No, the firmament is the solid dome, it is not the surface of the earth.
Yes it is.
No, they’re the stars. It might be possible that they include the planets, but the stars created in Genesis 1 are all those points of light in the sky.
Nope – it’s just light, photons with no stated source. Don’t add science fiction to the text.
There’s no nebular theory in Genesis 1.
There’s no science there at all.
No, they were made of solid matter – that’s in the text.
Yep – an earth millions, billions, or even a trillion years old was derived from the scripture long before even Galileo.
No it doesn’t. I was in Miami when there was hurricane weather, and there were clouds that covered the sun thickly enough it gave no light, but the moon was visible, lit up like normal.
But they don’t. Those are examples of Hebrew parallelism, where two separate but similar phenomena are stated together.
But the text doesn’t say that – you’re adding in a logical connector that isn’t present.
It describes no such thing – you’re reading that into the text.
You’re reading a lot of things into the text that aren’t there.
You should never assume that anyone has time to watch hour long videos, Craig, no matter what their worldview or theological position, or what the video is about. It’s a serious time commitment, especially when we also have work to do and family members to look after.
If you want to persuade someone to watch an hour long video, you need to provide some evidence up front that it is going to be worth their time to do so. This may take the form of a summary with timestamps, or a transcript that they can search. In the absence of such evidence, it is the height of presumption to expect anyone to watch your hour long video before deciding whether or not to take you seriously, and the height of disrespect to accuse them of “not listening” or “closed mindedness” if you don’t.
Once again, there’s nothing “evolutionist” about this whatsoever. It’s just basic principles of good communication skills that apply to everyone regardless of their worldview.
The thousands of words I’ve composed for it certainly were.
It isn’t always necessary to know just what something does in order to know that it results in failure of an organism. In fact the observation of such failure can come first and an investigation into the genetics of that failure then follows it.
Then I’ll try to find time to watch it. Though I don’t have high expectations.
How about this explanation of whale evolution? It details the steps that seem to have happened, in the order they seem to have happened in. It doesn’t seem impossible.
That’s not a problem. We know how new genes can arise from mutations or genetic recombinations that either create copies of existing genes, modified versions of existing genes, or completely new genes.
The latter, which are truly orphan genes, can come about by mutations that introduce a new start codon into non-coding DNA.
There’s a lot of information here. Note that for many orphan genes the non-coding precursor is identifiable in genomes of related organisms.
That’s not the reason. Orphan genes were a problem for evolution for a while. They don’t pose a problem for evolution now though, because we’ve worked out how they arise and found examples of the process occurring.
@Joel_Duff just this past week posted a video explaining six different ways orphan genes develop. Given the biological realities of genetic functioning, orphan genes are inevitable.
I walk through six well-documented mechanisms by which organisms generate genuinely new genetic information: gene duplication, de novo gene birth from non-coding DNA, retrotransposon hijacking, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, and enzyme promiscuity. Each of these isn’t just theoretical—we have observed examples in living organisms and can trace the genetic evidence of these processes throughout evolutionary history.
Chapters: 0:00 Introduction & Wes’s Challenge 4:47 Gene Duplication: The Classic Mechanism 9:27 De Novo Gene Birth from “Junk” DNA 15:30 Antifreeze Proteins: Two Origins Story 18:45 Hijacking: Retrotransposons & Mobile DNA 21:00 Borrowing: Horizontal Gene Transfer 23:15 Promiscuous Proteins & Exon Shuffling
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
169
In addition, why don’t we see different combinations of features? If birds and mammals have a common designer, then why not a species with flow through lungs and fur, or three middle ear bones and feathers? Instead, we only see the combinations of features that evolution predicts we should see. I have never seen creationism adequately explain this while evolution easily explains this pattern.
@cewoldt said that James Tour spoke about evolution.
I expected that James Tour would be speaking about origin-of-life research while Rob Stadler talked about evolution.
I was wrong.
Rob Stadler spoke at length about ‘problems’ with evolution[1]. James Tour said hardly anything.
Sure, Tour introduced Rob Stadler (while saving that he, Tour, was not an expert in evolution). Tour advertised other videos, and asked for donations. He clarified a couple of things about tryptophan and antifreeze. He repeated one of Rob Stadler’s arguments, and foreshadowed another one. He complained that origin-of-life researchers were setting up experiments rather than just waiting for life to appear. But Tour didn’t make a single argument of his own criticising evolution. Not one.
You claim to have watched this video @cewoldt, so you should know that James Tour just hosts while Rob Stadler does the talking. Characterising this video as James Tour “addressing evolution” is extremely misleading. Rob Stadler addresses evolution, while James Tour listens. Presenting this video as James Tour researching or speaking about evolution is dishonest. It is no such thing, and if you really did watch it, you knew that.
You owe me an hour of video-watching.
Go and watch Joel Duff’s explanation of how new genes arise, summarise why he says that orphan genes are not a problem, and admit that ‘evolutionists’ do not simply claim that “orphan genes actually pose no problem to evolutionary theory–because evolutionary theory is “true” and cannot be falsified”.
Which I won’t address because they’re not relevant. ↩︎
Good, thanks for your insistence, I watched it. The video is quite informative as were the responses given. It seems that Duff overstated his case. Since this whole issue is above my pay grade, here are some responses and conversation between another commenter and Stadler about ““new genes.” It seems like we still end up at the same place as we did with the interview of Stadler by Tour.
You may want to go back to the video and read more of the comments there, as there are more good responses.
And not so coincidentally, much of what is said here and in Stadler’s video that you watched is consistent with what Dr. Randy Guliuzza of Institute for Creation Research has written about their theory of biological design (TOBD). Stadler calls it evolution and design, and Guliuzza calls it creation and design. Maybe the difference is primarily in nomenclature.
Hi Rob, regarding de novo genes, I’m trying to pin down exactly where you think the problem lies beyond objections to historical reconstruction. At the mechanistic level, it’s well established that DNA could accumulate mutations neutrally in regions that are not expressed and not under selection. I’m not saying here that it did, just that we can see this can occur. It’s also well established that regulatory mutations can later cause such regions to become transcribed. I’m guessing this is something you consider to be uncontroversial? If such a sequence had any reproducible biochemical or physical effect, however minimal, would this constitute the origin of a new gene? Would it be “new information”? I’m not asking about whether we can identify specific historical examples, but whether you reject the mechanism itself.
@MarkC88 I agree that DNA accumulates mutations neutrally in regions that are not expressed and that regulatory mutations can later cause such regions to become transcribed. Whether or not these changes happen randomly is a topic that should be studied and debated, not assumed. Applying a label like “new gene” or “new information” to this can be a subjective call and one that is typically built upon assumptions. If it turns out that this gene actually was an unused tool in the organism’s toolbox, lying dormant until it was converted to an active gene because the organism recognized a change in environment, I would not call that a new gene or new information. In contrast, if it truly was a random segment of DNA that is now transcribed and provides a benefit, then I would call it a new gene and new information. But I don’t think it is correct to assume the latter, as many people do. Simple laws of the probability of randomness tell me that the latter explanation is not where I would place my bet. In addition, experimental prospective studies of what random mutations + natural selection can actually accomplish clearly demonstrate that evolution is highly constrained.
The mechanisms he lists—duplication, de novo ORFs, exon shuffling, HGT, retrotransposition, enzyme promiscuity—are all sequence‑level processes. They can generate novel sequences or variant proteins, but they do not demonstrate the origin of new integrated functional systems. A new ORF with weak binding activity is not equivalent to the coordinated emergence of: multi‑subunit complexes regulated assembly pathways co‑evolved protein–protein interfaces promoter/enhancer networks post‑transcriptional control layers error‑checking and quality‑control machinery These systems require simultaneous, interdependent changes across multiple loci, regulatory elements, and cellular processes. None of the mechanisms he describes provide a pathway for the co‑ordination and integration required. He repeatedly equates “new function” with “new information,” but functional information in biology is defined by specificity, regulation, and network integration, not merely by sequence divergence or altered activity. A duplicated gene drifting into a slightly different catalytic profile is not the same category of event as the origin of a spliceosome, ribosome, flagellar motor, or developmental gene‑regulatory network. In short: These mechanisms explain sequence variation, not the emergence of new coordinated systems. The origin of DNA is one question; the origin of system‑level biological innovation after DNA exists is another—and this video doesn’t address that gap.
Thanks Dr. Duff for this summary. I think it would be helpful to recognize that your explanations come with a wide range of evidential support. In other words, some of your claims are more strongly supported than others. Your presentation would be enriched if the level of supporting evidence was specified.
Horizontal Gene Transfer, Exon Shuffling and TE Domestication can all be observed through prospective, repeatable experimentation. These are supported by high confidence evidence, but they are also the least “novel”, in that they simply shuffle existing information. Contrast that with your example of globulin genes. Here, your argument requires some assumptions, because these changes were not observed prospectively. Duplication can be observed prospectively, but not your complete explanation of the formation of human globulin genes. Concluding that gene duplication followed by divergence to provide the different globulins requires an assumption. How do you know they didn’t start this way (without making assumptions)?
Your De Novo Origination argument is also based upon assumptions, not prospective observation. How do you know that these “de-novo genes” are not simply dormant pseudogenes that persist as a “backup toolbox” that are designed to be activated when needed? You assume they started as random sequences. That is an important and unvalidated assumption! Maybe one Cod still has this pseudogene as a dormant tool, whereas the arctic cod has activated the gene to use it as antifreeze? Can you dismiss that possibility without making basic assumptions that cannot be experimentally validated?
Hi Rob, regarding de novo genes, I’m trying to pin down exactly where you think the problem lies beyond objections to historical reconstruction. At the mechanistic level, it’s well established that DNA could accumulate mutations neutrally in regions that are not expressed and not under selection. I’m not saying here that it did, just that we can see this can occur. It’s also well established that regulatory mutations can later cause such regions to become transcribed. I’m guessing this is something you consider to be uncontroversial? If such a sequence had any reproducible biochemical or physical effect, however minimal, would this constitute the origin of a new gene? Would it be “new information”? I’m not asking about whether we can identify specific historical examples, but whether you reject the mechanism itself.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
172
We don’t end up in the same place. There are known and obvious evolutionary mechanisms that can and have produced new genes. Ignoring this evidence doesn’t make it go away. The Wiki entry for de novo gene birth should be a good place to start. I can find more resources if you want to keep researching.
It’s not above your pay grade to admit that ‘evolutionists’ do not simply claim that “orphan genes actually pose no problem to evolutionary theory–because evolutionary theory is “true” and cannot be falsified”.
Nor is it above your pay grade to admit that the video you linked to does not match your description, and does not support the claim:
That place was discovering that you misrepresented the contents of the video.
I recall Paul Nelson wrote some articles and commentary about ORFans not long after the human and chimp genomes were compared. I believe there was a discussion here:
Clearly some of his predictions did not pan out. I think mine did.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
175
If memory serves, orphan genes were a super hot topic amongst ID advocates for a few months, and then it quickly died down. I suspect this is because the ID advocates were confused by how the word “gene” was being used in the orphan gene papers. The papers stated there were genes in the human genome that were not found in other ape species, and the ID advocates misunderstood this as saying the homologous DNA was not present in other ape species. They (i.e. Ann Gauger) had to finally admit that yes, it appears that mutations in already existing DNA resulted in a new RNA transcript from that section of DNA. In some cases it was the insertion of a transposon, a quite well understood source of genetic variation.
That takes 99% of the wind out of that sail. If anything, orphan genes are an excellent piece of evidence for evolution because they demonstrate how new genes evolve, complete with the mutations that lead to new genes. The larger question is if any of them have function, but it appears to be quite easy for evolution to produce new transcripts that can be tested by natural selection.
Yeah. There are at least three ways ORFans could arise:
Poof!
Horizontal transfer from a different organism
Mutation (including recombination) of sequences already existing in an organism
They latter two leave ‘fingerprints’ behind that can allow detection. IDers were banking on it predominantly being the first case. Does that kill the case for IDers? Nope. Someone will say that the capability of acquiring a new gene relies on mechanics a designer embedded and someone will always claim that at least one or more ORFan came from a ‘poof’ event. The ID movement does not generally correct or resolve internal errors and that’s part of the reason why it doesn’t seem to progress as a positive scientific endeavor.
