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

[Brian2]

The original statement was about the origin of new genes. This is a well tested part of evolution.

I wouldn't think so. Certain tests might confirm the chemistry of the production of RNA and DNA etc but cannot confirm that it could actually happen naturally and cannot confirm how those molecules may have become data carrying molecules for the use of life forms.

 

[ratiocinator]

I wouldn't think so. Certain tests might confirm the chemistry of the production of RNA and DNA etc but cannot confirm that it could actually happen naturally and cannot confirm how those molecules may have become data carrying molecules for the use of life forms.

I think you're confusing the origin of DNA itself with new genes being produced in the process of evolution.

The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old - Nature Reviews Genetics

Genome data have revealed great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms, which indicates that there is a fundamental process of genome evolution: the origin of new genes. However, there has been little opportunity to explore how genes with new functions originate and evolve. The...

www.nature.com

Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes - PMC

Ever since the pre-molecular era, the birth of new genes with novel functions has been considered to be a major contributor to adaptive evolutionary innovation. Here, I review the origin and evolution of new genes and their functions in eukaryotes, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Here is an article that explains it.

No, the only theory that explains genes changing as they do is evolution.

Not even plausible.

 

[McBell]

Not even plausible.

Please describe, in detail, what is wrong in the article.

Should be a piece of cake for someone who can peer review articles all by themselves.

 

[Brian2]

I think you're confusing the origin of DNA itself with new genes being produced in the process of evolution.

Maybe I am.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please describe, in detail, what is wrong in the article.

Should be a piece of cake for someone who can peer review articles all by themselves.

The posted did not have a link.
If any mention of evolution or abiogenesis or anything over 6000 years old is mentioned, it proves a false assumption, false reasoning and a false conclusion.

 

[ratiocinator]

If any mention of evolution or abiogenesis or anything over 6000 years old is mentioned, it proves a false assumption, false reasoning and a false conclusion.

According to your blind faith.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

According to your blind faith.

You have blind faith in the religion of evolution and billions of years.

 

[Sargonski]

What may be wrong, and I am not an astrophysicist so I could easily be wrong myself, is not the Big Bang, but rather hypotheses of star and galaxy formation. All of the discrepancies found are well after the Big Bang itself.

The Big bang theory is simply folks looking out into the universe .. noticing that everything appears to have come from a single point.. what happens after this point is the subject of considerable debate - and in that question is where we find corrections to the various hypothesis.

 

[Sargonski]

You have blind faith in the religion of evolution and billions of years.

Talk about the Blind Faith Kettle calling pot black.. Blind faith in Savior Martin does not refute the Big Bang Theory Brother SBM.

 

[Soandso]

Educated guesses remain educated guesses for the origins of life and the universe, no matter how many tests are done.

Why do you make this assumption?

How can the origins of life and the universe be tested?

By making predictions about what we think may have been happening all those many years ago based on the geological, biological, etc. evidence we have, then running tests to see if they yield results. We then take the results used in those tests, make new hypotheses and run those tests. The more tests we do, the clearer of picture we get. This is the nature of science in general, and it yields real world results

I don't think that the thread is strictly about science and that the existence of God is not to be brought up in this thread.

My responses with you and what we have been talking about are based on the original quote of yours that I was responding to:

The only possible answers are educated guesses which many people prefer to believe as if it is science, and to leave God out of the picture altogether.

You bring up science and god in the same sentence in reference to the same topic: the validity of abiogenesis. Keep in mind, for many folks who do suspect abiogenesis is likely how things began, they also believe God set the conditions for these events to take place

I don't think that any evidence leads away from God even if it leads away from the ideas that YECers have.

True. When I say "leads away from God" what I mean is "leads away from their idea of God". When people inject their very rigid and unmoving ideas of who god is into science, which absolutely and constantly changes in light of better evidence, then it ties their hands from actually probing the depths of truth. When faced with the choice of the truth that testing reveals vs. their understanding of God, they will always default to their understanding of God and will dismiss or ignore the findings. They stop the path that the evidence has laid out to explore and instead try new and different experiments that will hopefully lead to the answers they want to find

There are many scientists who are godly men and women who don't let their beliefs interfere with the work they do. They do not promote "Christian science" and instead just follow the evidence where it leads like every other scientist who is taken seriously among their peers

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big bang theory is simply folks looking out into the universe .. noticing that everything appears to have come from a single point.. what happens after this point is the subject of considerable debate - and in that question is where we find corrections to the various hypothesis.

There is some debate, and the evidence for the Big Bang is more than that. One thing that many nonscientists do not understand is that models an be used to make predictions and those models can be confirmed or refuted by those predictions. For example there is a lot of complex math in the current Big Bang model and one of its predictions was the percentages of the elements immediately after matter first formed. And the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The observed amounts of those elements confirms the theory:

WMAP Big Bang Elements Test

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

What you gave was pretty much what Lemaitre predicted in his very early theory, but that was not the "Big Bang" theory. The Big Bang, or Early hot universe theory became the model that explained the very early universe. And "Big Bang" was originally an insult used by a detractor. Scientists took Lemaitre's idea and fleshed it out more and made it more testable as a result. That theory also predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation before it was discovered. In fact the people that first discovered the CBR were not even looking for it. And they still got a Nobel Prize for their discovery.


And one last note, "confirmed" does not mean "proven". But it is a very good sign that one is at the very least on the right track. Science works by continually getting closer to the right answers. But some problems are extremely complex and we may never get the exact right answer.

 

[Sargonski]

There is some debate, and the evidence for the Big Bang is more than that. One thing that many nonscientists do not understand is that models an be used to make predictions and those models can be confirmed or refuted by those predictions. For example there is a lot of complex math in the current Big Bang model and one of its predictions was the percentages of the elements immediately after matter first formed. And the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The observed amounts of those elements confirms the theory:

WMAP Big Bang Elements Test

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

What you gave was pretty much what Lemaitre predicted in his very early theory, but that was not the "Big Bang" theory. The Big Bang, or Early hot universe theory became the model that explained the very early universe. And "Big Bang" was originally an insult used by a detractor. Scientists took Lemaitre's idea and fleshed it out more and made it more testable as a result. That theory also predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation before it was discovered. In fact the people that first discovered the CBR were not even looking for it. And they still got a Nobel Prize for their discovery.


And one last note, "confirmed" does not mean "proven". But it is a very good sign that one is at the very least on the right track. Science works by continually getting closer to the right answers. But some problems are extremely complex and we may never get the exact right answer.

There is much "complex Math" - after the Big Bang - trying to figure out how it want from a single point to what we observe today.. the observation itself requires no math .. it is trying to figure out what happened in the first trillisecond after and how we arrived at where we are at today.

And there are all kinds of models .. each making certain assumptions about the initial condition. models being what models are .. completely reliant on these initial assumptions.. which we hope ends up matching to reality.

One of the interesting ideas of late is in the initial expansion the speed of light rule was broken because it was space itself that was expanding .. and thus could expand many times faster than the speed of light.

The question then is to the limit of this rapid initial expansion .. or is it still happening. The idea that there was a limit .. based say on finite energy/ Stuff - may have some interesting artifacts .. space itself expansion relative to the rate the stuff inside is expanding. better ask Brother Martin if this explains the "Red Shift" he likes to go on about .. and if not .. why not .. again making no assumptions

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is much "complex Math" - after the Big Bang - trying to figure out how it want from a single point to what we observe today.. the observation itself requires no math .. it is trying to figure out what happened in the first trillisecond after and how we arrived at where we are at today.

And there are all kinds of models .. each making certain assumptions about the initial condition. models being what models are .. completely reliant on these initial assumptions.. which we hope ends up matching to reality.

One of the interesting ideas of late is in the initial expansion the speed of light rule was broken because it was space itself that was expanding .. and thus could expand many times faster than the speed of light.

The question then is to the limit of this rapid initial expansion .. or is it still happening. The idea that there was a limit .. based say on finite energy/ Stuff - may have some interesting artifacts .. space itself expansion relative to the rate the stuff inside is expanding. better ask Brother Martin if this explains the "Red Shift" he likes to go on about .. and if not .. why not .. again making no assumptions

Your wording of what expansion is is rather poor. Yes, an object can appear to be retreating from us faster than the speed of light, but that is because as you said, space is expanding. If one went far back in time and there was an object fairly near you and neither of you were moving next to each other and then space expanded as time went along it would appear to be moving relative to you. but that movement is all due to expansion of space. It is not due to an actual motion. Accelerate, travel out to it and deaccelerate the same amount when you got to it and you would both be stationary, though now your home star would look as if it was accelerating away from you.

 

[Sargonski]

Your wording of what expansion is is rather poor. Yes, an object can appear to be retreating from us faster than the speed of light, but that is because as you said, space is expanding. If one went far back in time and there was an object fairly near you and neither of you were moving next to each other and then space expanded as time went along it would appear to be moving relative to you. but that movement is all due to expansion of space. It is not due to an actual motion. Accelerate, travel out to it and deaccelerate the same amount when you got to it and you would both be stationary, though now your home star would look as if it was accelerating away from you.

You complain about my wording .. not explaining what your trouble was .. then you go on to use my wording to describe the expansion of space .. but fail to distinguish beween the expansion of space and movement within that space .. but do repeat what I stated about the Speed of Light paradox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You complain about my wording .. not explaining what your trouble was .. then you go on to use my wording to describe the expansion of space .. but fail to distinguish beween the expansion of space and movement within that space .. but do repeat what I stated about the Speed of Light paradox.

Just admit that you did not understand. Don't make false claims.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you make this assumption?

No it would be an assumption to say that science can figure out the origins of life and the universe.

By making predictions about what we think may have been happening all those many years ago based on the geological, biological, etc. evidence we have, then running tests to see if they yield results. We then take the results used in those tests, make new hypotheses and run those tests. The more tests we do, the clearer of picture we get. This is the nature of science in general, and it yields real world results

That cannot tell us the origins of life and the universe.
Even if the initial assumption that God did not create the universe or give life is correct, all science can do is make educated guesses.

My responses with you and what we have been talking about are based on the original quote of yours that I was responding to:

And it sounds like you want to leave God out of the picture altogether and stick with science's educated guesses.

You bring up science and god in the same sentence in reference to the same topic: the validity of abiogenesis. Keep in mind, for many folks who do suspect abiogenesis is likely how things began, they also believe God set the conditions for these events to take place

True.

True. When I say "leads away from God" what I mean is "leads away from their idea of God". When people inject their very rigid and unmoving ideas of who god is into science, which absolutely and constantly changes in light of better evidence, then it ties their hands from actually probing the depths of truth. When faced with the choice of the truth that testing reveals vs. their understanding of God, they will always default to their understanding of God and will dismiss or ignore the findings. They stop the path that the evidence has laid out to explore and instead try new and different experiments that will hopefully lead to the answers they want to find

There are many scientists who are godly men and women who don't let their beliefs interfere with the work they do. They do not promote "Christian science" and instead just follow the evidence where it leads like every other scientist who is taken seriously among their peers

Eventually Christian scientists have to draw a line since science does not know how to draw a line and can easily say that things happened naturally when in fact God stepped in and did them.
Science does not know how to test if God stepped in to do something or not and science does not know how to test for God.
To science everything happened naturally, without God, unless it can be shown scientifically that God exists,,,,,,,,,,,, and even then I imagine it would also have to be shown that God actually did step in to do something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it would be an assumption to say that science can figure out the origins of life and the universe.

Please, you screwed up when you said this:

"Educated guesses remain educated guesses for the origins of life and the universe, no matter how many tests are done."

Just admit it and move on.

 

[Brian2]

Please, you screwed up when you said this:

"Educated guesses remain educated guesses for the origins of life and the universe, no matter how many tests are done."

Just admit it and move on.

How can science ever know what happened to originate the universe or life? Educated guesses is the best it can do, ever, unless it sent someone back in time to report what happened.
Science not being able to test for spirits or God does not mean that spirits and God do not exist, all it means is that science does not know how to test for them.
So any educated guesses,,,,,,,,,,, which btw cannot be verified,,,,,,,,,, remain unverifiable beliefs,,,,,,,,,, much the same way that believing that God did it, is an unverifiable belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can science ever know what happened to originate the universe or life? Educated guesses is the best it can do, ever, unless it sent someone back in time to report what happened.
Science not being able to test for spirits or God does not mean that spirits and God do not exist, all it means is that science does not know how to test for them.
So any educated guesses,,,,,,,,,,, which btw cannot be verified,,,,,,,,,, remain unverifiable beliefs,,,,,,,,,, much that same say that believing that God did it, is an unverifiable belief.

Don't change the subject.