The origin of new genes

It isn't MUCH more, and even if it were fifty that is a paltry number for the job asked of it, and the kinds of mutations you are talking about are mostly just weird, not the kind of stuff that could put together such marvelous unities as life exhibits.Yeah, I know the probabilities and they are simply astronomically unconvincing. I really don't know how they convince you.And if the mutation that brought about the tail is simply the recurrence of a formerly expressed allele, in my book that's not a mutation, but I understand that in your book it must be that because your book is the book of the ToE. Yes you are right that in my book the tail IS a mutation, and not the recurrence of a formerly expressed allele, just a bizarre anomaly (and they aren't much in the way of tails anyway, just a flaccid rope of skin. But why is that such a big deal? YOu act as if we deny mutations. We don't. We deny that they are capable of bringing about the design and diversity of life we see around us.And as usual, in your post, as per the ToE, the facts are SO scanty and all the rest is hypothetical, not evidence of any sort. I understand that one is often driven to that, but then don't claim the ToE rests on firm foundations.

Well you lost me again Brad, but I gather you make some room for creationism so that's appreciated. May I ask another question? Do you believe in God or are you an atheist or what?

Thank you, I THOUGHT you were a YEC but couldn't remember where I saw it or why I thought it and so much of what you say is beyond me I can't be sure.

I'm taking a break from the stress of my own thread and running across interesting posts elsewhere. I didn't read this whole thread so I may not get your point here: I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all?Also, there seems to be a common habit of simply assuming that any trait originated with a mutation rather than any hint that anyone actually KNOWS that it did from empirical evidence at the genome level. You see an interesting rare trait and CALL it a mutation, that's about it. Yes you can come up with some examples of some mutations in genetic studies but they aren't very convincing to someone who isn't an evolutionist as having anything of the power to fuel the massive changes evolution expects.But maybe there's more actual empirical evidence back on this thread a ways? Or some other thread?

Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical. Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.