Since, by proponents of evolution, evolutionary processes created every level of biological organisation and since all living beings depend on genes, as they specify all proteins, functional RNA chains and hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells, from the science perspective - evolution is natural process that produce a new genes. So, the real scientific question is this: is there a knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that processes of evolution can create new genes?

Why are new genes important? Because the hypothetical first self-replicator did not contain genes for three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments, ... etc. All these arrangements are significantly different in their three-dimensional shape, and function, so the information written in genes that represent them also have to be significantly diferent. Ear is different than eye, heart is different than kidneys, DNA polymerase is different ATP synthase, mechanical gears in jumping insects are diferent then bacterial flagellum, knee is different than jaw, liver is differnt then stomach...

So, you cant just randomly duplicate existing genetic code for a particular organ or part of the organ, add few hundred random mutations and voilà, new organ or molecular machine will emerge. Hundred years of experimentation and millions of lab-induced random mutation in various organisms have shown that this is not possible.
Due to this reason the only real scientific test for the idea od evolution is this: can evolutionary processes produce a new or de novo genes? De novo genes are genes without homologues in genomes of other organisms. This question is especially important because comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs in other species. These genes are also called orphan genes. http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abs ... 68-9525(09)00145-0

For example this research identified a total of 60 protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from chimpanzee - http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1002379
The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA–seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability.
Since the chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor 240,000 generations ago, this indicates that the rate of origin of de novo genes is 1 gen per 4,000 generations. Of course, this rate will grow with the future discovery of new unique genes.

So, what can empirical science say about the power of evolution to create a new genes?

Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.
So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations?
Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

One of the changes in this experiment involved something that proponents of evolution refers to as evidence for bacteria evolving a "key innovation", a "new function" and a "fascinating case of evolution in action." A New Scientist writer proclaims: "A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait". In September of 2012 the well-known science journal Nature published an article about Lenski’s experiment entitled, "Evolution: How the unicorn got its horn". One evolutionary biologist said that Richard Lenski’s published research is: "another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists".

So, te question is: what all the fuss was about?

Well, Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate – something they weren’t able to do before. And, they achieved this novel function via evolutionary processes - random mutations and natural selection.
As is generally the case, the devil is in the details. And, when one looks a bit more closely at the details of the Lenski experiment, it loses quite a bit of its luster.
What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy.

And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved. After about 31,000 generations, in a large population of bacteria, there was a single genetic mutation in a bacterium that ended up moving the citT gene and placing it under the control of a promoter that is active under oxic conditions. The protein product, however, remained the same with no required amino acid changes to achieve a selectable effect. All that was required was to move a pre-existing gene close to a promoter to turn it on during oxic conditions. That’s it.

Now, imagine how many new, different genes you need, to be able to construct every observable level of biological organisation, all three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements, organs, tisues, signaling and regulatory networks, checkpoints are control mechanisms, molecular machines, metabolic pathways... and all that evololution can do in 60.000 generation is to move one existing gene from one location to another. That is all. And this is what proponents of evolution all aroud the globe refers to as "fascinating case of evolution in action." Hm..., isn't that interesting?

Why empirical science demonstrates the complete impotence of evolution in the creation of new genes? Well, to create a new gene it is not sufficiently to randomly add variation(mutations) throughout the genome. A coordinated mutations at specific location of the DNA are needed. Also, for the completion of adaptive evolution it is not enough that certain variation enters the population (gene pool), either as the result of random change (mutations), recombination, epigenetic modification, etc. Completion of adaptive evolution requires that such variation avoid stochastic loss(genetic drift) and ultimately become established (fixed) in the population. When we create mathematical models of evolution with this realistic requirements for gene production, what result do we get?

Well, this study show that the appearance of only two coordinated mutations in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years.

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

This is a nice mathematical demonstration of why experimental science shows total impossibility of evolution to create a new genes.

So, the scientific answer to the question mentioned at the beginning is: no. There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new genes. And since all features of living organisms are written on genes, scientific fact is that living organisms are not the product of evolution.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the creation of life.
Your entire post consists of nothing but blind assertions and appeals to personal incredulity.

Also:

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

This is a nice mathematical demonstration of why experimental science shows total impossibility of evolution to create a new genes.

It does no such thing. The exact opposite in fact, it refutes certain claims made by the infamous Behe about mathematics disproving evolution.

0/10. Next time read some evolution text books and actually read the articles you link.

MarioNovak wrote:Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

I see.

So, er, "Therefore, God?" Is that what you are suggesting?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the creation of life.

Evolution requires the creation of new genes, is what he was talking about.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the creation of life.

Evolution requires the creation of new genes, is what he was talking about.

Fair enough, still fails to demonstrate his assertion though.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the creation of life.
Your entire post consists of nothing but blind assertions and appeals to personal incredulity.

Also:

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

This is a nice mathematical demonstration of why experimental science shows total impossibility of evolution to create a new genes.

It does no such thing. The exact opposite in fact, it refutes certain claims made by the infamous Behe about mathematics disproving evolution.

0/10. Next time read some evolution text books and actually read the articles you link.

Well, you must learn to differentiate between scientific knowledge - cognizance of a fact or phenomenon acquired through experiments and observations - and mental constructs of a human mind - ideas, explanations, theories, hipoteses, ad hoc hypothesis, conjectures, etc. This topic is about scientific knowledge. So, your evolutionary books or "what evolution is about" are totally irrelevant in this regard. "Evolutionary book" will not change the results of experimental science which shows total impossibility of random mutation and natural selection to create a new genes.

Alan B wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

I see.

So, er, "Therefore, God?" Is that what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting what is logically necessary. If genes exist and observable processes cannot create them, then it logically follows: - new genes are the result of the "processes" science cannot observe.

MarioNovak wrote:
Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.
So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations?
Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

Were the bacteria all maintained within the same unchanging environment?

MarioNovak wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the creation of life.
Your entire post consists of nothing but blind assertions and appeals to personal incredulity.

Also:

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

This is a nice mathematical demonstration of why experimental science shows total impossibility of evolution to create a new genes.

It does no such thing. The exact opposite in fact, it refutes certain claims made by the infamous Behe about mathematics disproving evolution.

0/10. Next time read some evolution text books and actually read the articles you link.

Well, you must learn to

Never presume to tell other forum members what they need to learn.
You know nothing about me and thus have no basis to start lecturing me.

MarioNovak wrote:differentiate between scientific knowledge - cognizance of a fact or phenomenon acquired through experiments and observations - and mental constructs of a human mind - ideas, explanations, theories, hipoteses, ad hoc hypothesis, conjectures, etc.

From this statement, it is clear you do not know what a scientific theory is.
Hint: it's not a guess or random notion.

MarioNovak wrote: This topic is about scientific knowledge.

Of which you have presented nothing that demonstrates that new genes cannot be created.

MarioNovak wrote: So, your evolutionary books or "what evolution is about" are totally irrelevant in this regard.

Really? Science textbooks are irrelevant when it comes to scientific topics.
Fuck you just really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is the best, current explanation as to how the factual process of evolution works.

MarioNovak wrote:"Evolutionary book" will not change the results of experimental science which shows total impossibility of random mutation and natural selection to create a new genes.

Except you've failed to cite even a single peer-reviewed article that demonstrates this.
And you're still making a fool out of yourself by asserting evolution isn't part of the biological sciences.

MarioNovak wrote:

Alan B wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

I see.

So, er, "Therefore, God?" Is that what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting what is logically necessary. If genes exist and observable processes cannot create them, then it logically follows: - new genes are the result of the "processes" science cannot observe.

Now you have to demonstrate that it is impossible for evolution to create new genes.
Not just blindly assert it.

jamest wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:
Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.
So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations?
Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

Were the bacteria all maintained within the same unchanging environment?

I don't think you even need to engage with this appeal to anecdote. That's assuming his assertions about this study are true, given that he was also talking bollocks about the article he linked to earlier.

MarioNovak wrote:...snipped some whimpering...
"Evolutionary book" will not change the results of experimental science which shows total impossibility of random mutation and natural selection to create a new genes.

That's all well and fine, now all you need to do is actually link some genuine experimental science which shows, or even suggests, any such thing.

I suspect I have quite a wait ahead of me.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:
Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.
So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations?
Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

Were the bacteria all maintained within the same unchanging environment?

I don't think you even need to engage with this appeal to anecdote. That's assuming his assertions about this study are true, given that he was also talking bollocks about the article he linked to earlier.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Richard Lenski is a top evolutionary biologist. Are you disputing the facts of his 25+ year-old experiment?

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:
Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.
So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations?
Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

Were the bacteria all maintained within the same unchanging environment?

I don't think you even need to engage with this appeal to anecdote. That's assuming his assertions about this study are true, given that he was also talking bollocks about the article he linked to earlier.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Richard Lenski is a top evolutionary biologist. Are you disputing the facts of his 25+ year-old experiment?

I'm pointing out, not complaining, that:
A. This is an appeal to anecdote: i.e. one evolutionary experiment, supposedly not leading to new genes, doesn't demonstrate it's impossible, as a rule, for evolution, to create new genes.
B. It's his assertion, without citations, that this experiment did not lead to the creation of new genes.

MarioNovak wrote:

Alan B wrote:

MarioNovak wrote:Science shows that evolution can't create new genes

I see.

So, er, "Therefore, God?" Is that what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting what is logically necessary. If genes exist and observable processes cannot create them, then it logically follows: - new genes are the result of the "processes" science cannot observe.

No, it does not logically follow that the "processes" science cannot observe (at present) will never be able to be observed in the future.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the evolutionary process, but evolution requires abiogenesis to have taken place so that evolutionary change can proceed.
Evolution, by definition, does not create life but relies on pre-existing life created by another process.

I could well be wrong but suspect that the lenski experiment showing change in genes allowing an enzyme to digest a different substrate is being rejected as evolutionary by the op as entirely new genes unrelated to all others did not appear fully functional out of thin air.

In other words it's crocoducks all the way down.

Fenrir wrote:I could well be wrong but suspect that the lenski experiment showing change in genes allowing an enzyme to digest a different substrate is being rejected as evolutionary by the op as entirely new genes unrelated to all others did not appear fully functional out of thin air.

In other words it's crocoducks all the way down.

That''s my suspicion as well.

It is interesting to see that a particular organism did not create one single new gene after 60,000 generations. I think Lenski now needs to repeat the experiment with bacteria which will have to face significant changes to their environment over the course of time. He will also have to repeat the experiment with quite a lot of distinct organisms.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:It is interesting to see that a particular organism did not create one single new gene after 60,000 generations.

Citations?

So you are disputing the facts of the experiment, I see. Well I didn't present those facts, so will leave it to MN to provide relevant citations.