging, and when they are beneficial do not involve the activation of new protein-coding genes.

So I will answer the question more correctly, and more accurately:
1) mutations are the theoretical method of addding active genes, although how mutations can actually activate a new functional gene is unknown.
2) these types of mutations of beneficial new genes activating are never observed in reality

That's why I don't even think the introduction of new protein coding, active genes is possible, let alone the cause of modern life-forms



LOL, well said, but you are answering this from an evolutionist assumption that the 20000 genes have evolved. I see 20000 genes that have always been there, 100 damaged genes and no sign of any "transitional genes" or new genes or half-active genes or new sets of base-pairs becoming genes, or genes splitting into two genes each with a different function.

Yes, by that sentence I assume that Rockon and I are now discussing the same issue.

Thanks again for discussing the topic at hand, maybe others have meant to say this but have not quite said it.

Yes I do believe that what molecular biology is currently revealing is that duplications are nearly redundant, nearly useless segments of DNA. They do have a use when it comes to hardiness because in a sense the more duplications, the more "backup systems" an organism has, but in itself this does not explain the evolutionary claims of an increasing number of useful active genes over time.

1) What theoretical process would activate those duplicated genes into new genes with new functions?
2) Is this observed anywhere in nature?



I mentioned the support for devolution (and micro-evolution) in "ecological observations and molecular biology". You are now discussing the fossil record so I'm not sure if you are acknowledging the fact that molecular biology is indicating that the average organism, even the most naturally selected currently "fit" ones, are more full of damaged mutations than beneficial mutations? Because seriously when you look into genome sequencing you see that damaging mutations occur far too rapidly for a population to naturally DE-select the mutations out of population. These damaging mutations just would not exist across entire populations of nearly every organism if natural selection was as effective as it should be.

ie Why is evolution reversing suddenly as soon as molecular biologists study genome sequencing? ;-) (I'm stirring here, lol)

God created organisms with the ability to evolve, I have no problem with that and this does not contradict creation. I do have a problem with evolutionists saying that evolution is the only possible way that modern life-forms exist, when molecular biology points to devolution rather than evolution. Reduced complexity, extinctions, and rapid micro-evolution to fill the ecological gaps left behind from extinctions is what ecological observations and molecular biology are indicating. Speciation through chromosomal polymorphism is often due to damaged chromosomal patterns, not improved ones. Increased fitness is often due to inactive/damaged genes, not added genes.



If you look at the evidence through unbiased eyes you would see devolution in the latest genome sequencing, not evolution. Later sub-species showing increased damage in the genome, not improvements.



?? Your comment seems to imply that ALL mutations involve new genes. I know you can't mean that but that is what you seem to be saying.
Beneficial mutations observed in nature involve de-activated genes, or missing genes or inactive genes. A mutation is a distortion in the genome not previously there, it does not have to involve gene insertions or duplications.



No , these were the only examples put forward by pro-evolutionists in this thread, those examples made my point for me. Thank you for being the first to focus on gene-adding mutations, which is what evolution requires if it is the source of some of the more complex modern organisms.


Unfortunately you have not given any examples of new useful genes being added , when you do this, it will count. It cannot count yet because no-one has provided the evidence. Do you think I just made-up this stuff about added genes when I first started on this thread?? No, I've seen the arguments for and against and was quite shocked that evolution has so little evidence and yet evolutionists are confident in their "theory" (hypothesis).

The E coli clone genes were created in an unnatural manner, and cloned genes are inactive duplicates that are "backups". You have given no further evidence for natural proceses that can create the type of non-cloned non-viral genes found in a human.

And you made up the name Andrew? His name is William Dembski. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, no problem, but I still can't find the comments Dembski made regarding an added gene. Did Lenski or Dembski mention beneficial added genes?

Regardless I found the irony of your non-existent "Andrew Lenski" being criticised for being incorrect as hilarious, not meaning to mock, its just very very funny.

Of course it does. The creation of new genes is not the creation of new genes? That's news to me.




Duplications cause "junk DNA". Dormant unused inactive genes. Humans have 32000 active useful non-viral genes, where did these come from?

And you made up the name Andrew? His name is William Dembski. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, no problem, but I still can't find the comments Dembski made regarding an added gene.

Regardless I found the irony of your non-existent "Andrew Lenski" being criticised for being incorrect as hilarious, not meaning to mock, its just very very funny.

Its not adding an extra functional gene to the genome, which is required for evolution as an explantion for the appearance of complex life forms.




Duplications cause "junk DNA". Dormant unused inactive genes. Humans have 32000 active useful non-viral genes, where did these come from?



This is what appears to have happened to those E coli bacteria, they were artificially inserted with an extra cloned gene that involved resistance to tetracycline. They were then placed in an environment that encourages the production of tetracycline (maltose). Those with the extra resistance gene showed more fitness in the maltose environment but not in other environments.

I enjoyed this article because I feel it's the first real challenge to my main point in this entire thread. You have insertions that are beneficial.

However I do have 3 problems with that study being a refutaton of my main point regarding ACTIVE ADDED GENES being beneficial.

Firstly, the insertions were done in a very artificial manner, not found in nature.
Secondly these are clone genes, and not new unique active genes as found in the human genome.
Thirdly clone genes are NOT ACTIVE.

Clones or duplications are basically backup genes that would normally cause less fitness because the DNA takes longer to form with more material to form. But in some instances having the dormant backup genes becomes very important when the particular environment is highly dependent on that one gene. These type of additions of inactive genes to the genome do not explain the existence of 32000 active, non-cloned, non viral beneficial genes in a human.

There are also honest intelligent and well educated evolutionists that became creationists when looking at the evidence.

Hey I've got no problem with the creation of new species through changes to allele frequencies, but this does not explain evolution's stance of highly evolved creatures with lot's of genes coming from simple creatures with a few egenes. It is only that aspect of evolution that I disagree with. Sure creatures can evolve, but within their current gene diversity, and allele diversity. They can devolve, reducing their complexity. But additonal good genes as required by evolution to explain the existence of humans, naaa.

Tell me how does an arthropod (+-10000 genes) become a human? Two insects join together? :) A gene added here and there that becomes functional over time? How does it happen?

I have been trying to find this "Andrew Lenski"

All I can find is a Richard Lenski who is a committed evolutionist, not a creationist, and incidentally also an expert in E coli. Any links please?

LOL you still not getting it! You highlight this fact when you emphasize that a gene can change its form through changes in the four bases. This does not add a gene to the genome. And I explained it so carefully and its such a simple concept. Most beneficial mutations having nothing to do with added genes. They involve destroyed genes.

I tried to find your example of e coli fitness and can't find any evidence, have you got any links etc where we can see if its an added gene or alternatively an inactive gene that causes the increased fitness?

Beneficial mutations do not contradict creationism in any manner, even increased genes that benefit an organism would not contradict creationism, they would merely provide some evidence for evolution, which is currently lacking.

Where is the evidence for an added beneficial gene ? You quoted a creationist source of all sources , and the only articles I can find on that subject show the survival of a mutated organism with one less functional gene than the original, not one more.




I said no such thing! Misrepresentation!!! LOL
( a misrepresentation is not very good because then you end up arguing against strawmen)

You seem to assume that beneficial mutations involve increased genes, in fact they normally involved reduced functionality of genes as per the 3 examples mentioned earlier in the thread (blue eyes, malaria etc). I acknowledged beneficial mutations, but they do not involve an increase in good genes as you incorrectly added. Because you guys are failing to give me examples of the addition of non-retroviral "good genes", it makes the theory of evolution appear to be unsupported by the evidence.

There is a boundary. You seem to continuously miss my point. The boundary is the number of existing good genes. You cannot increase them, that is the boundary. You can throw in virusses, but these are recognisable as virusses, you cannot increase the number of non-viral good genes. And yet according to evolution the number of non-viral good genes has increased from single cell short DNA organisms to large complex organisms. HOW?

(ps I thought I was being over-repetitive on my point, but now I realise that people still haven't got my point, and so I'm glad I'm being repetitive, and I will repeat myself one more time , I am referring to ACTIVE ADDED GENES, not any old beneficial mutation)

I think I have been 100% consistently clear. Its not that we need evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form, we just need evidence of a mutation that just adds ONE FAVORABLE GENE. If this can be seen to be possible in nature, then evolution becomes viable over time as a possibility.We do see evidence of the loss of just one gene becoming useful, but not the gain becoming useful. These gains are always damaging or neutral.

You get various types of mutations, here's some examples:

Destruction of genes/chromosomes (a gene fails to function, or is lost)
You get duplication of genes/chromosomes
You get insertions of genes

Can insertions of active genes be beneficial? Yes in a laboratory, but not in nature.

Thanks for hearing what I have to say and trying to understand.

I agree that increased DNA length does not always relate to complexity.

My point is that evolution requires that the number of useful functional genes increases, because even though there is no exact correlation between DNA gene size and complexity of an organism, it is impossible for higher life-forms (eg hominids) to exist with the number of genes found in basic bacteria (about 1000 genes).

So evolution has to involve additions of useful functional genes that become a part of the standard chromosomal pattern of that organism. This is unobserved in reality.

True hey! Lol

You get many genetic mutations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rates
In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per generation.[5] The highest per base pair per generation mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−6 to 10−8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−3 to 10−5 per base per generation[5]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3× or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[6]; these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation[3]. Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10−8 per site per generation [7].

All the studies you guys are using prove my point. Beneficial mutations often involve dead genes. Not extra genes.

You do get extra genes forming. You do get beneficial mutations. But you do not get extra beneficial functional genes. When this is found, and I'm sure it will be, then you still have to consider logically that the net rate of beneficial insertions has to outweigh the damaged genes for evolved complexity to work. Without this , there would just be damage control and eventual extinctions, which is what is being observed.

Can you explain this without a beneficial mutation?
You seem to have missed my point, I was the first to introduce proof of beneficial mutations, on page 19 when I mentioned the "Duffy gene". I believe thoroughly in beneficial mutations, these normally involve a LOSS OF FUNCTION of certain genes that benefits the organism. There is a general lack of proof of gene insertions that benefit organisms. For a creature to evolve complexity from 1000 genes to 32000 genes would involve a NET GAIN of beneficial genes, when at the moment we see more losses of beneficial genes and NO gains.



Caps added for emphasis, he was speculating, and speculating incorrectly as shown by the next paragraph:
A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact NO FRAMESHIFT MUTATION was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase.

I never said anything like that.




On page 19 I twice acknowledged that beneficial mutations do occur and was the first to bring up the "Duffy gene", the gene that protects Africans from malaria. However these nearly alway involve loss of function in certain genes, as in all 3 of the examples mentioned by you.

For single cell organisms of about 1000 genes to evolve to complex organisms of about 32000 genes (humans) requires continuous beneficial increases to the number of genes, evolving MORE functional genes than before, not less. This has been my point this whole thread, molecular biology reveals reduced functional genes over time (sometimes usefully), not increased functional genes.

You have never once given me any evidence of beneficial gene insertions occurring in nature. The mice example was artificial and caused the mice to shown signs of human brain cell formations, however we do not know if these mice lived long or benefitted in any manner from having human brain cells. All this showed is that duplicated portions of the human genome can become active. This did not show that the duplicate portions actually have any existing function in a human. The chomosomal polymorphism just illustrated that subspecies can be created through mutation, u did not illustrate that the mutations involved beneficial gene insertions.

When u mentioned telomeres, yes I don't mind admitting that I didn't know about them and I also don't mind admitting that I adjust my view to fit scientific evidence. This is the more correct scientific approach, someone who is dogmatic about their view without adjusting it would be foolish, so what you seem to be critisizing is actually a compliment, I do adjust my view according to the evidence presented, anything less is foolish.

As for your other allegations, they are all utter nonsense, evolutionists have assumptions regarding the interpretation of the fossil record, I was not critcising the geologic timescale as put forward by geologits, I was criticizing evolutionists interpretation of the timescale and already explained that. If by your numbers and tone you feel you have the more scientific position, you are incorrect. If you feel by the number of irrelevant links you post you have the more scientific position you are incorrect. The truth is that molecular biologists find many damaged and neutral genes when doing genome sequencing, yet do not find beneficial gene insertions. The predictive power of this would be extinctions, which are being observed. These are the facts, the facts themselves point to devolution not evolution.

I watched the video, unfortunately mocking creationists does not add to the evidence, sorry for you buddy! LOL

Science observes many extinctions in the fossil record.
Science observes chromosomal patterns full of mutated damage.
Science observes more and more "living fossils"
Science does not observe increasing numbers of beneficial genes when doing genome sequencing.

Now when you take the actual facts, and compare them to the hominid fossil record its more logical to assume extinctions of what used to be a larger variety of hominid types, rather than evolution.

(ps mocking is a good form of persuasion, it actually does work, but most people do prefer facts)

What you say does make sense, generally a healthy attitude. (Although obviously us christians feel the love stretches further than just those who deserve it and we need God's help to do that.) When I say interesting times , I just mean that now that I mentioned how easily we try to be good to others and fail, you may become more aware of it, or maybe not , lol.