Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,13:15)|
I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?
A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene function
B) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)
C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)
D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequence
E) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)
F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functions
G) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)
H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosome
I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.
Their argument is that it would take "10^40 critters to make the gains seen by Behe feasible for the creation of the biodiversity". Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity. Sure it's enough for small changes and microscale evolution but not to justify biodiversity in nature. Actually he challenged us to provide a peer reviewed paper that would prove him wrong, regarding gain of functions and/or that proved Behe's findings to be off.
I mentioned that Lenski had in fact seen a gain of function in 2008 with CITL but this was shrugged off as a typical example of epigenics, "and even if it that wasn't the case it was still so rare that it's a negligible event"
I've asked him to show me the equation that got him that number (10^40) but got no answer.
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin