your argument is totally Teve Meyer (yes , Discovery Inst).. In 2005 there was a book published that said the total % ORFans was abou 62%. Today its down to about 6% (NCSE and NIH data). We keep sequencing more genomes of all kinds of phyla.(By your statement we shoulda STOPPED?). OF course we will find more ORFans as the numbers grow , but these grow smaller in actual % as our larger data bases take numerical precedence .
You dug your own hole on this one. Im just here to help you quit digging.
Where I get a huge laugh is your assertion that youre NOT of a religious POV .Yet ALL your arguments to date , BEGIN with a statement as to how this or that finding youve just now read about, Dismantles Darwin or enhances ID.
an these arguments have been SPOT ON with those of Discovery Institute's statements almost to the word.
Another thing--no conclusions because they still arent done with mega sequencing of genomes but MOST ORFans do have genetic precursors. (nother kinda bogus argument you copied from Steven.
He never considered a condition of speciation that is a fact
"Much genetic "rearrang,ment and insertion of "new genetic information" Occurs AFTER two species have split from a LCA. Look at great apes. The last Common ancestor was that of chimps(bonobos) aand Hominims. We can read this new information added to human chromosome 1 and Bonobo on chromosome 1 and 2. Much of the shared information gets stashed as pseudogenes in human genomes and several new genes got produced and inserted (CMTiA,ROCK1,etc). SMeyers wants to have it many ways without fully explaining to his audience (ANyway, hes just a Philosopher of Science, those guys are always making believe they know what the hell thyere talking about)
The bogus argument you present (basically Myers same stuff from 2005.
1Common descent assumes a vey high % of current genetic info originated with common ancestors.
There nothing he says that quashes that .
Relatives of 62 % of ORFans have been found by analyses of genomes based on post 2005 equipment, techniques and data bases.(He should never make predictions while data is being collected and analyzed. It often takes decades to get a complete story of a phenomenon.
Post s[pecies separation presents much new gene information. These are really irrelevant to evolution being an ID
I dug out a statement from Exporing EVolution on P61 and I repeat it significance.
"More sensitive computational methods may succeed in assigning SOME ORFans to known genotypic families"
NOW THAT;s a big BINGO. I really believe thats what is happening an you just want to even deny how science continues its work.
Science always try to make sure that its conclusions come AFTER the work is all done and the math checks, not the other way around.