The origin of new genes

Nobody has doubted that new alleles, genes, are formed by mutation FROM TIME TO TIME. At least in bacteria and perhaps fruit flies this has been shown. It has NOT been actually demonstrated in mammals which is where most of the discussion is. All the mechanisms you have listed may in fact bring about a new gene / allele, but at what rate? How often is it useful or does it actually contribute to variation? Considering how many alleles already exist in most populations of sexually reproducing animalia how on earth would you know if the occasional mutation contributed anything whatever to the processes that lead to variation, as opposed to the usual shuffling of gene frequencies among those already in existence?

Oh yes, I certainly know that DISEASES are caused by mutations. Diseases and deformities and miseries galore are caused by mutations. This is one of the reasons why mutations hardly seem like an engine that could power life at all.Again, of course mutations OCCUR, the doubt is whether they could possibly do what the ToE requires them to do, and I have not seen any actual facts that demonstrate that they could or do, merely speculations and assumptions.

Oh I have not ignored this at all. It is part of my argument that mutations can't do what the ToE requires them to do. I don't know that "billions" of mutations have been "shown" to exist in the human gene pool, since claims about mutations are often asserted but rarely actually demonstrated, but perhaps there are that many; I know there are a lot. However, most of them wipe out useful alleles apparently, since they have no function, or bring about disease, and some minuscule number can said VERY IFFILY to confer a benefit, usually in exchange for a downside. Not the sort of mechanism that could power evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would really like to know how you think you KNOW that a mutation was involved. This is all typical speculative thinking. I can't look at the link because my computer doesn't like switching websites these days, and it's probably more time-consuming technicalities than I'm up for anyway, which I'd appreciate your explaining in your own words. Design differences explain this just fine; no need to postulate mutation from one to the other. Design difference explain all this just fine; no need to postulate mutation from one to another. Design, etc. Please explain briefly and clearly in your own words how mutation is *known* to have anything to do with these differences between creatures. Thank you.

I cannot read links right now.

What you don't get is that this kind of thinking is nothing but ingenious rationalization. There isn't a fact in the whole thing. If if if. That's all true except the part about mutation being the cause of the advantageous variation, which is purely speculation. Many advantageous variations are selected but their SOURCE is what is in doubt. BUT NOBODY IS DENYING THAT THIS SORT OF SELECTION OCCURS. It's the SOURCE of these variations we are questioning. You do not know that these are MUTATIONS as opposed to normally occurring alleles. It's all theory, all speculative guesswork! Why don't you see that? You can't actually prove those are mutations, track those supposed mutations to their origin point that you credit with bringing about all this change, you are simply ASSUMING they do so. You don't know if they are mutations, something novel, or simply a normally occurring allele that got selected in the recombination lottery.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All circumstantial evidence, Dr. A, thickly stuffed with assumptions. No hard evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know why it is so hard to get this across, but I DO NOT DENY THAT NEW ALLELES ARE FORMED BY MUTATION. I don't know about genes. Genes are specific loci as I understand it, which are occupied by whatever number of alleles are available for that locus in a given population. I'm not aware that actual new genes are said to be created by mutation, merely alleles for that function.But the problem is that the evidence for a particular allele's being really the product of a mutation and yet also beneficial, truly novel and truly functional as well, is pretty scant. But of course I still can't read links so I may have missed THE evidence. Most of the new links I try cause my computer to freeze up.Most mutations don't do anything good, right? How do you know it's a mutation as opposed to a normally occurring alternative allele? If it's a mutation, how sure are you that it is not contributing something the organism would be better off without? How do you know it's a mutation as opposed to a normally occurring alternative allele? If it's a mutation, how sure are you that it is not contributing something the organism would be better off without?Please quote whatever you want me to read from the links, please explain it in your own words, and please don't use technical jargon. Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, digesting nylon and surviving antibiotics DO sound like survival-enhancing variations. I just don't feel like fighting this battle on the level of bacteria and fruit flies. But if you have a good argument or some evidence that it all cascades into extinction, that would certainly fit with my overall expectations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I know this because God wouldn't DESIGN in disease and death; It is the deterioration or disintegration of the design, the result of sin.I've agreed that it's possible that beneficial mutations may play a part in the processes of life, but the evidence so far is not very convincing. Variations are merely CALLED mutations without any evidence whatever that they are in fact mutations. Whatever it would take to prove that they are truly novel, never existing before in the population, is what is needed.

Recitation doesn't make anything true, but thinking it through ought to show that this really is just circumstantial speculative reasoning with no actual facts involved: Because this form occurs within a certain group is not evidence for your claim. You are assuming descent from one to another, but this is not proved, merely assumed. Similarity of design accounts just as well for the facts. Morphology and genetics and the fossil record are equally well accounted for by this other explanation. You are arguing from theory through association and comparison. There is no actual proof here. Mere analogizing.

OK, this sounds like a topic I may want to take to the mutation discussion threads eventually.It IS a different question, yes, but WHAT the DNA "says" has to be the most important thing.A gene is a very very long string of these amino acids, right? That codes for a specific protein, right? The 20 amino acids do combine into triplets that say something quite definite, but when strung out along a gene into the hundreds and thousands, are you claiming there are that many coherent/articulate proteins?But of course I think from the perspective of God's designing it all, and in that case all the codes MUST code for something beneficial to life -- regardless of environment. Sickle cell is beneficial with respect to malaria but in itself it is deadly in ALL environments. And this one example, or maybe there are two or three by now, that is brought out as supposedly typical of mutation, is just not a convincing argument.

Seems to me what I said is a fair representation of the implications of what you said, but if I'm wrong you need to show how, not just keep saying it over and over. As you yourself said, merely reciting something doesn't make it true.

Brad, sometimes you sound like you may have some creationist views or at least sympathies -- not in this post but I thought I'd ask. Do you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah I forgot some of them. What's your point now, it's not two or three but six or seven? And what are they supposed to prove? I thought the tail example wasn't supposed to be a mutation. What would be the point in that case? Isn't it supposed to prove we're related to apes? A novel trait wouldn't prove that. There are some mutations. I've acknowledged that. They're an odd bunch these you list. Pretty pathetic evidence that mutation could possibly account for all the variety of life.