Why " evolution vs creationism"

[leroy]

Far less. Probably no more than a couple of hundred.

so you start with a chimp-like ape, then you get a couple hundred mutations and vualah you end up with an intelligent, talking bipedal human, that can digest meat, be immune to several diseases, doesn’t have that much hair, doesn’t have thumbs in the feet, + all the other attributes that are unique to humans?.........if things where that simple it would be easy to create a talking chimp in a laboratory, apparently all you need is modify a few dozen genes, (it shouldn’t be hard to do it)

 

[Audie]

David Rosen, studied at Brooklyn College
Answered Dec 3, 2017 · Author has 6.3k answers and 1.9m answer views



No! Not in my opinion. Haldanes Dilemma is only valid in a homogeneous environment. Environments that are completely homogeneous don’t exist.

Haldane’s dilemma basically says that two mutated alleles can’t evolve simultaneously in a homogeneous environment because each allele is competing against the other allele. If one allele starts to propagate exponentially, the other allele has to decrease exponentially. Because each mutation can’t allow another mutation to propagate until it has taken over the population, you can’t have complex organs that are formed from many different alleles evolve in a homogeneous on a reasonable time scale.

Every little mutation has to take over before it can allow another little mutation to spread, at least in a homogeneous environment. So evolution of complex systems can’t even occur on a geological time scale. You can’t have punctuated evolution in a homogeneous environment because the transition time from one complex for to the other would be longer than quasi-evolution. Ever de novo mutation would take thousands of generations to take over before allowing another de novo mutation to take over.

If Haldane’s Dilemma were strictly true and the earth’s environment was homogeneous, there would not even be polytypes. We couldn’t have different varieties of the same species live with a small amount of gene flow between them. Every de novo mutation would produce alleles that reached an optimum number where the fitness was averaged over the entire environment. There could be no spatial clines, especially not ring species. The human population would have one brownish skin tone instead of being divided into shades of black, white and brown.

The reason that Haldane’s Dilemma is not a real paradox is that the environment is not homogeneous. Every environment on earth is broken up into habitats with different sub-environments. These sub environment can be small geographical regions or even scales of size.

So what happens is that subpopulations optimize their genetic distributions within a habitat (i.e., sub environment) of the larger environment. When a de novo mutation occurs, it creates and allele that spreads for a while throughout the environment. However, it can only take over a specific habitat where it is useful. When another de novo mutation creates another allele, it also spreads through the entire environment for a while. However, it can only take over another specific habitat where it is also useful.

The two alleles can’t compete with each other because they are concentrated in different habitats! There is still genetic flow between the different habitats in that population. The two alleles may compete in the region between the two habitats.

Each allele is going to maximize its numbers in two different different habitats simultaneously without competing. So if there is a third environment where the two alleles work together synergistically, then both alleles will start to multiply in this third habitat. The two original habitats serve as reservoirs for each allele, supply the third habitat with the needed genetic diversity.

Haldane originally gave an example using hominem in a homogeneous environment. However, hominem evolution really occurred in an inhomogeneous environment. The early savannah was broken up by smaller areas of forrest. So what we call monkeys and great apes differentiated in areas of savannah and forest. The monkeys in the forest ate fruit on small branches. Later, great apes and hominem differentiated again. This time the hominem stay on the savannah and the great apes specialized to eat outlying fruit while standing on large branches. So Haldanes original example was unrealistic because real savannah are have several forests embedded in them.

As a physicist, Haldane’s Dilemma reminds me of Noether’s theorem. Noether showed whenever there is a symmetry in geometry, there is a conservation law in dynamics. Homogeneity is a symmetry in geometry, which applied to biology as physics. In biology, homogeneity seems associated with conservation of species. So breaking the symmetry of a habitat ends up causing a transition in the species number. At least that is my conjecture !-)

 

[leroy]

You started out with this statement-
The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

This is really just not true, about "evolutionists".
Why would you even say such a thing?

So you missed on that non-point.

As for "creationists", an ill defined group, the
usual is that while a little adaptive variation is possible,
one species turning into another, let alone genus, cannot
happen because of some sort of built in limits.

but it is not like the simply claim limits arbitrarily.

That is exactly what creationists do.

I still do not see where "creationists" have contributed anything. Haldane was a creationist?

And re Haldane- his idea has of course not been proven.



Prease exprain.

Ok, evolutionists also claim that there are limits, but the thing is that evolutionism allows for a wider range of changes (caused by genetic mutations and natural selection)

I just gave you examples of several limits, these are not arbitrarily, and the claims are testable, one can in theory prove or disprove the claims.

But lets say that it is really-really so that random mutations
and selective pressure cannot alone account for
the speed of evolution.

What does that have to do with creationism?
I see no connection at all.

It is not suppose to be an argument for creationism; it is suppose to be an argument against evolution. (Darwinism) if the blind forces of nature like natural selection and random mutations cant account for all the diversity of life, then we should go and find a different theory…….I would suggests that the relevant key mutations are not random but intended.

 

[Audie]

CHIMERAS: Haldane's dilemma

 

[Audie]

Ok, evolutionists also claim that there are limits, but the thing is that evolutionism allows for a wider range of changes (caused by genetic mutations and natural selection)

I just gave you examples of several limits, these are not arbitrarily, and the claims are testable, one can in theory prove or disprove the claims.



It is not suppose to be an argument for creationism; it is suppose to be an argument against evolution. (Darwinism) if the blind forces of nature like natural selection and random mutations cant account for all the diversity of life, then we should go and find a different theory…….I would suggests that the relevant key mutations are not random but intended.

Ok, good, you admitted to a false statement, Few seem capable
of as much. But then you kind of spoil it with "evolutionists claim".

"Evolutionist" is a baloney word, and "claim" is utterly misapplied.
No wonder you find yourself distracted by semantics!

evolutionism allows for a wider range of changes (caused by genetic mutations and natural selection)omething we seldom see.

There is no such thing as evoluitonism. Quit making things
up!

As for "wider range" etc, that is so vague as to be meaningless.

As for several limits, you gave nonsense like
irreducible complexity, and, Haldane, which does not
limit evolution. Even if it is true it does not.

argument against evolution. (Darwinism)

There you go AGAIN with your invidious misnomers!!!!
"Darwinism"? Seriously?
And, it is NOT an argument against ToE.

Of course there is more to evolution than random mutations
and natural selection. How long has it been since anyone may
have thought that??

Maybe that is why you bring up "darwinism", as it is so 19th century.

.I would suggests that the relevant key mutations are not random but intended.

Suggest as you will, you have not one (1) datum point
for this.

 

[Polymath257]

so you start with a chimp-like ape, then you get a couple hundred mutations and vualah you end up with an intelligent, talking bipedal human, that can digest meat, be immune to several diseases, doesn’t have that much hair, doesn’t have thumbs in the feet, + all the other attributes that are unique to humans?.........if things where that simple it would be easy to create a talking chimp in a laboratory, apparently all you need is modify a few dozen genes, (it shouldn’t be hard to do it)

1. Yes, regulatory genes can do exactly these types of changes fairly easily.

2. No, we don't have fine control over specific genes in primates as yet.

 

[Skwim]

I am not aware of any creationists who deny speciation.

I'm assuming you simply misspoke here, because all creationists deny speciation.

The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless,

Not at all. The changes have to conform to the conditions that foster them.

while creationists believe that there are limits.

Yes, and for some reason those limits prevent speciation.

If you what to extend this, it could be said that Darwinists (or neo Darwinists) believe that the process of random mutation and natural selection where responsible for most of the diversity of life, while creationists claim that only small bits of variation can be accounted by this mechanism. (not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

What do you see as the relevant difference?

You have a point, evolution and creationism are umbrella terms with many different definitions,

Really! Boy, I've been here on RF for quite some time now and I've seldom seen any confusion over either term. Almost without fail:

Evolution, as it stands in opposition to creationism, posits the evolution of species.
Creationism claims that god created all species as is.

You might argue that creationists are wrong and that such barriers do not exist, but YEC do provide testable and verifiable evidence, that may be proven to be ether correct or wrong.

And I assume you believe some of this testable and verifiable evidence proves YEC claims to be true and evolution to be wrong. If so, please share.

Ohh, my main point was simply that creationists do provide explanations on why and how the mechanism of natural selection + random mutations is limited, . . .

Sorry, but I'm a bit ignorant of why and how the mechanics of evolution are so limited as to prevent speciation. Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks.

One of the many limits that they propose is the one that I explained earlier, (haldines dilemma) this has to do with the speed of evolution, and the point is that even under the best possible scenario, organisms with slow reproductive rates (primates for example) cant accumulate any relevant amount of “changes” even in 5M years.

But there is no such dilemma.

The Claim
J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 107 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in genes could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.


The Response
1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:

The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
source
​

For references see linked article.

.

.​

 

[leroy]

David Rosen, studied at Brooklyn College
Answered Dec 3, 2017 · Author has 6.3k answers and 1.9m answer views



No! Not in my opinion. Haldanes Dilemma is only valid in a homogeneous environment. Environments that are completely homogeneous don’t exist.

Haldane’s dilemma basically says that two mutated alleles can’t evolve simultaneously in a homogeneous environment because each allele is competing against the other allele. If one allele starts to propagate exponentially, the other allele has to decrease exponentially. Because each mutation can’t allow another mutation to propagate until it has taken over the population, you can’t have complex organs that are formed from many different alleles evolve in a homogeneous on a reasonable time scale.

Every little mutation has to take over before it can allow another little mutation to spread, at least in a homogeneous environment. So evolution of complex systems can’t even occur on a geological time scale. You can’t have punctuated evolution in a homogeneous environment because the transition time from one complex for to the other would be longer than quasi-evolution. Ever de novo mutation would take thousands of generations to take over before allowing another de novo mutation to take over.

If Haldane’s Dilemma were strictly true and the earth’s environment was homogeneous, there would not even be polytypes. We couldn’t have different varieties of the same species live with a small amount of gene flow between them. Every de novo mutation would produce alleles that reached an optimum number where the fitness was averaged over the entire environment. There could be no spatial clines, especially not ring species. The human population would have one brownish skin tone instead of being divided into shades of black, white and brown.

The reason that Haldane’s Dilemma is not a real paradox is that the environment is not homogeneous. Every environment on earth is broken up into habitats with different sub-environments. These sub environment can be small geographical regions or even scales of size.

So what happens is that subpopulations optimize their genetic distributions within a habitat (i.e., sub environment) of the larger environment. When a de novo mutation occurs, it creates and allele that spreads for a while throughout the environment. However, it can only take over a specific habitat where it is useful. When another de novo mutation creates another allele, it also spreads through the entire environment for a while. However, it can only take over another specific habitat where it is also useful.

The two alleles can’t compete with each other because they are concentrated in different habitats! There is still genetic flow between the different habitats in that population. The two alleles may compete in the region between the two habitats.

Each allele is going to maximize its numbers in two different different habitats simultaneously without competing. So if there is a third environment where the two alleles work together synergistically, then both alleles will start to multiply in this third habitat. The two original habitats serve as reservoirs for each allele, supply the third habitat with the needed genetic diversity.

Haldane originally gave an example using hominem in a homogeneous environment. However, hominem evolution really occurred in an inhomogeneous environment. The early savannah was broken up by smaller areas of forrest. So what we call monkeys and great apes differentiated in areas of savannah and forest. The monkeys in the forest ate fruit on small branches. Later, great apes and hominem differentiated again. This time the hominem stay on the savannah and the great apes specialized to eat outlying fruit while standing on large branches. So Haldanes original example was unrealistic because real savannah are have several forests embedded in them.

As a physicist, Haldane’s Dilemma reminds me of Noether’s theorem. Noether showed whenever there is a symmetry in geometry, there is a conservation law in dynamics. Homogeneity is a symmetry in geometry, which applied to biology as physics. In biology, homogeneity seems associated with conservation of species. So breaking the symmetry of a habitat ends up causing a transition in the species number. At least that is my conjecture !-)

Random mutations would occur at the same rate, regardless if the environment is homogenous or not (that is part of the definition of being random) and Im already assuming extreme selective pressure, far beyond to what we are currently observing, only under a condition of strong selective pressure a mutation would become fixed and dominant in 100 years.

Far from homogeneity, haldane assumes extreme and unrealistic selective pressure, his point is that even under this convenient scenario it is impossible to account for all of the changes required to produce a modern human and a modern chimp from a common ancestor who lived 5M years ago

 

[leroy]

I

The Claim
J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 107 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in genes could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.
​

.

.​

Ok, change 300 generations for 1 generation, you wont get anywhere close to the desire numbers anyway.

It is true Haldane made assumptions that might not be granted, but even if you change this assumptions for claims that you would grant, you won’t get the desired numbers anyway.

 

[Audie]

Far from homogeneity, haldane assumes extreme and unrealistic selective pressure, his point is that even under this convenient scenario it is impossible to account for all of the changes required to produce a modern human and a modern chimp from a common ancestor who lived 5M years ago

You are confident that you are qualified to make this
statement?

At the risk that someone will cry forth "Ad Hom!!",
when I see you using creation.com as an info source,
it kinda makes me think you are not much of a geneticist.

I know I am not, but then, I dont make extravagant claims
such as require serious expertise.

 

[leroy]

I'm assuming you simply misspoke here, because all creationists deny speciation.

.​

Quote a single article from a creationists site, where the creationist author denies speciation. At most you might find some random YEC on youtube and forums who would deny speciation, but you won’t find a single relevant site who would deny speciation.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure but most mutations do not become fixed and dominant in a population, most mutations get vanished by genetic drift. Only “very positive” mutations have a reasonable chance to overcome genetic drift.

And this is wrong. Genetic drift tends to *keep* genes, but just change them a bit. Well, that is what we see.

The point remains the same, as Neo-Darwinist you are forced to accept the view that the important differences* between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” where obtained by adding just a few thousand positive mutations, (neutral mutations are irrelevant)

That is an overestimate of the number of beneficial mutations thought to be required. Remember that regulatory genes can induce changes in many different systems based on small changes in the regulatory gene. The actual number of *beneficial* mutations between the chimp-human ancestor and modern humans is probably in the low hundreds, at most.

With “important difference” I mean all the stuff that clearly distinguish us from other apes (intelligence, language, bipedalism, larger skulls, larger brains, digestive system, etc.) there are many important and tangible differences between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” these differences would have to be achieved by beneficial mutations, are we to belive that just a few thousand mutations are required to produce such differences?....or is it more plausible to say that there are other mechanism apart from random mutations and natural selection that would produce larger changes in a small period of time?

Most of these correspond to fairly minor changes in regulatory genes: allow the developmental process for growth of the brain to last just a bit longer and you get a whole host of positive changes from a single mutation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Audie]

Quote a single article from a creationists site, where the creationist author denies speciation. At most you might find some random YEC on youtube and forums who would deny speciation, but you won’t find a single relevant site who would deny speciation.

I expect you got skwimskwim on that one.
Good work.

Is speciation different from evolution? - creation.com

Let us now see if HE can admit to a gross error.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

The only people who claim that there is an evolution vs creationism debate are young Earth creationist who claim that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old and who reject evolution, claiming that it's a vast scientific conspiracy. The vast majority of theists believe that there was a creator and that this creator used the process of evolution to create complex life, so for them there is no debate.

 

[Valjean]

How nature came to existence out of nowhere?of course not magic, so
explain how nature came to existence from no material of any kind compared
to what we're observing now?

You want a comprehensive overview of theoretical physics?! In a chatroom?!

Sorry, but some things can't be summed up in a few paragraphs.
Physics is very complicated, and what we already know defies common sense.

Any attempt to import a commonsense view of reality to such a question is futile. Reality can only be perceived mathematically or experimentally.

Science and technology long ago abandoned personal incredulity as a measure of reality.

 

[Valjean]

I believe it should be named Creator vs magic.

But creation without physical mechanism is magic. Magic is the presumptive method God uses, according to creationists, to do all that He does.
"Creator" is the agent. Magic, the mechanism. You're attempting to conflate the two.

 

[Valjean]

I am not aware of any creationists who deny speciation.

The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

Exactly -- I agree. My question, though, is how -- by what mechanism -- does this progression of small changes stop? When do the 'limits' kick in and create a creature impervious to further change? Why has such an immutable creature never been observed?

If you what to extend this, it could be said that Darwinists (or neo Darwinists) believe that the process of random mutation and natural selection where responsible for most of the diversity of life, while creationists claim that only small bits of variation can be accounted by this mechanism. (not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

Agreed, and one side has mountains of empirical data supporting its case. The other side presents personal incredulity, and tries to discredit aspects of the first in the assumption that it's an either-or proposition.

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games, usually none of the sides present positive evidence for their case.

Here I don't agree. One side does present the aforementioned mountain of empirical data, while the other mostly takes potshots at it, in the assumption that if it can be discredited their belief in magic poofing will be bolstered.

 

[Audie]

Exactly -- I agree. My question, though, is how -- by what mechanism -- does this progression of small changes stop? When do the 'limits' kick in and create a creature impervious to further change? Why has such an immutable creature never been observed?

Agreed, and one side has mountains of empirical data supporting its case. The other side presents personal incredulity, and tries to discredit aspects of the first in the assumption that it's an either-or proposition.
Here I don't agree. One side does present the aforementioned mountain of empirical data, while the other mostly takes potshots at it, in the assumption that if it can be discredited their belief in magic poofing will be bolstered.

I think the side that keeps talking about "Darwinism" and
"evolutionism" just might be the one who is responsible for
all the semantic problems.

 

[Valjean]

One of the big problems is that they really don't seem to understand the ToE. Apparently it's no longer being taught in school, and misconceptions about it are rife.

 

[Salvador]

I'm assuming you simply misspoke here, because all creationists deny speciation.


Not at all. The changes have to conform to the conditions that foster them.


Yes, and for some reason those limits prevent speciation.


What do you see as the relevant difference?


Really! Boy, I've been here on RF for quite some time now and I've seldom seen any confusion over either term. Almost without fail:

Evolution, as it stands in opposition to creationism, posits the evolution of species.
Creationism claims that god created all species as is.



And I assume you believe some of this testable and verifiable evidence proves YEC claims to be true and evolution to be wrong. If so, please share.



Sorry, but I'm a bit ignorant of why and how the mechanics of evolution are so limited as to prevent speciation. Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks.



But there is no such dilemma.

The Claim
J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 107 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in genes could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.


The Response
1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:

The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
source
​

For references see linked article.

.​

The role of horizontal gene transfer needs to be explored as well as the evolutionary mechanisms of natural mutations, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, and genetic recombination for the emergence of genetic diversity generational changes of a population's gene pool.

Cosmic ancestry theory can often explain the transitional evolutionary changes between species that aren't well-explained by traditional Darwinian evolution.

Viruses can insert new genes, which have never before encountered by a species, to become part of the species' genome. These transferred genes are a vital part evolution. According to Cosmic Ancestry, the horizontal transfer of genes by viruses and other means is essential for evolutionary progress.

Three New Human Genes
and De Novo Genes in General | What'sNEW

Entirely novel human-specific protein-coding genes originating from ancestrally noncoding sequences have been reported by two geneticists at the University of Dublin

Reference:

David G. Knowles and Aoife McLysaght, "Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes" [abstract], doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109, Genome Research, online 2 Sep 2009.
Discovery of novel genes..., by EurekAlert!, 1 Sep 2009.
Genes That Make Us Human, by Elizabeth Pennisi, ScienceNOW, 1 Sep 2009.
Three human genes evolved from junk, by Michael Le Page, NewScientist, 3 Sep 2009.
Which Genes Make Us Human? by Alan Boyle, MSNBC, 3 Sep 2009.

."Analyzing available data, they identified genes that are expressed in the human species but not in chimps. They then looked for simiar sequences in other primates, finding three. The chimp and macaque (unexpressed) sequences are nearly identical to the human one, but are interrupted by frameshifting insertions and stop codons.
Although the three human genes are known to be expressed from several lines of evidence, their functions are not definitively characterized. However one, chronic lymphocytic leukemia upregulated gene 1 (CLLU1), appears to have a role in that human disease. Its sequence among humans, compared to the matching one in chimps and macaques, is illustrated below.

"Multiple sequence alignment of the gene sequence of the human gene CLLU1 and similar nucleotide sequences from the syntenic location in chimp and macaque. The start codon is located immediately following the first alignment gap, which was inserted for clarity. Stop codons are indicated by red boxes. The sequenced peptide identified from this locus is indicated in orange. The critical mutation that allows the production of a protein is the deletion of an A nucleotide, which is present in both chimp and macaque (indicated by an arrow). This causes a frameshift in human that results in a much longer ORF capable of producing a 121-amino acids-long protein. Both the chimp and macaque sequences have a stop codon after only 42 potential codons." © Genome Research 2009
CLLU1 is also disabled by a matching point insertion in the gorilla and gibbon, but not orangutan, genomes. The geneticists reason, If the ancestral primate sequence was coding, then we would need to infer that an identical 1-bp insertion occurred in four lineages independently, whereas if we infer the presence of the disabler in the ancestral sequence, then we must infer two independent 1-bp deletions. The inference that the ancestral sequence was noncoding is a more parsimonious explanation of the data, even without considering that the parallel insertion of a specific base into an identical location is probably less likely than the parallel deletion of one base. ...We hypothesize that these genes have originated de novo in the human lineage, since the divergence with chimp from ancestrally noncoding sequence.

Consider the human nucleotide sequence designated CLLU1, 121 codons in length. A codon, three nucleotides, may encode any of 20 amino acids, or a stop. (But this sequence is a gene, an open reading frame with no stops.)
Assume that the protein encoded by this nucleotide sequence needs ~25%, or 30, of its codons exactly right. In other words, only 1 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 30 positions. The chance that 30 random codons will match this sequence in one trial can be estimated as

(1/21)^30 = ~10^-40
Assume that the remaining 91 codons in this sequence may vary widely, encoding any of 10 of life's 20 amino acids, but no stops. In other words, 10 out of 21 codons can occupy each of those 91 codon positions. The chance that 91 random codons will satisfy these criteria in one trial is approximately

(10/21)^91 = ~10^-30

Combining these assumptions, the chance that a given sequence of 121 random codons will constitute a working version of this gene is on the order of

10^(-40-30) = 10^-70 ..."

(This method copies Chandra Wickramasinghe's in The Legacy of Fred Hoyle, reviewed 2005.)

Reference: Metazoan Genes Older Than Metazoa?, 25 Oct 1996.

"If a new genetic program arrives by the strong panspermia process, intervening (ancestral) species should possess either nearly identical versions of it ...or nothing similar.."
Reference: New genetic programs in Darwinism and strong panspermia, 7 Apr 2002.
.At least some of the silent DNA is for future use ."]Reference: Why Sexual Reproduction?, first posted May 1996.
"Point mutations and other simple mechanisms can switch existing programs off and on."
Reference: Testing Darwinism versus Cosmic Ancestry, 24 Nov 2002
"This process would ...depend on sophisticated software management that can recognize an installed program."
Reference: Duplication Makes A New Primate Gene, 21 Feb 2005.
"New genetic programs will be continually offered for testing."
Reference: How is it Possible?, first posted May 1996.

The human genome has 145 "alien" genes that can't be linked to any of our distant past ancestors; these genes are in our genome from the process of horizontal gene transfer. These 145 human genes, which nobody inherited from any distant past ancestor, might have been the result of genetic engineering by advanced extraterrestrial intelligence.

Reference:

Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes

• Alastair Crisp,
• Chiara Boschetti,
• Malcolm Perry,
• Alan TunnacliffeEmail author and
• Gos MicklemEmail author

Genome Biology201516:50
Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes

• Received: 25 September 2014
• Accepted: 4 February 2015
• Published: 13 March 2015

[