In contrast, a scientific presentation on the evolution of a biological system wouldn’t mention intelligent design or creationism even once. ID simply can’t stand on its own. There are big pieces of data that need to be explained (e.g. nested hierarchy, patterns of sequence conservation) and ID never attempts to tackle them. Instead, ID is essentially anti-evolution and little else.
I’ve never understood this line of reasoning. Orphan genes are exactly the type of evidence for evolution that ID proponents have been asking for. They are examples of how new genes evolve, and they somehow think this is a problem for evolution. I still don’t understand what they are trying to argue here.
I believe the idea is that, according to ID, new functioning proteins cannot arise via unguided processes. The probabilities are just too low. So an abundance of orphan genes (presumably, that encode functional proteins) can only be explained by “guidance”, and would be beyond the reach of unguided evolution.
Of course, the key ID argument here - the supposed rarity of function in sequence space - is known to be wrong. Given this, there seems to be no reason for the affinity that ID proponents have for orphan genes.
From what ID lit I have read, they seemed to get excited about the idea that an orthologous gene was not found in other closely related species. Of course, in many cases there is orthologous DNA which seems to indicate they got tripped up over definitions.
If what you say is true, then ID has entered the Land of the Untestable. Even if we observe a gain of function mutation in the lab they will claim that it was a guided mutation. They would need to explain how they determine if a mutation is guided or unguided other than if it results in function. It’s a bit like someone claiming the lottery is rigged every time someone wins.
They generally simply ignore, or are ignorant of, the evidence of the process by which these genes arise.
The thinking seems to be that, since these genes lack homologs in other lineages, they do not fit the “Darwinian” model, so some other explanation must account for them. And, as always, the ID logic goes “If it’s not Darwin, then it’s Design.”
There are some some strange arguments that are similar to that. I have even seen some ID/creationists claim that genetic differences between species falsify common descent because common descent is supposedly evidenced by homology. There’s some really strange logic within ID circles.
Yeah, this is the key. New genes popping up in different species is evidence against common descent as long as you don’t see the homologous DNA, and you won’t see the homologous DNA if you keep your eyes shut really tight.
This is a deliberate strategy called “get out in front of”. Preemptive damage control. New genes can’t evolve! Oh a new gene evolved? But since they cannot evolve by definition, when they do so that must be because of intelligent design.
A similar kind of strategy is often employed by ID creationists in arguments against research into abiogenesis.
If scientists manage to simulate some natural environment or process, and some interesting organic molecules are produced by this environment, ID creationists will insist the whole things is evidence of intelligent design, because you know, there were scientists who put things into flasks.