The Origin of Novelty

What if the best theory from an unbiased view is that complete genomes somehow appeared in full on earth. Since then there have been mutational differences and rapid evolution as more and more limited species attempt to fill the ecological gaps left behind by masses of extinctions. Thus we observe a stasis within each genome that is only affected by some minor mutations and some rapid changes to allele frequencies within each species. Nested hierarchies are observed but only with minor changes between species that were obviously had identical genomes quite recently.Most succesful mutations involve deletions and disabling or changes to allele frequencies, the increases in the number of coding genes is never observed which points more to creationism (genomes started out nearly as they are) than evolution (many organisms increased complexity over time and have changed dramatically)

Well I was kinda hoping you would put forward your reasons why the Theory of Evolution is a more accurate theory than the theory of creation to explain current biological observations.I also acknowledge the processes of evolution over short time frames, and not including the increased complexity of additional protein-coding genes over time.

I do believe in an old earth (Genesis: God created the heavens and earth and the earth was formless and empty - and then there was light, the first day)But I believe biological life is restricted to the last 6500 years. I will be going into this in more detail in the Dates and Dating forum after I have finished discussing DNA in various threads. As you said we have a current "snapshot" of the genome, through genome sequencing. I am wondering why evolutionists would look at a particular genome and believe it reflects evolution rather than creation 6500 years ago (with some evolutionary changes since then.) ie we see mutations, but do these look like 200 million years quantity of accumulated mutations, or 6500 years quantity of mutations. Maybe that isn't the best measurement, but my point is that evolutionists need some backing for their assumption that the genome "looks" evolved rather than created. I do understand this point, and do sympathise with evolutionists that current timeframes are not long enough to see any proof of your hypothesis. Until then we observe devolution and variation through sexual reproduction, which fits in with both creationism and evolution. That is why I am wondering why you would favor evolution when the snapshot fits in with both "hypotheses". Yes but that is more "creationist" thinking, the God-given ability of life to rapidly adapt when under strong selection pressures. Over and above this intrinsic ability, evolutionists are claiming life can get more complex, increased numbers of coding genes over time. Without that we would be green slime with limited genetic functionality. If I agree with all other evolutionary processes and assume they would be observed in 6500 years of biological creation, what in current genome sequencing would contradict my view?And if there is nothing in current genome sequencing or other biological studies that contradicts the view of 6500 years of evolution since creation, then what further biological evidence would lead evolutionists to favor the evolution hypothesis over creationism?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if all are aware of my particular theory on creationism. I agree with all evolutionary processes except the evolution of additional protein-coding genes. I believe ~6500 years ago God make highly adaptable organisms in a relatively safe environment. Designed to adapt to their environment through variations in protein production (promoters and enhancers communicating with the outside world) and sexual reproduction (new genetic combinations). This world then became unsafe, disease and mutations and rapidly changing environments and extinctions. Fortunately some mutations have allowed organisms to survive some of the new damaging environments (example: disabled Duffy gene in malaria areas).This is what I observe in genome sequencing and wonder why evolution is a stronger theory than creationism. Well if you put aside the source of biological life, (the supernatural process of abiogenesis compared to the supernatural God) and then look at the actual evidence with unbiased glasses on, does the evidence favor evolution involving increasing coding complexity? ie could the one species have a deleted gene (a common beneficial mutation), rather than the other having a duplicated protein-coding gene? Or maybe the duplicated gene is subsequent and yet non-coding, which is observed to add hardiness to an organism. We have to have an open-minded in depth look at each study to draw the most likely conclusions from the evidence itself. Good idea, I did appreciate your comprehension of my view, but let's rather carry on here for now, I like to deal with one thread at a time. Due to the fact that a lot of novelty is supposed to originate in mutated protein-coding genes, I believe the topic is relevant to this thread.

Thank you! I will reserve my complete assent, but this all makes a lot of sense. I believe that the general problem lies with evolutionists interpretation of the geological column as showing some long-term nested hierarchies, which isn't really applicable to this thread. What is applicable to this thread is the "snapshot" of genome sequencing, and whether that can in any manner support evolutionary theory. We observe categories, families, species. Is there anything in biology that would point to these having being evolved or rather created like that? Categories and groupings are a natural outworking of intelligent design (eg car manufacturers) , and if we both state that genomes "look" designed or "look" evolved" from common ancestors, well if that's all we can say then the theories are on equal footing. You conclusions about baramins all have the same degree of variance from eachother, I find illogical from the perspective of understanding intelligent design. Refer again to car manufacturers, they will make cars according to categories. Each category (4x4) will have their own range, and yet large overlaps of design within their 4x4 range. Some categories (sedans) will be split into two sub-categories (eg luxury/low income) and have a largely overlapping engine and chassis and drive functions compared to say a 4x4. So we get a Toyota Avanza and Corolla with basic core design similarities, yet a Toyota Foretuner and Toyota Landcruiser also have design similarities, yet the two groups are very different from eachother. So the number of groupings, and the likeness between groupings are not as spread as you are claiming. Two separate baramins could be highly similar without being the same baramin, then two other separate species could be recently evolved from the same baramin, the secret is to analyze the similarity of the genotype, not the phenotype.I agree with what you are saying about the maximum number of protein coding genes in each baramin,and that all nature could be quite easily divided into separate baramins. I currently lack the scientific ability to do this, relying on a non-scientific more intuitive process based on what seems obvious to me, hey that monkey differs from the other monkey by only 50 point mutations and one deleted gene, same baramin. That monkey differs by fifteen genes in chromosome 2, and 8 genes in chromosome 4, different baramin. The idea is that nature does not produce complex functions, and to duplicate protein-coding genes causes massive duplications of protein production that normally causes damage.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

True. You say my theory doesn't fit what we see in genomes. I believe it fits perfectly. I need more evidence than just a flat statement.Regarding archaeology and early human races, my model has some races spreading out from Turkey about 4500 years ago, and then a mass exodus of various race groups spreading out from Iraq about 4200 years ago. Concerning archaeological dates, I prefer Rohl's revised chronology on ancient civilizations, that is far more accurate than the standard chronology. This mass exodus would have been far more technologically advanced than the primitive people's it faced during the mass exodus. The skeletal structures of the original people's would most likely have reflected a meat eating low nutrition diet, strong jawlines, signs of malnutrition in the stance. Referring particularly to Neanderthals, these did interbreed with the following population, showing how closely the chromosomal organization matched between the races, not quite separate species, but in fact the same species proven through the Neanderthal DNA being preserved within most populations of today. Which is a better answer:
"I've got no idea"
"God did it"
Those who tend toward religion would think that those without an explanation are more illogical, those that tend towards seeing God as illogical would obviously see the God explanation as illogical. But that is subjective thinking, unless you have better evidence than the following comment of yours, the two theories should be treated equally: Well that is what abiogenesis looks like to creationists, seriously, its like huh duh, we have no idea but we far more intelligent than you guys who actually believe in a God!Its all subjective reasoning. Until you have a better explanation for abiogenesis, creationism as a starting point looks just as good to the unbiased reader. Its only years of indoctrination that creationism is stupid, based on the circular reasoning of evolution, that would even bring one to be so sure of themselves with so little evidence. Believe me, I am not here to exchange subjective insults, but if you are associating my belief in God with fairytales, the same finger is pointing straight back at you with the unknown process of abiogenesis of which many evolutionists have complete religious faith in. To the point of insulting other's religions based on their own beliefs without evidence. (confidence in a belief without evidence is called faith - fairytales - the religion of abiogenesis) I was just saying that the original species could have had the duplicates, the sub-species had the deletion. Each study must be looked at according to its own merits.

What do you mean by "too much variation". Which particular groupings of organisms do you feel show "too much variation" and why do you say so? I don't see why there would be any limitations. In Southern Africa the African races shown a lightening of the skin compared to equatorial regions, this is found on both the east and west coasts. Equatorial race groups show darker skins even if their haplotypes indicate completely different race groups to each other, and yet similar race groups to their own lighter skinned neighbours. Have you got any data why these processes would have to take many thousands of years? lol, you really are living in a fantasy world. Have they really found evidence for natural abiogenesis? And aliens stole my grandmother.Its fairytale statements like this that makes your average logical thinker doubt evolution. Stick to "I don't know" than projecting your "natural chemical processes" onto the sudden creation of biological life from natural chemicals. You will sound more logical to the neutral observer. Unless you have got evidence for natural chemical processes creating life? Then just present it. I would like to see a study that proves certain genes are paralogs. Could you present one?

Its one less principle , not one more. Creation does not require a complexity adding process, which evolution requires. Which is fine if evolution had evidence for it, but what evidence is there for additional coding genes being added to the genome over time, so that something like a prokaryote (1000 protein coding genes) can evolve into a human (21000 protein-coding genes)?Creationism is generally a more parsimonious view of biology than evolution. I believe this mix and matching is observed:
PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company Of course evolutionists give evolutionary explanations for this matching design in two organisms supposed to have diverted half a billion years ago. However as you have already indicated, this is exactly what we would be looking for if indeed there was an intelligent designer. If you are aware of such an instance of increased rather than decreased complexity involving new additional coding genes, I would be very keen to see it. Its not that it would threaten creationism, I feel it would just add some support for the theory of evolution as an explanation for modern life-forms, support that is currently lacking.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I say let the scientific evidence speak for itself. Seriously abiogenesis is not a satisfactory explanation to most logical minds. Just because of this, there should be more time spent on the "baramin" view as opposed to the "common ancestor" view (thanks to Bluejay for introducing me to the correct terminology). No it doesn't deny him, accepted, but even so it does contradict the literalness of the bible. I'm seriously looking for evidence for complexity over time, reducing complexity is proven which points more towards creationism than evolution, even though it is also regarded as an evolutionary process.

I see I left out this question. Yes, the bible predicts that the Middle East should show the widest genetic diversity. This is borne out by world haplotype distribution.http://blog.kodai-bunmei.net/...ogroups-1500AD-World-Map.pngEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm not claiming all primates are from one common ancestor. That's evolution's claim. The haplogroups themselves explain it all. The genetic diversity was there in the Middle East. Then mankind lost diversity as we spread out from there.I don't know why you think that all stone age people should be related? I didn't say anything about fake paralogs, and I didn't realise your evidence was sitting in the peanut gallery thread, could you kindly post it here. Associating the observance of some chemical processes with the sudden appearance of biological life is just ridiculous. Unfortunately for your argument, its pretty obvious that you are clutching at straws. I was expecting a more civil discussion about evidence for coding genes, instead we are being distracted by side issues.To the outside observer, both of us are claiming my pet theory is better than yours. Its a subjective argument, let's just move on from there.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Could you kindly post your evidence for your claims please.Are you claiming that diversity of haplogroups are not directly related to genetic diversity? I didn't understand your points here. The map showed the widest range of haplogroups in the Middle Eastern/Asian region.

I don't really understand your point here. Small groups can often be homogenous, and can also often be highly diverse due to isolation. Societies can retain behaviours and also rapidly change behaviours, our culture is nothing like 100 years ago. I've heard this argument before, that the cultural differences between races are so strong that it couldnt have occurred over 4500 years. History however shows continuously rapidly changing cultures making that point null and void.There was an initial spurt of homogenous civilizations about 3800 years ago, this is sometimes referred to as the early pyramid cultures. All having a high degree of architectural ability combined with similar "birdman" myths.

There's two SAS genes, and two antifreeze genes. Scientists noticed that some sections in the SAS genes look like some sections in the antifreeze genes. These are the facts. From then on these researchers interpret the facts according to evolutionary theory, without any backup evidence for their conclusions.Their conclusion would be more believable if they proved that the organisms with the antifreeze genes came exclusively from a population that only had the SAS genes, unfortunately its only an assumption on their part that the antifreeze genes came from the SAS genes, based merely on similarity of sequences.

The word complexity is a simple word (lol that's ironic). I don't see why its meaning should be limited to phenotypes in any manner. But pleeease do not start a sideline conversation on the meaning on the word. I'm happy with your piston engine analogy. The word "homolog" is a word used under evolutionary assumptions, under the assumption of baramins the similarities would be design similarities. I do not see any actual evidence that favors the homolog assumption above the baramin assumption. You are wrong I was forced to use the word complexity in a manner that was measurable in another thread, and am happy to continue to apply it to only coding genes in this thread too if you wish, but the word has a much greater meaning.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.