Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JerryR's avatar

The essential question has always been is where did the genes leading to proteins come from. Evolutionary biologists will say they built up a long time ago but there is no evidence for this. This is the fallacy of begging the question. They just assume it’s true.

Natural selection happens but it is very rare. It is the process of adaptation and can most often work according to Michael Behe by deselecting or eliminating genes (and thus proteins) that then go inoperative as opposed to adding genes (and thus adding proteins). In other words, the species loses something and doesn’t gain anything. By this lost it can survive better in certain ecologies.

I believe there are a couple of very rare examples of new genes forming and thus, new proteins

What is conspicuously missing from evolutionary biology are examples of these new genes forming. There should be 10s of thousands of them not just a few but all there is are assertions they happen.

Also for every new gene forming, there should be failed but very close DNA sequences in closely related species that eventually separated the species. But we see none reported.

This is one of the failures of ID, to point this out. To point out the failures of evolutionary biology should be one of the main functions of ID. If something is essential for evolutionary biology to be true but is missing, it should be top of mind.

Instead, accept natural selection but point out there are very few examples of it working to produce new proteins. It’s main function is slight changes in current genomes or the actual reduction of the gene producing sequences.

Expand full comment
The Deuce's avatar

Well, I flunked that one with flying colors, I'm glad to say!

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts