ARGOSY

You gave an example of what you thought was a good example of evolution in action. A new novel gene. I am disputing it, there are numerous ways to interpret the evidence. Unless you have any other examples, or can show more convincing detail of that example, we are left without any evidence for the TOE as an explanation for extant species. A creation event around the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian where fossil records show the appearance of nearly every phyla fully formed and without fossil precursor, followed by some adaptation /speciation within clades is what we observe. As predicted by evolutionary processes, we can both agree on speciation within clades since then, via allele specialisation, and entropy. (I agree on many evolutionary processes since creation, except the appearance of additional unique novel genes) I see no advantage that the TOE has over creationism in the actual evidence.

The Small Shellies of the late Ediacaran are of one phyla. The Early Cambrian shows the appearance of nearly every other phyla without fossil precursor. If I remember correctly that article was unconvincing.

Or the appearance of multiple fully formed organisms without fossil precursor points to a seeding of earth by a higher power. Why do you prefer the assumption of evolution when multiple organisms appeared without fossil precursor?

I'm not referring to what usually happens, I'm referring to what can happen, and certainly when a section of the genome duplicates it can sometimes cause excess proteins. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131091343.htm (Duplicate protein coding genes cause brain dysfunction) This contradict everything he says all the time approach does not make for good discussion. The context of my point was to ask for a link, so I can check which of the two organisms came first. You may be surprised the extent to which evolutionists assume the single gene organism came first, instead of the two gene organism coming first. This is due to natural confirmation bias as evolutionists are trying to find instances of new novel genes so when two similar genes are observed, they too quickly grasp at the opportunity to prove evolution in action. I would like the opportunity to see a link so I can eliminate those type of confirmation bias possibilities. Are you able to provide a link with more detail so I can check their assumptions and conclusions? Or would you prefer to debate everything I said in this post, rather than provide a link?

I'm referring to the Cambrian Explosion. And late Ediacaran. You are referring to earlier times.

I wasn't referring to anything like that. I agree that is not a likely scenario. But parts of one gene can duplicate into another gene. This could cause overproduction in proteins and loss of fitness until the original gene is deleted. The end product is two functions in one gene. Yet we assume the single gene organism came first and duplicated and gained new functions, instead of the two gene organism coming first until a part duplication event.

Are you honestly saying that the genetic code can program new code and produce that code in a new logical order to create new functions?

Interesting, I would need to see more than just the abstract. I'm wondering if their assumptions are correct. What if the well functioning organism with two genes came first, and the mutation with one gene of two functions only gains fitness under certain conditions? Is difficult to be certain of these things unless you observe the before and after in actual laboratory populations.

Sure we know that genes duplicate. But the genetic code is complex like computer code. It cannot spontaneously produce new functions. You see that in the opsins, I fail to see the logic. I just see created genes, with the occasional duplication, wheres the evolving of a new function? "molecular evidence suggests". What molecular evidence? I admit I was battling to follow the full abstract regarding the Cambrian Explosion. They were comparing it to a new theory that the process took a longer time, and concluded that in fact it was a rapid explosion of life. There are many reasons to doubt time frames, I believe in the relative ordering in the geologic column, but not the timeframes. Of course smaller organisms would die first, normally having shorter lifespans. And of course organisms suited to an anoxic sulfuric environment will be more common when that is the dominant environment. As with today, organisms dominate from niche environments when conditions become more suitable. So climate change events reveal new dominant species, not due to evolving, but simply due to rare organisms becoming dominant, and dominant organisms becoming rare or extinct. Does anything in the fossil record contradict this observed rather than inferred process?

I think you are more interested in semantics than an actual discussion. Whatever I say you will focus on the terms used, rather than the really trying to get to grips with logic presented. I am sure you want to look clever. I'm not sure if you want to exchange ideas. I want to exchange ideas, but not with someone who wants to look like the clever guy. I'm not really interested in the battle of wills and egos.

I'm interested in this, please send a link

The fact that this occurred "31 million years ago" means the logic is inferred. They probably did this by looking at two similar genes and assuming the one is a duplication and adaptation of the other one. Design often reflects similarities, to see actual evolution you have to be sure of the status of the genome of the original population, to be sure that genes were added and not subtracted between an organism that has an extra gene, and one that does not.

Yes that is what I'm looking for. Or a known speciation event where we can agree on a recent common ancestor and compare genomes and see a definite extra gene in one species, as opposed to a lost gene in the other. In this case I accept that Australian marsupials share common ancestry with the South American possum. Many creationists agree on some evolutionary adaptation via entropy and changes to allele frequencies since the Cambrian Explosion. If the TOE wishes to show some advantage over creationism you need some evidence of prior intermediates rather than just an explosion of life which would obviously point to a creation event. It would also be great to see that novel de novo genes can increase over time, otherwise everything we see is just what we expect from a creation event during the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian, followed by some speciation, entropy, and adaptation within clades since then. Ie we have nothing to prove, everything we observe is exactly what we expect as creationists. Give me something to change my mind, anything.

I'm always willing to have a good discussion about anything. I have an open mind to convincing facts. I find it is evolutionists who lack the open mind to have a civil polite discussion and to go out of their way to acknowledge good points. I wonder if you are able to have such a discussion with me?

No worries, maybe you could give an approximate summary of your best example of evolution in action. Has there been any recorded event when a duplicate gene developed a novel de novo function which added fitness. (I'm not referring to a dormant function that was revitalized, that can easily occur when a sequence containing a start codon is duplicated in the correct place on the genome)

Thanks, I can only see the abstract there.

Very predictably, you are battling to admit that most extant species have more genes than a prokaryote or eukaryote. Or bacteria for that matter. Yes please show me when a duplication event caused an active novel de novo gene that added fitness. A dormant function reactivated, or a duplicate that produced more proteins which add fitness do not count.

It seems you didn't understand my post, yet I put forward a simple concept. The earliest known fossils are of prokaryotes, known to haveo 1500 to 3000 genes. Yet most other organisms have more genes than that. You proudly mention water fleas having 30000 genes as if this disproves my case, well it supports my simple assertion that most extant species have more genes than the original prokaryote. If evolution caused this, we should be able to observe this increase in de novo novel genes when we observe the diversification of species within a clade. We do not observe that aspect of evolution. We observe entropy, predictable under both creationism and evolution. Yet the TOE does nothing to provide evidence that it is in any manner involved in a process that adds novel de novo genes over time. How then did most extant species get here? Creationism followed by entropy is the answer, we observe the predictable entropy aspect of adaptation, yet we do not observe the surmised gene adding process necessary to the TOE.

Maybe if you evolutionists acknowledge that most extant species have more novel genes since the prokaryote, you would care to try and prove the process that creates these. Yet observed processes only show entropy, for example when Australian marsupials diversified from the South American possum no new novel genes were found in the diversification within that clade. The DNA diversity between species within a clade is via changed allele frequencies and entropy. So evolution is not an evidence based explanation for the existence of most extant species. (credit to Alive for showing me a better word than devolution, entropy)

God says he will destroy those that destroy the earth (the land /ground). So humans are certainly destroying the earth, as Christians we should keep our hands clean of this. Ie try and be co-operative, and keep our personal footprint down and not have too many kids in this over populated planet. We do this even though we know only Jesus can fix things when he creates a new land and new sky/atmosphere on the day of the Lord, when he destroys those who destroy the earth. The real culprits are the bankers and capitalists who manipulate govts for their own ends. The very people who are exaggerating climate change for the purpose of globalization, are the ones causing the problem to expand their wealth in the oil coal, plastics, motor industries etc etc Exaggeration or not, humans are leaving a damaging footprint merely due to overpopulation. There's too many of us to completely deny it. I just wish we could know the extent though, the exaggerations cloud the facts, and I just get annoyed when they show images of the annual ice melt in climate change documentaries. It's very annoying.

If the prokaryote is the first known organism, then except for them and some similar organisms of low gene count, every other organism has shown an increasing number of novel coding genes. I have spoken to many evolutionists and every single one has battled to acknowledge that fact. Without acknowledging that process is a significant part of evolutionary theory, I can only conclude that you don't understand your own theory. Why do you guys avoid acknowledging that?? It's pretty weird really.

The UN Secretary General. The Pope. Angela Merkel. EU Commissioner. All pushing for centralized international governance.

No problem. Google "climate change hidden agenda". Interesting stuff!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941w8s Are you joking? Download the pdf file and you can read the proposals and the names of world leaders encouraging centrally controlled forced international laws for climate change and other matters. We just need one power hungry maniac to bribe his way in charge of the world government, and we have a mess based on the mad whims and philosophies of that leader. Imagine Hitler in charge? Or AI? Or some Greenpeace individual who thinks ants are more important than humans, and decides to cull humans? In the meantime the easy solution to drop our human footprint is to simply discourage large families, as China easily did when it suited them.

There are many extinctions occurring, thus the observed trend among earth's species since the Cambrian explosion is a reduction in fitness leading to more extinctions occurring via reduced fitness, than new species being created via improved fitness. Now DNA analysis shows that most species have more active genes than prokaryotes, yet this process is natural and evolutionary according to the theory of evolution. If so then most extant species have evolved fitness through a nett gain of active genes since prokaryotes. Yet observed diversification of species within known clades from known common ancestors (eg Australian marsupials) shows only reduction in active genes during speciation, with not even one nett gain of a novel gene adding to fitness. The evidence is showing millions of species existing in early layers, then devolving and becoming extinct, and the number of species continuously dropping. This is nothing like would be expected under the theory of evolution.