Disproving the Bible

[SteveII]

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.

Jenny--No, I am not proposing God mutated them. I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered. This seems to happen time and time again. Pieces of evidence that call into question the common decent hypothesis are given elaborate theories to bolster the original hypothesis. This merely perpetuates the idea that common decent is true and ALL the science points that way--and then the cycle repeats.

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?
1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.
2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.
3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.
4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?
5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.
6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?
7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.
8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.