What NEW genetic code has ever evolved or been created?

Question

Just because (a intelligent scientist at) Cargill can put frog genes into its GMO corn seed to make it resistant to fungus does not mean that that Cargill created a new gene. Over "hundreds of millions of years", nothing new or original has popped up in any plant or animals genetics. Give me even one example where there has been a COMPLETELY NEW and ORIGINAL piece of genetic code. That would be some good proof for Evolution.

Answer 1

Hans,

I trust you have not been fooled by the bluffs perpetrated by your evolutionist respondents. Since the links they've provided are simply abstracts, I'm certain they've simply been copied from an evolutionary propaganda site who's only objective is to denigrate scientific creation theory regardless of the truth. Neither are your respondents interested in the truth and I'd be willing to bet that none of them have actually read any of those articles either, although I'd be tickled pink to be proven wrong. If they did read them, then they should know that not a single one explains how new functional information arises.



If you read the titles, most if not all of them invoke "gene duplication". Gene duplication, along with a host of other standard gene mutations have all been shown NOT to add NEW genetic information. In the case of gene duplication, a second copy of an encyclopedia does not provide any more information than a single copy. On top of this, most if not all, are simply speculations about how new genetic information MIGHT arise, not that it has actually been observed.



For example, one of the references sited is the "evolution of trichromatic color vision.. in..primates". This, as most of the others, simply play the "gene evolution game". I've included a couple of links which describes this game tongue and cheek. It's actually quite laughable. These examples are simply an exercise in circular reasoning. The erroneous conclusion that trichromatic color vision "evolved" is based solely on the false assumption that humans evolved from apes. There is no rational reason to conclude that this was not an original design feature instead.



Bottom line, quantity is NOT a replacement for quality. Similar to bluffs regarding "transitional" species and even evolution itself, evolutionists attempt to perpetrate these deceptions by redefining terms. In the case of information, they often utilize "Shannon" information which was developed as a measure of information in transmission theory. However, this is completely useless to describe the complex and specified information (CSI) in living things. Therefore, the two strings below have the same "Shannon" information, but obviously string A contains much more CSI than B (see second link).



String A:

SHANNONINFORMATIONISAPOORMEASUREOFBIOLOGICALCOMPLEXITY



String B:

JLNUKFPDARKSWUVEYTYKARRBVCLTLODOUUMUEVCRLQTSFFWKJDXSOB



This deception is clearly evident as one of your respondents suggests that evolution merely "deals with CHANGE...changing existing genes is still change". Is that right?! If evolution was merely change, then there would be no debate as everyone agrees that things change! It's laughable that one of the examples of supposed "evolution" is "Mutations in the Sodium-Channel Gene SCN1A Cause Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy". Yep, that's just what most mutations do! Tell me how mutations that cause severe and debilitating disease are going to elevate us to more complex and sophisticated forms! The TYPE of change is what matters and the direction of this change is just the OPPOSITE of what evolution requires. No new information, NO evolution because to evolve a molecule into a man, incredible amounts of new genetic information must have been formed and not a single indisputable example of this is yet to be found either from our present observations or in the fossil record.

Answer 2

right here is the area that is nerve-racking. focusing on however if people can string the 4 DNA proteins jointly this form or that way is the least significant concern. income maximizing agencies will sell the earth and each living element on it to maximise revenue in as brief a time as obtainable. that's what we could desire to ascertain. Do those people even think of of their very own infants and grandchildren? …Pandora's container? "that's the necessary Pandora’s container 2nd - like the splitting of the atom or the cloning of Dolly the sheep. we can all could desire to handle the fall-out from this alarming test," comments Jim Thomas of the etc team. "guy made biology is a extreme-possibility income-pushed field, development organisms out of aspects that are nonetheless poorly understood.(2) all of us know that lab-created existence-types can get away, grow to be organic and organic weapons, and that their use threatens present organic biodiversity. maximum annoying of all, Craig Venter is handing this effectual technologies to the worldwide’s maximum irresponsible and environmentally unfavorable industry by using partnering with the likes of BP and Exxon to hasten the commercialization of guy-made existence-types."(3)

Answer 3

>"Give me even one example where there has been a COMPLETELY NEW and ORIGINAL piece of genetic code. That would be some good proof for Evolution."





Just one?



Here are ten examples ... these are all from scientific papers, and document the birth or origins of new genes or gene families, as a result of mutations such as gene duplications. Let me know if ten is not not enough.



(P.S. These are NOT "simply abstracts." The full text for each paper is provided in the LinkOut under the abstract. It's a pretty good indication of 'raisemeup's' familiarity with academic research, and just how carefully he has examined this evidence, if he can't even find a hyperlink on the page!)



"Origins and evolution of the recA/RAD51 gene family: evidence for ancient gene duplication and endosymbiotic gene transfer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16798872



"Further examples of evolution by gene duplication revealed through DNA sequence comparisons." (Actually several examples):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7896112



"The birth of new genes by RNA- and DNA-mediated duplication during mammalian evolution."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19803737



"Molecular evidence that the H-2D and H-2L genes arose by duplication."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2351932



"Duplication of accelerated evolution and growth hormone gene in passerine birds."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048401



"The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10413401



"Characterization and evolution of the novel gene family FAM90A in primates originated by multiple duplication and rearrangement events."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684299



"The evolution of courtship behaviors through the origination of a new gene in Drosophila."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18508971



"Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12868612



"Evolution of Mhc class II B genes in Darwin's finches and their closest relatives: birth of a new gene"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11862412

Answer 4

Your simple, everyday insertion mutation. Where a new base pair couplet is inserted that was never before present.





Ps evolution deals with CHANGE... Changing existing genes is still change...