Disproving the Bible

[JesusHChrist]

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.

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.
4. Jeebus

There. That better?

[SteveII]

One orphaned gene hardly overturns the weight of the rest of the genes in the subject.

It's not one. If we have 20,000 genes, that would be 2000-6000 orphaned genes.

[Crossless2.0]

One orphaned gene hardly overturns the weight of the rest of the genes in the subject.

It's not one. If we have 20,000 genes, that would be 2000-6000 orphaned genes.

Therefore Yahweh.

[SteveII]

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.

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.
4. Jeebus

There. That better?

I didn't say the fourth option was God. I said the fourth option was that they didn't have a common ancestor. This is still a scientific explanation. Not to include it means you have made a philosophical decision that naturalism is true (which science is not capable of making on its own).

[JesusHChrist]

I didn't say the fourth option was God. I said the fourth option was that they didn't have a common ancestor. This is still a scientific explanation. Not to include it means you have made a philosophical decision that naturalism is true (which science is not capable of making on its own).

And if they "don't have a common ancestor", that means......

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not one. If we have 20,000 genes, that would be 2000-6000 orphaned genes.

You can take the numbers up or down and it won't matter. Where did the other 18-14k come from? This is probably news to some, but common ancestry ceased to be a theory with the discovery and application of genetics.

[SteveII]

I didn't say the fourth option was God. I said the fourth option was that they didn't have a common ancestor. This is still a scientific explanation. Not to include it means you have made a philosophical decision that naturalism is true (which science is not capable of making on its own).

And if they "don't have a common ancestor", that means......

My point is that it does not matter to the science if they don't. Questions like "and if they don't" are metaphysical and should not be part of the equation.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would matter (very, very much, in fact), but the books been closed pending some evidence that overturns every observation we've made since we became capable of looking. Did my explanation clear anything up for you, btw?

[JesusHChrist]

And if they "don't have a common ancestor", that means......

My point is that it does not matter to the science if they don't. Questions like "and if they don't" are metaphysical and should not be part of the equation.

The evidence in existence for common descent remains overwhelming, orphan genes not withstanding. The existing explanations are sufficiently reasonable. There another explanation: #5 - space aliens planted all life here. Poof! Done.

You are dodging. We both know the implications of no common ancestor = magical sky daddy did done did it.

Now, if the entire genomes of numerous species was radically different, you might be on to something. But, they aren't.

[Esquilax]

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?

Because the weight of evidence for common ancestry is so great and plentiful that your proposed fourth possibility would represent such a leap backwards from what we know to be true that the problem wouldn't be these orphaned genes anymore, it would be reconstructing large swathes of the field of genetics and taxonomy.

The reason why nobody is considering that they might not have a common ancestor is the same reason why nobody reconsiders the idea that light refraction in the atmosphere causes the sky to be blue every time we get a cloudy day: the sheer weight of the evidence is so great that a few exceptions aren't enough to foist it away.

Not to mention, your contention here is an argument from ignorance fallacy to begin with: "I don't know where these genes fit in" means we aren't bound to accept any answers without further evidence. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work within the framework of available facts. You're basically asking that we start from zero on this question, as though the past century of biological science never happened, because it's a good gap for you to put god into.