Evolution as I think most people understand it, has to include the supposed process of the making of new species with the spontaneous introduction of new genes that did not exist before. Without this you have no evolution as is taught in some textbooks.

Unfortunately for those who believe in evolution, the changes in the organisms described in this article, and any other, does not show this. It is key part of evolution that has never been observed.

Bart: It is amazing, in this age of information, how easy it is to research something before displaying one's ignorance. Search on "new genes observed" and the very first hit.....

https://www.scien...entists/

Evolution as I think most people understand it, has to include the supposed process of the making of new species with the spontaneous introduction of new genes that did not exist before. Without this you have no evolution as is taught in some textbooks.

Unfortunately for those who believe in evolution, the changes in the organisms described in this article, and any other, does not show this. It is key part of evolution that has never been observed.

Here's where you have it wrong. Gene changes aren't "spontaneous". They develop over a period of iterations. Doesn't have to be a huge amount of iterations. RNA is some pretty amazing stuff, which works with a variety of other RNA types and different proteins to eventually change (even RNA, itself) the DNA blueprint (in the GENES). And it's a wickedly relentless, ON-GOING process,
THAT is Evolution - a way more complex process than we can imagine or be simply explained...

You'll even get relatively similar phenotypes in differing locations if the environment is generally the same...
Or even radically different ones with large environmental contrasts...
(if they survive...)
It's causality based.
"One thing leads to another..."
(An 80s song by the Fixx)

Search on "new genes observed" and the very first hit.....
https://www.scien...entists/

I studied this article in earnest. Unfortunately your eureka moment doesn't seem to have arrived. The article is dealing with genes that have been turned off or reduced in function. Not adding anything new. Note the gene reported on already had the function of making tryptophan.

Others have also seen such reduction in gene complexity. But not the other way around.

"Emergence of a new gene from an intergenic region."
https://www.ncbi....19733073

"Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes."
https://www.ncbi....19726446

"A Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions"
http://journals.p....1000734

Bart, it's called recombination and it happens in mammals every time a sperm or an egg is formed. What happens is, the two chromosomes in a homologous pair twist about each other, and randomly get cut apart and then recombined; sometimes, to form new genetic sequences. The split in a gene can occur at any site along the DNA, and occurs at the homologous site on both strands, thus guaranteeing that you'll get, say, 1/3 of one chromosome and 2/3 of the other, for example, when they're recombined.

Anybody with a microscope can see this happen.

That's where new genes come from.

Now stop making up fairy tales about a super magic sky daddy and grow up.

Oh, and Bart, to make it even more interesting, mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles all use different versions of this same process, and when you get to plants and protozoa and bacteria and archaea, wildly different. But they all do the same underlying recombination thing, in order to create novel genes. Life on Earth has been doing this for a billion years. That's where all the species came from.

So what I'd suggest you do is go learn some molecular biology before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

Now, let's go in the other direction.

Ever heard of a "liger?"

It's the living offspring of a mating between a lion and a tiger.

I'm looking at lions and tigers and I'm making the call these are separate species.

So how can they mate and make a living offspring?

So, now, define "species."

Good luck, Bart.

And here's another nasty little conundrum for you, Bart.

Consider ring species. This is a set of species that have developed around a mountain. Species that are close to one another on the mountain can, and do, interbreed, but as they work their way around the mountain, each end of the ring species gets more and more different, until when they meet on the far side of the mountain from where they started, they can't interbreed any more.

Numerous examples exist and have been fully described.

Once again, Bart, define "species."

And once again, good luck with that, Bart.

So now, Bart, you have two choices:

1. Go back to your Babble about the super magic daddy in the sky who gives you pie in the sky when you die, written by the drunken Stone Age sheep herders, and reduced to meaninglessness by multiple translations from one language to another, or

2. Find out what's actually going on in the real world.

And honestly, man, good luck with that too. Seriously.

Evolution as I think most people understand it, has to include the supposed process of the making of new species with the spontaneous introduction of new genes that did not exist before.

Bart_A

Haven't you ever heard of the word "mutation"?
Look it up and then come back to us.
This is how new genes come to exist, no problem.
Mutations are a scientific fact with many scientifically studied and documented cases (just in case you deny mutations can happen)

BTW, every human baby born has about 64 mutations. Reference: https://www.ncbi....0386.pdf Page 8 of the PDF, marked page 1674 in the journal of record. About 2/3 of these come from the father (sperm) and 1/3 from the mother (egg). The error bars are an order of magnitude, so between 10 and 100 mutations per generation, more or less. That is for humans only.

Mutation rates vary mostly by the class of organism; some important reasons for this include the exact method of recombination during procreation, how much error checking the genome is subjected to and how accurate that error checking is, and the species' home environments.

They also vary by site; much of large eukaryotes' DNA is non-coding, that is, it is never expressed in the organism, and mutations in these areas therefore do not carry the risk of a nonviable fetus, but mutations in coding DNA are selected against by death before procreation.
[contd]

[contd]
Furthermore, this is only the germ-line; within your body, mutations in individual cells also occur, and are fairly common. These do not influence the mutations in any children you might have. You probably have millions of cells in your body that have mutations in them. The overwhelming majority of these are in non-coding DNA for the cell type; of the rest, the majority are fatal and interfere with the working of the cell, and die out and are eliminated. A very few result in cancer of various types, depending on the body cell type, and many of these are detected by your immune system and destroyed. A very, very few actually can grow to be real cancers, and kill you if untreated.

So basically, everyone you know is a mutant. Given this, any argument against evolution because mutations aren't common enough is silliness.