And this gene duplication is the product of a programmed process?
This is nothing more than a guess.
Right. Macro evolution. There's a world of difference between that and the view that those chance based, random genetic changes produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form.
Impressive stuff. But no new life forms were created in the process..
hehe and you complained when I posted that video yet this is pretty much, "OBJECTION!! those hurt my case." with nothing but UHUH's.
No gene duplication isn't a programmed process, it's a error in copying, some times when a gene is to be used it's accidently copied instead, leading to the sperm/egg cell having two copies of a gene accidently, allowing for them if having two copies isn't harmful to mutate independantly. Alot of 'new' genes in our genome are created by this process as I listed.
And no it's not a guess, we know how these things are, your assertion it's not X is just a guess, and a bad one at that, as it's only, "that doesn't count because ...well because."
And so your saying that the ancestor of venemous lizards and snakes gaining the ability to have venom doesn't lead to a new life form? So snakes and lizards from non venemous ancestors is not new life? What would you qualify as life then? or the platypus coming from a non venemous simular animal?
Thats all that evolution is, these small changes over time acumilate to form new animals.
Funny how the nested hierchy works and aligns with multiple lines, that the differences and simularities between species including thigns that are uneeded fit the pattern.
You or one of the others was asking for examples of new information or such.
Is a imune system protein in platypus becoming venom count? It's just using the information there, it wasn't even a whole cloth gene formed from nothing, it was using a existing gene to duplicate then mutate.