The origin of new genes

Welcome to evcforum. When I check that link, it says "Listen for free by subscribing to our weekly email!".No thank you. That won't do.If you want to participate in the debates at EvCforum, then you will need to present your own arguments. We don't debate web pages or mp3 recordings.You can include links as references to support your arguments. But if a link requires that people sign up to be spammed with a weekly sermon, then don't be surprised if very few actually sign up.

---

ok yep thats fine, but can I put that link if its an actual mp3? the actual mp3 link??thanks,

A link is fine. Lots of people put links in their posts. But you need to make your own argument, and provide the link as supporting material. We want to debate you. If Ken Ham signs up as a member, well debate him, too. But we won't debate Ken Ham by proxy.If is also fine if you study Ken Ham's argument, and then argue the same sort of thing, based on your understanding of that argument. We are not insisting that you come up with completely original argumentsNote that I mention Ken Ham, based on your earlier link. But we would say the same about anyone. We debate with our members. We don't debate web pages.

---

No you don't understand, I don't want a debate. I'm just supplying this I guess reference linkhere This is the actual MP3 file.Ok I understand that you debate members, however I'm giving you freewill to actualy listen and see what is assumed. I can tell you that there is definately no argument, merely a sound file for an individual to hear. It's not that difficult, also it is not some theory, so there should not be any any exclusion of this final link.Finally reiterating that the file is a sermon and that Ken is not someone I am in contact with. It is like saying I know Darwin, complete nonsense. This is not a view, however evidence from the book of Genesis itself. You may wish to debate that.Edited by grod, : No reason given.

I've listened to the first few minutes of your first Ken Ham talk.If one believed him then he's the worst thing a Christian could hear. He states right up front that if the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth etc. then it is worthless (in so many words). He seems then to have his own interpretation of the Bible on the topic of the earth's age (and I suspect other science subjects) that is OBVIOUSLY WRONG when one looks at the world around us.It seems you are a Christian. Do you really want that sort of dangerous (to Christian belief) nonsense listened to?OOOPSS THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUSLY OFF TOPIC. Sorry grod, please answer in a new topic somewhere.Edited by NosyNed, : added topic problem

Can you perhaps make more clear what you are trying to say? You have me confused by mixing various parts of what you are saying. If I do understand you correctly, I believe his arguments are quite persuading. You look at the aborigenes or native americans etc, they have a defined history about how the world was made, however they are so similar, obviously linking the main creation to the bible.I suggest for all readers of this forum to listen to the mp3 and in fact review what is being said, the book of Genesis is used to disprove all other theories, it makes complete sense.Cheers,

Hello Philip,on a general note, this thread is not about "beneficial mutations" but about the origin of new genes - a detail which may have escaped your attention. So please address the evidence presented in the article that RNASE1B is the result of a duplication of RNASE1A and that RNASE1B evolved quickly to produce a enzyme necessary for digesting bacterial RNA.-Bernd

If a dictionary says that an osprey is a bird, and a biology textbook says that it is a rare bird, are they "contrary"?No, they are entirely consistent.Is that the best you can do?Listen carefully. You do not get to redefine the English language. "Mutation" is a term of art in biology. It means what biologists say it means. If you wish to talk about something other than mutations, you must find another word for that thing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hello Dr,If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation"; why do you trust *authority* anyway?What about the paradigms of 'no absolutes', 'legal disclaimers', etc. that implicitly advise you to question authority. *Brand new alleles* are NO DIFFERENT.I suffered 4 belaborous science degrees; as a podiatrist, MSBS, EET, and Psych, with minors in art, philos, education, etc., a lot of CS programming experience (Home) and am 49 years old. With my broad (albeit biased) *science-expertise* I (peradventure) just invented/defined a (hypothetical) *brand new concept*:'Gene-Pool-Software-Programs' (GPSPs)... to attempt to denounce the radical concept of *brand-new-alleles*I've demonstrated (to myself at least) that GPSPs invalidate *beneficial mutation* as either (1) Misnomer for natural adaptation or (2) 'Hopeful monster' mutations.At any rate, I'd be interested in your thoughts on GPSPs as it relates (if at all) to 'brand new allelic functions'

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

No you can't. The meaning of words has to be determined somehow, or watermelons floridly delectate the runcible iguana. As you claim to have just invented the concept, but have not said what it is, I can hardly venture an opinion on it.

Bernd: What’s the difference? Evos use one to infer the other and call them the same (e.g., macro vs micro mutant-evolution)In fact they seem EXACTLY THE SAME when viewed from a gene-pool-software-program (GPSP) level: At least the 2 are exceedingly and equally improbable at the GPSP level.Sorry to drift somewhat from the analytic intent of your interesting and venerable thread. (For a while I stupidly perceived you to be a troll ... please accept my apologies)Also, I dissected one abstract of yours already. I’m in full accord that the 8 comprehensive *mutant* evo-processes you recapitulated are viable and delusive mechanisms of “fast adaption”. To wit:
” Exon shuffling
” Gene duplication
” Retroposition
” Mobile elements
” Lateral gene transfer
” Gene fusion/fision
” De novo origination
” Combined MechanismThe view I’m *purporting* is that no natural software program (GPSP) is able to create brand new allelic functions, let alone brand new genes” at the GPSP level. The ”gottcha’ fallacy remains ”benefical-mutation' vs. ”novel gene’. Our sin is to separate their definitions (now) and then (later) equate their definitions under the ToE.The sin, bernd: is to discriminate 'beneficial mutations' vs. 'novel genes' at the GPSP level. Is this is what you're requiring me to do?Bernd: “Novel gene formation” is a fallacious concept some Evo unscrupulously *invented*. I seriously propose you concede your benefical-mutation thread as (1) misnomer and/or (2) impossible at the GPSP level.

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

Dr Adequate,Please get back on topic.We're debating mutant new genes and the credibility of *new genes* at the gene pool level, not dafinitions.

Well, I hate to correct you, but you were in fact discussing definitions. Remember?If you will not admit that "mutation" means a change in the genome, then we cannot discuss biology with you any further, for want of a common language.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hello Philip,The difference between discussing “beneficial mutations” and discussing the origin of new genes is one of scope. The term mutation - at least in the scientific literature - means change in genetic material and covers the whole range between point mutations and change of the chromosomal structure. This thread should be restricted to the processes which give rise to new genes.You asked me what I require you to do? I have to quote my last post: -Bernd

Hello Philip,You seem to base your idea that it is not possible to create “brand new allelic functions, let alone brand new genes” on an analogy between the mammalian gene pool and the “Gene- Pool-Software-Program (GPSP)”, a “brand new concept” just invented by you. When I understand you correctly your idea is that gene pools are somehow comparable to C programs running under Windows. At least to me - having some experience with software development - this line of thought appears a bit far fetched.So I would ask you to present your concept in a different thread, for example by explaining how the following structures and mechanism would be interpreted in the context of the GPSP:

• Gene pool
• Genome
• Chromosome
• Gene
• Promoter
• Enhancer
• Intron
• Exon
• Pseudogene
• Satellite DNA
• LINE
• SINE
• LTR element
• Transcription
• Translation
• Alternative splicing
• Replication
• Homologous Recombination
• Transpositional Recombination

Please note that’s not an exhaustive list, only the minimum what should be covered. The next step then would be to have another look at the mechanism we are discussing in this thread.-BerndEdited by bernd, : update of the list