Posted: Dec 31, 2014 10:53 pm
Rumraket wrote:jamest wrote:Rumraket wrote:Shrunk wrote:
Still waiting for your example of a "new gene" of the sort you are describing ever arising, anywhere.
We don't just need an example, we need well defined metrics for determining what does and does not qualify as "new".
How much must one gene differ from another to be considered "new"?
Is it not the case that we can distinguish between different genes? If so, then there must already be some sort of biological definition in place sufficient to know when a 'new gene' arises?
Yes, but that definition is rejected by creationists (it's called a new allele, new alleles arise simply through mutation. A single mutation in a single gene would make it a new allele under population genetics). That's why we want THEM to define what would qualify as new, so we can then show them an example that qualifies under their own supplied definition.
Then MN really needs to respond to this post of yours, for his whole argument hinges upon it. Actually, it doesn't, since I don't think that the experiment suffices to make the sort of claims that have been made here. And as you know, I'm a theist.