Replies

Rather than reply to empty posts and taunts, here are some sample paragraphs from an article describing some recent scientific research [warning: science content]:

Recipes for life: How genes evolve Link
This classical view of gene evolution is far from the whole story, however. A decade ago, Michael Lynch at Indiana University in Bloomington and a colleague outlined an alternative scenario. Genes often have more than one function, and Lynch considered what might happen after such a gene is duplicated. If a mutation knocks out one of the two functions in one of the copies, an organism can cope fine because the other copy is still intact. Even if another mutation in this other copy knocks out the second function, the organism can carry on as normal. Instead of having one gene with two functions, the organism will now have two genes with one function each - a mechanism Lynch dubbed subfunctionalism (Genetics, vol 154, p 459). This process can provide the raw material for further evolution. "A gene preserved by subfunctionalisation can later pick up a new function," Lynch says.
Some theoretical biologists think gene copies can also be preserved by other, more subtle, mechanisms, but the real challenge to the classical model comes from actual studies of new genes in various organisms. Earlier this year, in the most comprehensive study of its kind yet, a team led by Wen Wang of Kunming Institute of Zoology in Yunnan, China, looked at several closely related species of fruit fly. By comparing their genomes, Wang was able to identify new genes that have evolved in the 13 million years or so since these species split from a common ancestor.
One of Wang's surprise discoveries was that around 10 per cent of the new genes had arisen through a process called retroposition. This occurs when messenger RNA copies of genes - the blueprints sent to a cell's protein-making factories (see diagram) - are turned back into DNA that is then inserted somewhere else in the genome. Many viruses and genetic parasites copy themselves through retroposition, and the enzymes they produce sometimes accidentally retropose the RNA of their host cells.

What this article does is show that the creationists' claim that no new genes arise ("no new information") is false. New genes arise in a number of different ways.

Now, isn't real science better than the Borkings creationists have been posting lately?

[[What this article does is show that the creationists’ claim that no new genes arise (”no new information”) is false]]

No Coyote- what that shows is that no new NON SPECIES Specific informaiton arises which alters the major systems of a species the way that MACROEvolution is supposed to have happened. There is no biological evidence to show that a simple retrovirus could produce NON SPECIES Specific information that could give rise to such major structural changes, or even the precursors to major structural changes- As Well- We’ve been over the retroviruses in the past- Extensively, and it was found NOT to be a case for common ancestry AND that species specific informaiton can ONLY be ALTERED within species specific parameters, As You well know, but are loathe to admit- there may be functions hidden in species that were begun and hten ‘lost’, and which are coded for to handle invasions liek parasites and viruses.

The fact that ERV’s exhibit insertion bias strongly indicates that species are coded to handle those particular viruses, and as such unexpressed info that lie fully within species specific info can and often is ‘turned on’ again by these virus insertions. We’ve been over htis in detail in other threads- but I see you insist on bringing it up again at later dates- perhaps hoping peopel will have forgotten that ERV’s are poor markers for the case of common descent or ‘New ifnromation’?