This is logical to me, and I agree this is what is currently being observed. I would rather call this a changed gene than a new gene, but for semantic reasons I don't mind you calling this a new gene. Yet a new gene coming from a previous gene, does not explain evolution, where a single gene organism can one day become 1000 gene bacteria. And then eventually become a 10000 gene insect. And eventually become a 22000 gene human. This involves MORE active unique beneficial genes, not changed genes or less genes. This process of useful functional genes being added to the genome is just an interesting theory, that unfortunately has been adopted as fact by the scientific community.







Yes I completely agree with you. This is how beneficial mutations are occurring, and are observed. But this is devolving, beneficial reduced complexity over time causing selective pressure resulting in better adaptation to modern environments.

You ask about the benefits of genetic build-up, organisms have unique genes with specific functions that according to evolution did not exist in bacteria and then evolved. I'm saying this is not observed, this adding of genes.

Hi

I don't know if this was meant for me, but I don't want to be told later in the thread that I don't face the evidence put forward. If you can understand I am dealing with 5 seperate people posting links for me to look at, could you kindly post the relevant portion or refer me to a relevant paragraph in this link, if it was meant for me.

On first glance a large portion of the article was referring to the merits of duplications. I personally believe non-coding regions do have benefit and cause selective pressure, the writer of the article seems to think the only selective pressure is the limit to which the organism can cope with the duplications. I believe duplications protect an organism from mutation through in a sense being a "back-up". This is why the E coli fared better with a cloned resistance gene when confronted with a hostile environment. And so I believe duplications via mutatons can be beneficial and naturally selected to become dominant in an organism.

Sorry I didn't read your post clearly, you were referring to the activating of previously inactive non-coding genes, and yet I thought you meant the re-activation or changing of already active genes. Apology for not reading properly :)

To answer your question, the process you are describing is unlikely because:
1) I do not see how a duplicate gene would be activated with a new function if its dormant with a previous function.
Each unique functional coding gene is a unique combination of about 100 000 base pairs depending on the organism and the gene, how does nature set up that gene with a new unique function? By what process?
2) This activating of non-coding genes into new functional genes is not observed.

I would say that "yat" to "cat" is a changed word in the sentence, not a new word. Sorry the semantics of this thread are confusing people and this was probably my fault, but you are right, I'm referring to an EXTRA gene as an added gene. I'm looking for examples of extra genes, where say a 22000 gene organism becomes a 22001 gene organism, the extra gene being a coding active gene with a unique function. Evolution requires this process.

"LIKELY protein-coding abilities" You getting close ;)

That was a very good example of what I'm looking for, however so far it just looks like a mutated non-coding gene. Unique because it has been damaged. Even if it is proven to be a coding region, these activated duplications are always damaging, not beneficial. For example, Downs Syndrome involves extra, yet protein-coding genes, so these do exist. However not beneficially.

The paper deals in mechanisms for genome growth, something you have denied can occur. It took maybe 5 minutes of google to find an example, there are more. I am done here, I have no dog in the fight and it seems you are more interested in ignoring evidence than explaining the evidence.

This style of "wouldn't it make more sense" thinking does not help us to understand evolution.

Evolution is a mechanical process that does not follow our own, personal, intuitive notions of 'what would make more sense'.

I'm strongly of the opinion that the first step in reconciling discrepancies between what evolution actually does, and what we personally think 'would make more sense', is to realize that practically all descriptions of evolution found outside of scientific circles that make appeals to 'sensibility' (or purpose or goal, for that matter) are simply wrong. We cannot generally rely on what we think would make more sense, we must look at what actually happens.

That said, here are some other things that may help with that reconciliation:

Many have argued that thinking of the 'survival of the organism' or the 'survival of the species' is the wrong vantage point for understanding evolution, but that 'survival/propagation of the gene' is the most correct vantage point.

Further, we should not expect an organism to clean up its genome of useless genes unless there were a very definite, real-world survival advantage in doing so. Evolution does not strive for a human's perception of an 'efficient' or 'sensible' model, it simply works to select for the genes that favor survival to gene-propagation age. Whatever works for that purpose, not matter how haphazard or inefficient it might appear from some human's point of view, is just fine in evolution - as long as it helps to propagate the genes.

This last suggestion is a highly speculative reach, but consider also that carrying a collection of currently-useless genes provides a library of potentially useful genes that may be activated in future generations.

Misrepresentation! lol I have never denied that duplications can occur. I have denied that duplications can cause active AND beneficial genes. What's the use of "junk DNA", extra inactive chromosomes and genes, this will not create a human from bacteria, you need that 1000 gene organism to start gaining extra functions (via active beneficial genes) over time to become a human.

So we have 'new to the lexicon' and 'new = lengthening the sentence'.

I may not be understanding you, but you seem (elsewhere) to be operating on the assumption that both have to happen simultaneously.

It seems totally reasonable to me that these two processes can occur separately: (a) the 'sentence can be lengthened' without the addition of uniquely new functional words, and that (b) 'new to the lexicon' words can be added without 'increasing the length of the sentence'.

(edited) If we allow for this possibility, then we need NOT worry about the lack of any proven situation in which a a gene is simultaneously 'new' in both respects.

No they don't have to happen simultaneously. If a previously non-coding region becomes a coding region in a manner beneficial to the organism, this would certainly make your point. But a duplication resulting in extra non-coding genes, plus some mutated coding genes that have added some function would not make your point.

The problem is that the human genome is actually showing MORE unique new functional "words" than bacteria, not just better or changed words, so the bigger genome with more non-coding regions and some transformed genes would not explain humans, which have more functional coding genes than bacteria.

Evolutionists are crediting evolution with the appearance of the extra beneficial functional genes, when in reality these non-coding regions of the genome do not activate in a beneficial manner. If they ever activate its in a highly damaging manner (Down's syndrome).

Read the paper, it deals with the entirety of your misconceptions on this topic. Very cool paper, and deals with ways to further explore how organisms have evolved.

Here's where it would be useful to define exactly what we mean by evolution.

To me, two essential aspect of evolution are that it works as a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to changing circumstances, and that it leads to the creation of new species as a single species branches out into two separate niches and drift apart.

There are many unknowns in the story of exactly how life came to be on this planet, and I'm okay with that.

People who are not comfortable with "we don't know yet" will sometimes turn to any explanation they can find, even supernatural explanations.

The details of the origin of prokaryotic (sp?) DNA is a mystery to me, and, like abiogenesis, is outside of the domain of the theory of evolution.

I applaud you for drawing attention to remaining unknowns in the story of how life came to be how it is on this planet, and for focusing attention on weak areas of the theory of evolution.

However, to think that this places creationism on equal footing strikes me a a pure 'god of the gaps' style thinking.

Arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps is all that has been presented so far.

I agree, because criticisms of evolution are being paired with a suggestion that creationisms is a good alternative explanation.

If those criticisms were not being paired in this way, but rather simply posed only as criticisms of evolution - or, better, posed as questions, then they would not be 'arguments from ignorance' and 'god of the gaps'.

Agreed, this is the subtle distinction between fairly engaging in intellectual discourse, and illustrating your bias and uncritical approach.

I have a question to ask and this seems a place to ask it.
We call the forced adaptations which Monsanto makes to seed/plant genetics "GMO". Are they in effect creating new genes or will the plant's genes, after several or many generations, revert or are they in fact changed to the point of new genes?

Perhaps Monsanto doesn't know, but just thought I'd ask. The reason being that we are told that the plant itself and 'fruit' it brings is no different, that it is still the same species, with no detractions or additions to the quality we have always known.

So it is a confusing issue or is just confusing for those of us who lack sufficient education in this area? Well, I'm trying to learn, so your responses will be appreciated.

Well if you did not have Darwin creating an instantly acceptable worldwide theory of macro-evolution based on his well written observations of micro-evolution and the fossil record, we would be looking at the current evidence with more of an open mind. Neither instinctive logic nor highly detailed analysis would assume evolution from looking at current genome sequencing. The molecular biological evidence, if you are unbiased, points to the sudden appearance of a string of coded genes, followed by deteriation. That is all the evidence is showing, with a few minor improvements among many many damaging mutations. But even the improvements show lessening complexity over time, dead and damaged genes with some beneficial trade-off to the loss of functionality. Unclouded by Darwin, the facts point to devolution, the ability of natural selection to filter out these damaging mutations faster than they are being created is not observed. There is net damage occurring, not net improvements. There is loss of functionality to fill ecological gaps, not increased functionality. Natural selection occurs, true, its a natural process, so some aspects of evolution are observed, but not enough to create an organism with the increased functionality of more coding genes. Some new species can be created through observed processes, true, but generally the chromosomal pattern of coding genes remains consistent.

The fossil record, without evolutionary bias, actually supports neither. It seems to indicate sudden insertions of new fauna/flora over time with micro-evolution causing extra diversity. The more living fossils found, the more likely one sudden insertion of flora and fauna appears.

;) you should stop posting links that you don't understand , its very embarassing for others to read.

Well I was wondering when someone was going to bring up this point, which is very valid to the current debate. Yes genetic modifications do often involve insertions of genes to the genome. This does involve some improvements to the "food" produced. But as you know, we are uncertain whether we will have damaging side-effects by eating this genetically altered food.

Regarding this being the solution to the evolutionist's claims , it would not meet the criteria on 2 grounds:
1) It is an artificial process to insert a new string of genes into a plant's genome, we are looking for natural processes.
2) The extra genes may not be beneficial to the plant. These plants are designed for food and farming purposes, they are highly unlikely to have more hardiness if left alone in nature. Some of them lack seeds, impossible for them to reproduce in nature. It would be interesting to see if they can create more hardy plants, I'm sure they would be able to, but that's not their focus