This is generally how new genes are made. I gave several examples before of gene duplication. From the Nature report cited often here:
"Another approach to genomic history is to study segmental duplications within the human genome. Earlier, we discussed examples of recent duplications of genomic segments to pericentromeric and subtelomeric regions. Most of these events appear to be evolutionary dead-ends resulting in nonfunctional pseudogenes; however, segmental duplication is also an important mode of evolutionary innovation: a duplication permits one copy of each gene to drift and potentially to acquire a new function. Segmental duplications can occur through unequal crossing over to create gene families in specific chromosomal regions. This mechanism can create both small families, such as the five related genes of the -globin cluster on chromosome 11, and large ones, such as the olfactory receptor gene clusters, which together contain nearly 1,000 genes and pseudogenes."
How else do you explain these clusters of very closely related genes all adjacent to each other on the chromosome? The authors who sequenced the genome do not doubt for a second that these arose from gene duplication and then subsequently acquired more distinct functions via mutation and selection. Are you arguing that they were “created” that way right off the bat? How do explain pseudogenes? Did the creator purposely put those in there too?
Basically your entire point about the survival value of duplicated genes is pure speculation on your part. Sometimes overexpression of a gene is beneficial to an organism. This has actually been observed in the laboratory:
From here :
“Some early molecular biology experiments concerned how bacterial cells evolve in response to various changes in conditions. These experiments used chemostats - fermentation vessels in which the conditions could be varied. One of the interesting experiments concerned depriving cells which normally required glucose of glucose and providing them instead with another sugar, xylose. Cells from the chemostat were analysed and found to have gained multiple copies of genes responsible for an early stage in glucose metabolism. These additional genes occurred as tandem repeats, a section of DNA repeated a number of times over in sequence. In this situation multiple copies were advantageous because the gene responsible for glucose break down was not 100% specific for glucose. The enzyme had a weak side specificity for xylose. By amplifying the gene, that is having multiple copies, enough of the enzyme was produced to metabolise xylose. The repetition of a section of DNA is believed to occur through an error in copying DNA. A loop can form from a stretch of one strand of DNA and rather than copying this loop once as it should, DNA polymerase may traverse this loop two or more times. Multiple copies also have an indirect advantage. They increase rapidity of subsequent evolution. With multiple copies: The genome makes more experiments with changes to that gene per generation. Mutations that damage one copy only of the duplicated gene are not lethal. It makes possible evolution of a new option. In this example it makes possible the evolution of a xylose metabolism option without destruction of a previous option, glucose metabolism.”
Now it doesnt take much of an imagination to see those extra glucose metabolism genes aqcuiring mutations which make the enzyme more specific to xylose. Run for the hills everyone, we just observed how new "information" is made without a need for intelligent design!
But even if there is no initial beneficial effect in the case of higher organisms, these duplicates are very likely to make it to future generations by virtue of their proximity to the critical genes (the parental gene which gave rise to the duplicates for example) In time some will gain valuable function.
Good recent evidence for duplication of genes evolving into distinct functions in higher organisms:
Also you are too hung up on assigning value to every bit of DNA. Maybe much of that "junk" does have a yet to be discovered beneficial purpose, but there certainly looks like a lot of genetic "accidents" which have become trapped in the genome. How in the world do you explain proccesed pseudogenes? Unitary pseudogenes (ex L-GLO)? Whoever "designed" the genome purposely put errors in there? The point is DNA doesn’t have to be “important” to stay. Our chromosomes are so large it would be a trifle to carry around unimportant/non-functional sequences especially if they segregate with pieces of chromosome which DO contain vital genes. Generally you tear the page out of the newspaper that has an interesting story on it. For higher eukaryotic organisms it is completely unnecessary evolve a costly pair of scissors.
6. After all the above though, we still do not have a working gene! Now we need another miracle, we need the gene to: a) be expressed in the cells where the new function, ability or whatever should go.
You are still greatly underestimating the ability of the genome to respond to change! Who are you to say that when new genes arise naturally that they will not be tolerated by the genome? The effects are for the most part are unpredictable; you must think of the genome as more of a recipe book than a blueprint. Adding brown sugar just gives you a different kind of cake. Nature makes sure the recipes which encode for good cakes persist.
I will give you Gore that most changes are likely to be deleterious but surely in the millions of years in the history of life on Earth some of these mutations initially conferred a slight advantage initially and after many of rounds of selection were further improved upon both in regards to their specific function and how they fit into the overall context of the developing organism. Think in terms of tiny, gradual steps.
I did not say it never happens, it does. But it is not common at all and it is certainly a lot less common that plain point mutations. My argument is not at all that any of the steps mentioned are totally impossible by random chance. Heck a person can buy one lottery ticket in their life and get the big prize, but it does not happen very often.
Re #6 (post#1605) - You are still greatly underestimating the ability of the genome to respond to change! Who are you to say that when new genes arise naturally that they will not be tolerated by the genome?
You are completely missing the point I am making. Let me repeat - a new gene will do absolutely nothing unless it is expressed. So a) you still do not have your 'selective advantage' to help it be perfected - even it miraculously hit on the exact code completely at random. Now this totally separate from the gene. It requires (for evolutionists) some more mutations, genome additions, etc to make the gene work. It needs in other words to become an integral part of the organism and everything that implies. In other words, what I am saying is that even a single gene is an irreducibly complex entity which needs the help of many other functions, systems, in the organism. It needs to be expressed in certain cells. Those cells need to be formed specifically in the correct quantity, in the correct places (amongst the 3 trillion or so sells in a human), they need to get nourishement, they need to be connected to the system that sends messages back and forth to other cells, they need to be turned on and off at the proper time when the function is needed and not needed, they need to be put in the correct order when a baby is growing and during other stages of human development, etc., etc., etc. Now by what magical, miraculous process are you saying that this happens in a materialistic, evolutionary way?