• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?

Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?

A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as no gene would have existed before the first gene to copy. And a copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene. And a gene transferred from another species cannot be the answer because it is still the same gene. A new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer. And a mutation does not create a new gene. Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect at all. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness. There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease that they are looking for a cure for. So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated into a new gene cannot be the answer.

Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2,300,000 base pairs. So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes. Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and with a mutation or 2. The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against. The odds against a large number are extremely against that.

Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event. They are a very specific sequence of amino acids. The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1. It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen.

The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1. So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles to take a foothold in a population with sexual reproduction. This is so preposterous.

And I have not even considered the proteome. The proteome would be much larger than the DNA codes in all living things. Taking the DNA, RNA, and proteins into account leads to odds against of more than 10^(10^43) to 1. And that does not even take into account all the atoms of specific elements that must be bond to other atoms of specific elements all arranged in a 3D space with the correct distances and angle. And that does not take into account that there is no way to bring such an orderly arrangement into close proximity to form any of this, as entropy not only scatters orderly arrangements but prevents them from happening. So, the total odds are beyond google-plex to one, with many trillions of miracles still needed in the supposed 13.7 billion of years of the universe. That comes to at least one miraculous event per day and in a certain order that could have only been guided by an Intelligent Creator.

So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles to take a foothold in a population with sexual reproduction. This is so preposterous.

Also note that some genes produce a protein that requires a specific enzyme that itself comes from a gene. So, for these 2 simultaneous miracles are needed either for copy and mutate or come from nothing. A copy of a gene with several mutations would require a matching copy of the gene that produces the enzyme, and that gene itself would have miraculously randomly mutated to work with the new protein from the new gene. And both would still be stopped by the requirement of sexual reproduction.

Some genes encode for one or multiple proteins. Some proteins are enzymes. Some of the enzymes work with many proteins. But some enzymes only work with a specific protein in a one-to-one fashion. One gene may encode a specific protein that is associated in a one to one many with an enzyme that is encoded by another gene.

Enzymes having many functions. One of those functions is to act as a catalyst to vastly speed up chemical reactions that are needed so that the organism does not die. Enzymes that are proteins provide the great majority of catalytic functions. But they also regulate gene expression so that more of a specific protein or enzyme will be created. They also shut off or slow down gene expression or chemical reactions. They do this many times by having a very specific shape that fits into a part of a protein like a key in a lock. Some enzymes fold proteins into very exact shapes. If these shapes are off by a little the protein will not function.

DNA needs RNA and proteins to carry out its functions. RNA needs DNA and proteins to carry out its functions. Proteins need DNA and RNA. So, they are all interrelated and interdependent. Proteins consist of long chains of species amino acids in a specific sequence. If one amino acid is the wrong kind the protein will most likely not function at all. There are 20 different amino acids in the body of a person. They are all left-handed. RNA consists of specific sequences of 4 different nucleotides (A, G, C, U) and they are all right-handed. DNA consist of specific long sequences of 4 different nucleotides (A, G, C, T) base pair and they are all right-handed. This 100% handedness is amazing since in general it would randomly be a 50-50 mix.

Now the DNA is divided into smaller pieces called chromosomes. A person has 46 of these, organized as 23 pairs. Each chromosome is organized into segments of genes. These genes are read and used to created proteins. These proteins carry out many of the functions in an organism and make up the organs in that organism. These functions are all needed for the organism to survive and reproduce. For example, just for the eye to exist and focus light on the retina requires quite a number of proteins and enzymes which come from many different genes. There are 15 genes involved just for eye color. Some of the functions carried out are the Krebs’s cycle, the citrus cycle, the creation and utilization of ATP, ion channels, pH control, temperature control, removal of waste, osmosis, diffusion of water and ions across the cell membrane, the lipid bilayer, cellular repair, reproduction, digestion, and respiration.

All of these biochemical reactions could not exist without the amazingly orderly and finely tuned laws of physics. The proteins, RNA and DNA are like biochemical micro machines that receive their instructions like a computer code. But the amino acid sequences that make up a protein not only get their functionality from their amino acid sequence but their very shape. This has not yet been achieved by mankind. This is more complex and intricate that all of mankind’s civilization and produces more products than mankind has ever produced. And the information content in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all living things dwarfs the information that mankind has ever produced in all books, writings and digital content.

Now people have well over 10^27 atoms in their bodies. All are arranged into these amazing biochemical micro machines carrying out all these functions and people are not even aware of this. Yet they can enjoin all the people in their lives, enjoy music, food, the beauty of the world. They can communicate with others who also have over 10^27 atoms in their bodies. A woman can make a child with their bodies that both they and the father of that child will experience such great joy from that child.

So, from my over 10^27 atoms to your over 10^27 atoms, I am giving you this information so that you can consider it.
Click to expand...
As a student of the Urantia Book revelation we are told that the Life Carriers that created life on our planet used techniques to modify germ plasm or genes. These celestial beings have been present on the planet since they first introduced the primitive life forms into the shallow briny seas 550,000,000 years ago. They "fostered" the evolution of life in undetectable ways.


"Hermann Joseph Muller conducted three experiments in 1926 and 1927 that demonstrated that exposure to x-rays, a form of high-energy radiation, can cause genetic mutations, changes to an organism's genome, particularly in egg and sperm cells." Mar 7, 2017
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Colt said:
As a student of the Urantia Book revelation we are told that the Life Carriers that created life on our planet used techniques to modify germ plasm or genes. These celestial beings have been present on the planet since they first introduced the primitive life forms into the shallow briny seas 550,000,000 years ago. They "fostered" the evolution of life in undetectable ways.


"Hermann Joseph Muller conducted three experiments in 1926 and 1927 that demonstrated that exposure to x-rays, a form of high-energy radiation, can cause genetic mutations, changes to an organism's genome, particularly in egg and sperm cells." Mar 7, 2017
Click to expand...
Sounds like hogwash.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Sounds like hogwash.
Click to expand...
I get that response a lot from Bible worshipers. Its always been obvious to me that the earth is quite old and has been the host of many different epochs of life. As we cut through the layers of the earth, we travel back in time to deposits of fossilized life forms from the most recent to the ancient. All things considered, the earth doesn't look anything like the creation story developed by the Israelites.

If you think about it honestly, religion is about mans relationship with beings that we cant see and who live mostly somewhere else. Some might call them "aliens". Religious literature documents how at certain times these beings "briefly" revealed themselves to us, they sometimes took on the human form. Like Adam and Eve who suddenly appear in relatively recent history as 2 full grown adults, educated and in an important role of leadership. Another being called "crafty beast" appears in the story and causes a default of the trusted mission of the pair which leads to substantial biological and cultural changes to our world. Around the same period there are "sons of God" who come down and mate with "the daughters of men". There are the 3 celestial being who appear to Abraham at Mamre etc. For me at least the UB offers a better explanation than Genesis.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Click to expand...
Yes, many people can, but not to the faith-based thinker who has become encased in a confirmation bias that shows him only what he has chosen to believe a priori (by faith).

There is a time early in life when one can reverse this. He can tunnel out of his faith-based confirmation bias if he has a smidgen of skepticism and ability to countenance contradictory evidence remaining, but that eventually atrophies away making escape impossible. Eventually, that window of opportunity closes for most.

It's analogous to quitting cigarettes. At 20, it's easy. At 40, most can still succeed, but it's often an ordeal unlike a 20-year old quitting. But by age 60 or 70, many can no longer quit whatever the incentive. I've seen it firsthand - lifelong smokers getting a life-threatening smoking-related diagnosis after coughing up some blood which terrified them, but it was too late for them. They simply couldn't quit either to save their lives or to diminish their embarrassment of still smoking through a hole in the neck.

I tunneled out of Christianity at 35, and it was very much like quitting smoking, each haunting and nagging me for a year or more as I was withdrawing from them, but I made it both times. Today? If I were still a smoker or a Christian, the odds against me changing either of those would be lower.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
If you want to claim that something is impossible you need to properly support that claim. Unfortunately you cannot since you refuse to even try to learn what is and what is not evidence.
Click to expand...
I did many times.
As usually the theory of evolution is the theory of nothing.
As they have no answer to the origin of anything.
And your post conformed that.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
There are about 1 trillion unique genes. Can you account fro any?
Click to expand...
Me personally, no. But experts in the field can do that easily. Go ask them. I gave an example of how it happens. The article that I linked may have even mentioned specific genes. I will have to admit to not reading all of it. That article was enough to demonstrate that you are wrong.

And remember, until you bother to learn what is and what is not evidence you really cannot demand any. I will at times volunteer some when I get bored, but that is my choice not yours.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Me personally, no. But experts in the field can do that easily. Go ask them. I gave an example of how it happens. The article that I linked may have even mentioned specific genes. I will have to admit to not reading all of it. That article was enough to demonstrate that you are wrong.

And remember, until you bother to learn what is and what is not evidence you really cannot demand any. I will at times volunteer some when I get bored, but that is my choice not yours.
Click to expand...
Go find a documented actual case of 1.
You are good at the Internet.
Looks like old age dating is faulty and C-14 young age dating is not.

 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Go find a documented actual case of 1.
You are good at the Internet.
Looks like old age dating is faulty and C-14 young age dating is not.

Click to expand...
Google searches are not evidence. Nor are sources like AiG since one has to swear that one will not use the scientific method to work there.

Do you have any actual evidence? Or do you only have false claims and sources written by idiots and liars?
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Eddi said:
I think it's a fair characterisation of the people who make the resources that people cite as evidence for "creationism" in threads like this since those sources are both stupid and dishonest
Click to expand...
They use facts and real science.
The evolutionists do not.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
GardenLady said:
This is just not consistent with reality. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Thus the reason when ever SaveByTheLord bears false witness by declaring someone an evolutionist, that someone points out that they are not an evolutionist in the manner they claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top