Slightly Longer version of the video:
ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent - Paul Nelson - video
Whatever Happened To Darwin’s Tree Of Life? - Paul Nelson - video
Microbial genomes multiply - Russell F. Doolittle - 2002
Excerpt: It is precisely this point — the large numbers of putative genes with no known function — that has been the biggest surprise in genome sequencing.
Analysis of Singleton ORFans in Fully Sequenced Microbial Genomes - Naomi Siew and Daniel Fischer - 2003
Excerpt: Because there is no obvious evolutionary mechanism to account for the origin of single-member families, one might accept the explanation of their origin as extreme divergence. However, even if all ORFans correspond to highly divergent members of known families, a number of puzzling questions arise. For example, how have their sequences diverged to such an extent that no similar sequences are detected today? If evolution works through descent with modification, then why is it that no similar sequences are found in other organisms? Why is it that wedo not find today any of the necessary “intermediate sequences” that must have given rise to these ORFans?
Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008
Excerpt: We have found >139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref.  do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.
Excerpt: There certainly are many genetic similarities between allied species, but we now know of dramatic differences and the list is growing. This prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have since been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. Even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. 
Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species.  As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.”  These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…
ARMAN’s Novel Genes and Unique tRNA Editing - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
Excerpt: the ARMAN species have about two orders of magnitude fewer ribosomes than common bacteria. And their genes don’t map nicely to other organisms. About a fifth of their genes are similar to bacterial genes, and a few of these have never been found except in bacteria. Meanwhile about a third of the ARMAN genes appear to be unique, with no known cousin genes in other species.
Some of the ARMAN species also have some unique molecular machinery. Specifically, they have a unique protein enzyme that edits newly transcribed genes,,, The editing of tRNA genes is one of those fundamental molecular processes hailed by the evolutionists above which were supposed to “point to a grand pattern of descent with modification.” But when we look closely, what we actually find are violations of the pattern. A couple of the ARMAN species, for instance, suddenly show up with their own unique solution.
I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Dr. Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the genetic evidence we now have.
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background:
"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;
Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen.
"What would Darwin have made of that?"
A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010
Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life”
Excerpt: Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” and “one group suggests one biogeographic pattern, and another group suggests another” is because the genes and organisms have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that not all living organisms are ancestrally related, thereby fulfilling a testable prediction of the orchard model.
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes.,,, Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate
genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. (The 1,177 ORFan genes in humans are completely unique to our lineage)
In fact it turns out that the authors of the preceding ‘kick the ORFans out in the street’ paper actually did know that there was clear and unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore that strong evidence in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias of forcing the genetic sequences of chimps and humans to be as similar as possible. That is EXACTLY how you ARE NOT suppose to practice science!!!:
Moreover new ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as older genes:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
New Genes in Drosophila Quickly Become Essential - 2010
I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot even account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
“our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236).”
“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: – Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
Also of note: the recent 'test' that purported to unambiguously prove common ancestry is shown to be 'trivial':
The common ancestry of life Eugene V Koonin and Yuri I Wolf - 2010
Excerpt: A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.- Results
We devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins.
Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design
Marsupial Embryos Challenge Common Ancestry - audio podcast
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
Loading more stuff…
Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?