Disproving the Bible

[Jenny A]

As you recommended, I am researching non-creationist articles and comparing them to the article I mentioned before. TOPIC: Orphaned Genes. ISSUE: 10-30% of all genes of all species can't be traced to other species. Where do they come from?

I found an article describing a study of orphaned genes by Tomislav Domazet-Loso and Diethard Tautz of the Institut für Genetik der Universität zu Köln, 50931 Köln, Germany. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2213.full 10.1101/gr.1311003; Genome Res. 2003. 13: 2213-2219; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Near the end of the article, they have a section: There are three possible reasons why a gene can be an orphan gene.

1. The genes have newly evolved
2. The gene was an ancestrally shared gene but got lost in most evolutionary lineages.
3. The gene evolved so quickly that a similarity cannot be found in other species.

All three theories have problems. The conclusion starts with "The role of orphan genes in the evolutionary process remains enigmatic."

It seems to have been the prevailing theory that: "The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero." Jacob, Francois. June 10 1977. Evolution and Tinkering. Science, New Series, Vol. 196, Issue 4295, pp. 1161-1166. (Nobel prize winning geneticist) until the mapping of the genome found these orphaned genes.

Here is my problem. They listed three possible reasons for orphaned genes--none of which was that the organisms did not share a common ancestor (which would fit ALL the facts). You said that there is no bias in science. Tell me why this is not bias?

Okay so I read your article and and a few others about orphaned genes while as was at it.

Orphaned genes are genes that do cannot be linked to other lineages based on gene sequencing or to put it another way, these genes provide a new protein coding sequence not found in previous lineages. They constitute about 10 to 20% of all organisms genes. But identifying is difficult because so often they turn out to be genes that really do have links further back in the genome.

Your question is why none of the hypotheses for how these genes occur considers that organisms don't share a common ancestry?

Well, since the other 80 to 90 percent of the genes are not orphan genes and do evidence a common ancestor and the physiology of animals as well as were those animals exist and existed geographically and through time also evidence evolution, orphan genes are not evidence evolution did not occur.

However, since these orphan genes are by definition not the result of inverted transcriptions, merged, or truncated genes, the question is how did these mutations occur? Not surprisingly none of the hypotheses suggested is "magic."

If, as you appear to be proposing god mutated them, how would you test that? The hypotheses suggested are testable.