“The first article on creation​.com under the search for gene duplication says.….“Proponents of the gene-​​duplication hypothesis of evolution argue that a mutation can cause the duplication of a gene that allows one copy of the gene to mutate and evolve to perform a novel function, while allowing the other copy of the gene to continue to perform the original gene’s function. Gene duplication is now widely believed by Darwinists to be the main source of all new genes. A review of the evidence shows that there are numerous problems and contradictions in this theory and the empirical evidence indicates that gene duplication has a role in variation within kinds but not in evolution. ””

I have a link for you. You may not want to read it right now, but… here it is: http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=380

I’ve dealt with that article before. In February, actually. It contains one of my favourite “nonsensical” creationist phrases ever: “Some invertebrates can tolerate polyploidy. Male bees, for example, have a haploid number of chromosomes and females a diploid number. This does not cause the females to evolve faster, however, as the gene duplication theory might predict.” XD

“Article 2 is a copy of Article 1.”

That makes things simple. See above. ;)

“Article 3…“Gene duplication
SEC raises an old canard, about new functions by gene duplication: RE2 ch. 5 points out the many problems with this idea. What would keep the duplicated gene ‘off’ while it mutates, until a new function arose totally by chance — natural selection can’t work on this gene unless it is translated — then be switched on with this new function? ””

This assumes that duplicated genes that have been mutated are, for some reason, selected against, or for some reason cannot be translated alongside the original gene. That has no genetic basis.

“Article 4…“Evolution requires a simple form of life to have morphed into increasingly complex organisms. Since the
basis for biological complexity is genetic complexity, some biologists propose that the complicated genomes in
modern organisms arose from one or a few genes in a common ancestor through duplication, with subsequent
neofunctionalization through mutation and natural selection. Here we examine the known mechanisms of gene
duplication in the light of genomic complexity and post-​​duplication events, and argue that: (1) gene duplications are
aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather than selective
advantage; (2) duplicated genes are usually silenced and subjected to degenerative mutations; (3) regulation
of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous
development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism.””

Hmm. I’ll have to check that one out. Don’t hold that as a victory — just that I’m not an omniscient deity.

“Article 5…“Increased amounts of DNA don’t mean increased function
Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information — these mechanisms create nothing new. ””

Aha, but what about the mutation of the duplicated sequences? Seems a bit weird that they would suddenly forget about such a thing, considering that the articles above it explicitly mention it.

I’m going to call intellectual dishonesty here. For the time being.

“Article 6.…“It is suggested here that diazinon resistance and multiple resistance from gene duplication may be the result of designed mechanisms that allow for adaptation in created life. It is pointed out that evolutionists are increasingly discussing genetic and metabolic systems within the context of computer programming. ””

What suggests that? What evidence do they have to make such a design claim? I’ll check these articles out, but it doesn’t sound promising…

And that last sentence is not relevant.

“do i need to go on?”

Probably, but I’ll let you stop here. For now. If you want to.

“obviously all 46 articles mention gene duplication and thats why they came up.
It is not the fault of creation​.com if their visitors do not know to look for gene duplication. But that is not the real issue here.
The real issue is that you said .….“The creationist literature I read (which is, if I may say so, quite a lot) for the most part does not mention gene duplication. Usually there might be one article on that specific website about it, but as the action of gene duplication is supposed to help resolve the “problem” with informational increase, you would expect it to be mentioned in the thousands of articles on AiG, ICR, Creation​.com etc. about that “problem” with evolution. However… it’s not. If they mention it at all, it’s tucked away in the site, not readily visible. ”
This is clearly not true or perhaps you are the person that did not know to search for gene duplication.…or were you appealing to the ignorance of the readers not to verify your research and just accept that creation websites dont even mention gene duplication?”

Hey! Hey. I never said that they don’t mention gene duplication at all, I said that you usually don’t find it in articles talking about informational increase.

And it IS their fault if they don’t make the information clear! Jeez, they’re supposed to be persuading the general public — why implicitly withhold this information from them? It could at least have a mention in the thousands of articles about information theory, even if they think it doesn’t help the evolutionary situation.

“Answers in Genesis .….38 articles
ICR .….140 articles but not all appear to be gene duplication but appear to have searched gene (not as effective a search function)”

No, that wouldn’t be a good search term — you’ll get a whole lot of noise.

“of course all the sites are not supporting common ancestry. Creation​.com is a big promoter of evolution but not common ancestry.”

Yes, I know. <.<

“I think an apology is warranted.”

I don’t. What am I apologising for?

Andrew said.…“i searched creation​.com by putting gene duplication into the search bar. 46 articles came up. hardly hidden or obscure. perhaps they were not listed on the home page and u looked no further.”

Then Jack Scanlan said.…
“Just because something is easily search-​​able, that does not make it easy to find. Remember that the vast majority of the people who visit creationist websites know very little about genetics, so how do they know to search for “gene duplication” if they have never been exposed to the concept?
In the vast majority of articles on creationist websites talking about “increases in information”, gene duplication is never mentioned.”

The first article on creation.com under the search for gene duplication says.….“Proponents of the gene-duplication hypothesis of evolution argue that a mutation can cause the duplication of a gene that allows one copy of the gene to mutate and evolve to perform a novel function, while allowing the other copy of the gene to continue to perform the original gene’s function. Gene duplication is now widely believed by Darwinists to be the main source of all new genes. A review of the evidence shows that there are numerous problems and contradictions in this theory and the empirical evidence indicates that gene duplication has a role in variation within kinds but not in evolution. “
Article 2 is a copy of Article 1.
Article 3…“Gene duplication
SEC raises an old canard, about new functions by gene duplication: RE2 ch. 5 points out the many problems with this idea. What would keep the duplicated gene ‘off’ while it mutates, until a new function arose totally by chance—natural selection can’t work on this gene unless it is translated—then be switched on with this new function? ”

Article 4…“Evolution requires a simple form of life to have morphed into increasingly complex organisms. Since the
basis for biological complexity is genetic complexity, some biologists propose that the complicated genomes in
modern organisms arose from one or a few genes in a common ancestor through duplication, with subsequent
neofunctionalization through mutation and natural selection. Here we examine the known mechanisms of gene
duplication in the light of genomic complexity and post-duplication events, and argue that: (1) gene duplications are
aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather than selective
advantage; (2) duplicated genes are usually silenced and subjected to degenerative mutations; (3) regulation
of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous
development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism.”

Article 5…“Increased amounts of DNA don’t mean increased function
Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new. ”

Article 6.…“It is suggested here that diazinon resistance and multiple resistance from gene duplication may be the result of designed mechanisms that allow for adaptation in created life. It is pointed out that evolutionists are increasingly discussing genetic and metabolic systems within the context of computer programming. ”

do i need to go on?
obviously all 46 articles mention gene duplication and thats why they came up.
It is not the fault of creation.com if their visitors do not know to look for gene duplication. But that is not the real issue here.
The real issue is that you said .….“The creationist literature I read (which is, if I may say so, quite a lot) for the most part does not mention gene duplication. Usually there might be one article on that specific website about it, but as the action of gene duplication is supposed to help resolve the “problem” with informational increase, you would expect it to be mentioned in the thousands of articles on AiG, ICR, Creation​.com etc. about that “problem” with evolution. However… it’s not. If they mention it at all, it’s tucked away in the site, not readily visible. “
This is clearly not true or perhaps you are the person that did not know to search for gene duplication.…or were you appealing to the ignorance of the readers not to verify your research and just accept that creation websites dont even mention gene duplication?

Answers in Genesis .….38 articles
ICR .….140 articles but not all appear to be gene duplication but appear to have searched gene (not as effective a search function)
of course all the sites are not supporting common ancestry. Creation.com is a big promoter of evolution but not common ancestry.
I think an apology is warranted.

regards

Mistakes, yes. Don’t know if I’d call anything the creationists have done ‘scientific’ quite yet.

“There is nothing wrong with both sides keeping each other honest.”

Let me know when the Discovery Institute starts being honest and I’ll endeavour to keep them that way.

(Forgive me, Andrew — I’m the resident snark :-p)

“jack dont apply the logic to creationism that you do not want applied to your own beliefs.”

Of course I wouldn’t. I don’t think I’ve done this.

“creationism has moved on from the guy who believed God put fossils in the ground to fool people.”

I’m well aware of that, but in a rudimentary sense, some essence of that thought remains in ID circles, as it must — everything must have some design purpose to an IDer (to a YEC, this is not necessarily the case, I know — the Fall, etc.).

“you seem like a fairly rational guy. perhaps you could be the only guy on the evolutionist side to apply rational arguments without the condescending “creationists are idiots” commentary.”

Why thank you. But more people than just me on the evolutionary biology side are not condescending. Some people just get tired of the same old arguments over and over again.

“Both sides can and have made scientific mistakes. There is nothing wrong with both sides keeping each other honest.”

Of course. I would just say that the creationist/ID side has made far, far more scientific mistakes.

“It is a false idea that there are no decent scientists who believe in ID.
Michael Behe serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania where he has tenure and therefore can say what he likes without fear of the Darwinist lobby.”

Stepping aside from the issue of calling evolutionary biologists the “Darwinist lobby” (a bold accusation), Michael Behe may be a decent scientist, but what he publishes on evolution is usually fraught with some level misunderstanding on his part and over-exaggeration on the ID community’s part.

However, Behe is not an evolutionary biologist. No ID proponent or creationist is an evolutionary biologist. Without such credentials, it’s hard to take someone who is supposedly challenging a whole section of the biological community seriously.

“Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.”

Yep, he might be good in some areas, but that doesn’t make him perfect.

“Beware not to lump all proponents of an idea in together. Keep arguments to the issue not the man.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Both sides can and have made scientific mistakes. There is nothing wrong with both sides keeping each other honest.

It is a false idea that there are no decent scientists who believe in ID.
Michael Behe serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania where he has tenure and therefore can say what he likes without fear of the Darwinist lobby.
Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

Beware not to lump all proponents of an idea in together. Keep arguments to the issue not the man.

regards

Just because something is easily search-able, that does not make it easy to find. Remember that the vast majority of the people who visit creationist websites know very little about genetics, so how do they know to search for “gene duplication” if they have never been exposed to the concept?

In the vast majority of articles on creationist websites talking about “increases in information”, gene duplication is never mentioned. However, in more technical articles, like the ones you no doubt found, attempts to rationalise gene duplications against creationist views are made — these are attempts that I am currently studying with some scrutiny. But the fact that they acknowledge gene duplications exist and could possibly account for informational increase is never mentioned in the more basic articles — this strikes me as highly intellectually-dishonest.

“what is your assertion? that one creationist who argues something ridiculous invalidates the whole concept of creation or ID?
based on that then evolution would be destroyed by numerous fools who come out with ridiculous ideas.”

No, that was not my point. I would never knowingly argue something so logically baseless. The point was me telling the commenter why I think some creationists think the way they do — this doesn’t necessarily reflect on the truth of creationism or intelligent design.

“In a book entitled Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (page 88),Sir Francis Crick a famous evolutionary scientist & discoverer of DNA wrote: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.

so we definitely know that evolutionists at least one of them believe in Aliens and that this is how life started here. The discoverer of DNA who is an atheist committed to evolution basically acknowledges Intelligent Design. “A miracle” “Alien spread life” None of which answers the question but confirms he believed that ID of some sort was the most likely source of Life.”

And that, my friend, is some sort of appeal to authority — why does Francis Crick get any special immunity from criticism? Co-discovering DNA doesn’t give you intellectual superpowers. He could have been wrong, and probably was wrong. That was the 70s, and scientific knowledge progresses rapidly.

I’d like to dispute your claim that there are very few “God put fossils in the ground to test our faith” creationists around. While the “to test our faith bit” might not be quite accurate, the notion that God (or the Intelligent Designer) sculpted our genomes in a recurring theme in creationist literature.”

what is your assertion? that one creationist who argues something ridiculous invalidates the whole concept of creation or ID?
based on that then evolution would be destroyed by numerous fools who come out with ridiculous ideas.

In a book entitled Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (page 88),Sir Francis Crick a famous evolutionary scientist & discoverer of DNA wrote: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.

so we definitely know that evolutionists at least one of them believe in Aliens and that this is how life started here. The discoverer of DNA who is an atheist committed to evolution basically acknowledges Intelligent Design. “A miracle” “Alien spread life” None of which answers the question but confirms he believed that ID of some sort was the most likely source of Life.

regards

i searched creation.com by putting gene duplication into the search bar. 46 articles came up. hardly hidden or obscure. perhaps they were not listed on the home page and u looked no further.

I know that if this situation were reversed their would be cries of “creationist liars” “lazy researchers” etc. all the usual skepticism that goes with the evolution side of the argument.

we will just put it down to a genuine mistake rather than intentionally misleading people to make your argument appear stronger than it is.

all good skeptics should do their own research.

regards

@Matthew,

All those other comments after my comment with the link to Polyploidy could have been saved by reading the link. It would of saved you asking the same question over and over again when the answer was right in-front of you… It gives examples of gene duplication and increase of information because of it. Kgoread.