New Genome?

[busterdog]

A friend told me a debate in which the stumper was the question, "Has evolution ever shown the creation of a new genome?"

I would appreciate some light being shed on this issue.

 

[Deamiter]

I apologize for the post -- I missed the implications when I posted, but I have no excuse for not looking at the post again carefully as I usually do to catch any unintentional junk like this.

 

[KerrMetric]

Define new genome.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Staff Edit

It may come as a surprise to you but creationists can have honest discussions. He probably posted it here because he just wanted creationist input for now. Why do you feel the need to step in?

 

[busterdog]

Would it be inappropriate for an evolutionist like me to ask why you posted this in the creationist subforum? Are you looking for an honest discussion of what scientists have found, or are you looking for purely negative commentary on evolutionists?

It was a YEC argument, I was just looking for a YEC explanation.

 

[lemmings]

Evolution does not predict the necessary creation of an entirely new genome. Instead it predicts that we will have many either redundant or nonfunctional genes who originate from our ancestors. To actually have an organism that has an entirely unique genome would require that the species have no common ancestor with any other species living today.

Hopefully this helps you.

 

[laptoppop]

Staff Edit

Yeah. So how are we supposed to interpret YOUR statement:
(post quote removed. Deamiter's apology accepted.)

For a moderator - this stinks. But then again - I guess it is consistent with the whole new direction.

 

[busterdog]

Evolution does not predict the necessary creation of an entirely new genome. Instead it predicts that we will have many either redundant or nonfunctional genes who originate from our ancestors. To actually have an organism that has an entirely unique genome would require that the species have no common ancestor with any other species living today.

Hopefully this helps you.

I kind of suspected it was the same old watchmaker argument with some fancier words. Similar to the transitional fossils argument. Similar to the mutations are bad argument. I understand they are distinct in part, but the word genome as far as I can tell isn't adding anything to the discussion. And the old arguments are still just fine with me.

 

[busterdog]

I do however think there is something to be said about the fact that an inference that a genome is new is not the same as seeing one this is new. There is some evidence of speciation based upon mating compatibility of various species -- ie, morphologies caused by mutation can affect reproduction, but this isn't necessarily a new genome.

So, it would appear that the argument is that this is a very big step not in evidence by direct observation, but simply inferred by the fossil record.

I would also tend to think that there would be argument about what a new genome really is. Certainly the addition or subtraction of base pairs (by direct observation) would be evidence of evolution. But, obviously there is more to being a species than counting base pairs.

 

[Galle]

It may come as a surprise to you but creationists can have honest discussions.

Then perhaps you could start an honest discussion by answering CACTUSJACKmankin in his thread here: http://foru.ms/t5995404. I encourage you to honestly respond to AV1611VET as well.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Then perhaps you could start an honest discussion by answering CACTUSJACKmankin in his thread here: http://foru.ms/t5995404. I encourage you to honestly respond to AV1611VET as well.

As I have made public I try to avoid that forum because creationists get jumped on by a larger number of evolutionists. That becomes very time consuming because you are out numbered. Also I feel many of the evolutionists are just there for debate, not discussions. I have other internet outlets which are more open to discussion that I use. Finally, too often unchristian like behavior takes place. Creation scientists are insulted and etc. I'll gladly PM you evidences for creation. I don't know what AV1611VET was talking about though in that thread.

 

[Galle]

As I have made public I try to avoid that forum because creationists get jumped on by a larger number of evolutionists.

You may find it easier to stick to a very particular topic and be explicit about what you're there to discuss. Related topics will almost certainly pop up, but you needn't go into to much depth there. That's not to say you should completely ignore these related topics, just that it's impossible to respond to everything. Perhaps you could acknowledge that there's a future topic of discussion but make it clear just what you're there to discuss? For example, instead of giving a cut-n-paste list of "evidence for creationism" from creation scientist Kent Hovind, you could take one item and focus on that.

Also I feel many of the evolutionists are just there for debate, not discussions. I have other internet outlets which are more open to discussion that I use.

Generally speaking, there's not much difference between discussion and debate. If by "discussion" you mean a group of people who simply reaffirm your position and who are forbidden from disagreeing, then yes, I suppose that there are other internet outlets more open to discussion (including a certain one I am prevented from mentioning due to the mod's interpretation of subforum rules). But such outlets hardly foster the growth or intellectual integrity necessary to become a mature Christian.

Finally, too often unchristian like behavior takes place. Creation scientists are insulted and etc. I'll gladly PM you evidences for creation. I don't know what AV1611VET was talking about though in that thread.

The mod's interpretation of subforum rules prevents meaningful response. Suffice it to say that if creationists are observed to have an interest in a topic but do not answer questions of their position, it forces conclusions about creationists and about creationism.

 

[busterdog]

As I have made public I try to avoid that forum because creationists get jumped on by a larger number of evolutionists. That becomes very time consuming because you are out numbered. Also I feel many of the evolutionists are just there for debate, not discussions. I have other internet outlets which are more open to discussion that I use. Finally, too often unchristian like behavior takes place. Creation scientists are insulted and etc. I'll gladly PM you evidences for creation. I don't know what AV1611VET was talking about though in that thread.

I think this is pretty self-evident. Trying to make this an "honesty" issue is why we often avoid these pointless debates. SO, I am hearing you in case you are wondering.

 

[mark kennedy]

A friend told me a debate in which the stumper was the question, "Has evolution ever shown the creation of a new genome?"

I would appreciate some light being shed on this issue.

The closest thing I have ever seen is the Arctic Fish with the antifreeze gene. It was not a duplicated gene or any of the other explanations, it had to be built from the ground up. What I managed to glean from the limited explanations is that it was the result of an unknown molecular mechanism which produced a gene with simple repeats.

That's as close to the question I can get to at this point. I did find a very interesting broadcast on NPR that discussed a Mustard Plant that managed to repair a gene that had been mutated in the second generation after being completely isolated.

Best I can do for you on the fly BD, interesting question though. I'll give it some thought and check back later.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[flaja]

Evolution does not predict the necessary creation of an entirely new genome. Instead it predicts that we will have many either redundant or nonfunctional genes who originate from our ancestors. To actually have an organism that has an entirely unique genome would require that the species have no common ancestor with any other species living today.

Hopefully this helps you.

Are these non-functioning genes really non-functioning, or are they functioning, but inactive? Could any of these non-functioning genes become operational given the right environmental conditions?

 

[flaja]

Evolution does not predict the necessary creation of an entirely new genome.

How can you have macro-evolution without the formation of a new genome?

A genome is all of the genetic material that is collectively owned by a breed, population or species. If you had a farm where a pack of Great Dane Dogs lived and reproduced (with no interaction with any other Great Dane or any other dog), the pack, i.e., a population, would have its own genome. Adding this population to the world’s collection of Great Danes would give you the breed’s genome. Adding the Great Danes together with every other dog in the world would give you species genome. Adding the dog genome to every other species of animal in the world would give you the animal genome.

A genome doesn’t mean that every individual in the genome has every gene in the genome. But collectively those individuals would have all of the genes possible for their group.

Now, dogs and humans and bacteria all have separate genomes. Each genome has material that is not found in the other two genomes. So how could bacteria evolve into either dogs or humans without creating new genomes?

 

[flaja]

As I have made public I try to avoid that forum because creationists get jumped on by a larger number of evolutionists. That becomes very time consuming because you are out numbered.

Since when is the truth and scientific accuracy dependent on majority rule?

 

[flaja]

The closest thing I have ever seen is the Arctic Fish with the antifreeze gene.

One gene doesn’t constitute a genome. This anti-freeze would be part of the genome for this fish’s population and species.