Actually, I spent ten minutes as a complete layman googling (timed myself too) and came up with
this list:
And that list is
just gene duplication. It's not rare, unusual, or unknown.
That would be “Macro Evolution” because two genes exist where only one existed before purported duplication. My point is “actually being observed”. Remember, scientists have absolutely no genetic material available from millions of years ago. They are attempting to infer ancient history by analyzing living organisms. This is like an engineer who has only seen a 2015 Ford Focus trying to describe a Model T Ford and determine the steps it took the Model T to “Macro Evolve’ into the Focus.
Let’s look at couple of your sources:
Opsin in the eye: “At some point
[not observed], the original gene was duplicated
[assumption]… The two kinds of opsins may have
[speculation]… One may have been
[speculation]… When cnidarians and bilaterians diverged
[not observed]… they each inherited
[assumption]… In each lineage, the opsins were further duplicated
[assumption] and evolved into
[not observed] into new forms. And, thus, from a single opsin early in the history of animals, a diversity of light-sensing molecules has evolved
[statement of faith not scientific observation].”
tRNA endonucleases of Archea: “The first
[there are others] hypothesis
[scientific conjecture not fact]… who assumed
[assumption] after duplication
[not observed], one gene copy would be
[speculation]… This redundant copy would become
[speculation] a nonfunctional pseudogene
[myth of Junk DNA]… Ohno postulated
[speculation], such a gene would
[speculation] reemerge
[not observed] from nonfunctionality
[assumption] with a new function
[speculation] acquired as a result of chance mutations
[statement of faith not scientific observation]. There are a number of reasons for doubting this hypothesis
[yup].”
An alternative
[among others] to Ohno’s hypothesis
[scientific conjecture not fact] is that both functions are already present
[speculation] before gene duplication
[not observed]…
Honest “scientific” literature is replete with this type of waffling verbiage. This is necessary because Evolutionists cannot legitimately claim to prove “Macro Evolution”. It is your choice of whether you want to call it fact or faith.
Care to define "kind"? Because the evidence we have is not exactly indicative that there is [I said:
A “kind” is a group of organisms genetically compatible for reproduction “after their kind”. This does not imply actual mating in nature. But it does require that the structure of the genome be compatible. This would require the same number of chromosomes [chimps with 48 and humans with 46 are NOT the same “kind”] and the same organization of genes on each chromosomes [otherwise the chromosome from the father would not be compatible with the one from the mother].
Another critical determinant of kind is the protein coatings of both egg and sperm. The specific coating on the sperm allows it to penetrate the specific coating on the egg. Dogs have one set of coatings and cats have a different set. Dog sperm cannot fertilize a cat egg by normal penetration. If you choose to believe in “Macro Evolution” then you have to explain how both new versions of these proteins have “Macro Evolved” AT THE SAME TIME in every species. Otherwise there would be a time that a cat sperm could not mate with a cat egg. I find it easier to believe that each “kind’ was created with its own unique proteins in the beginning and they have not “Macro Evolved” since. This is perfectly compatible with a single genome for all domestic dogs (Canis familiaris).
