What About Pseudo-Genes Starting to Code [?]

What Could Irregular Deletions Do? · What About Pseudo-Genes Starting to Code?

Evolutionists will (at least ReiperX will) present a scenario basically like this:

• a gene doubles (within the chromosome or by addition of new chromosomes, doesn't really matter)
• it gains a new function by mutation.

But moment two here actually is two moments:

• it loses its original function by mutation (easy), while the same original function is upheld by the other example of the gene
• it gains a new function by another mutation?

Now, the thing is, just two mutations will hardly ever turn one gene into something different and also functional. One mutation is sometimes absolutely sufficient to turn a gene into a pseudo-gene with no function.

• it mutates once more, but remains a pseudo-gene
• it mutates several times more, remaining a pseudo-gene
• and one day the one last mutation will turn into a real, coding gene - it can be lethal, or irksome, or useful, or sometimes even turn out to be the new necessity.

Now, there are some who would say there can't be one single mutation that turns a pseudo-gene into a gene. Like, with grains of sand, there is no specific grain that turns the collection of grains into a pile.

But a gene is not a pile. With a pile, you can take away a grain of sand, it remains a pile of sand. With a gene, exactly one mutation may be enough to make it a pseudo-gene. Not all mutations, mind you, some leave the resulting proteine exactly the same. You can mutate AUU to AUC or to AUA, it is still Isoleucine. You can mutate ACU to ACC, ACA or ACG, it is still Threonine. But some will change the resulting amino-acid, and as changing ACU to AUU will replace threonine with isoleucine and make the gene a pseudo-gene, changing AUU back to ACU will replace isoleucine with threonine and make it the old gene again - but not likely it happens, and if it does, it's not relevant here.

So, there is a kind of waiting pending mutations to add up, until one pseudo-gene finally turns into a bad or a good gene.

There is in fact no documentation that ReiperX knew of that this ever happened before the eyes of scientists. It's just that this is how they like to explain how certain genes came into existence.

Oh, wait, a pseudo-gene not being necessary, it can during this period undergo a few cuts that make no difference either.

The problem apart from lack of evidence is, why would the genes that are good remain so during all of the mutations? Meantime, they are likely to mutate too, right?

The real problem for evolution believers, apart from showing a pseudo-gene gained a new function in real-time, not in retrospect from supposed common ancestry with animals lacking the function, and with an ideology stating that new functions must have originated by mutation, is then, explaining how the necessary genes keep reasonably intact while a doubled gene becomes a pseudo-gene, then a different pseudo-gene and then even more different pseudo-genes by mutations, until one of them turns it on as a new and different gene./HGL