Paper on gene duplication shows limits to divergence

Atheistoclast · #1 by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 2:06 pm

You might want to read this paradigm-shifting paper, that demonstrates the evolutionary constraints imposed on gene duplicates, that has been authored by an acclaimed member of Ratskep:

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol91No1/temp/jgen147.pdf

Enjoy.

The_Metatron · #2 by **The_Metatron** » Feb 17, 2012 2:19 pm

So, is this the one that devastated Darwinism?

Atheistoclast · #3 by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 2:23 pm

The_Metatron wrote:So, is this the one that devastated Darwinism?

Its just another nail in the coffin, matey.

Shrunk · #4 by **Shrunk** » Feb 17, 2012 3:09 pm

Congratulations, 'Clast, on getting you paper published. I also see that you have provided a perfect example of the tactic that I described in this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1195285

Atheistoclast · #5 by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 3:21 pm

Shrunk wrote:Congratulations, 'Clast, on getting you paper published. I also see that you have provided a perfect example of the tactic that I described in this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1195285

If it works, it works.

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Feb 17, 2012 3:27 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:So, is this the one that devastated Darwinism?

Its just another nail in the coffin, matey.

So when you make claims in the future, we can disregard them as being self-conceited bullshit?

Spearthrower · #7 by **Spearthrower** » Feb 17, 2012 3:32 pm

Once again Joe. Can you spell out how this in any way, shape, or form damages the case for evolutionary theory?

Please be specific.

campermon · #8 by **campermon** » Feb 17, 2012 3:33 pm

Can any biologists sum up what the paper's about for a lowly physicist?

blindfaith · #9 by **blindfaith** » Feb 17, 2012 3:35 pm

wheres the nail joe?

z8000783 · **#10** by **z8000783** » Feb 17, 2012 3:38 pm

campermon wrote:Can any biologists sum up what the paper's about for a lowly physicist?

"Evolution ain't as fucking good as the fucking evolutionists think it is."

John

campermon · **#11** by **campermon** » Feb 17, 2012 3:41 pm

z8000783 wrote:
campermon wrote:Can any biologists sum up what the paper's about for a lowly physicist?

"Evolution ain't as fucking good as the fucking evolutionists think it is."

John

I was thinking about a little more detail than that.. :what:

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 17, 2012 3:42 pm

I see no paradigms shifting.

Perhaps there's one hiding somewhere in the paper I didn't notice.

Joe should be able to point to it with ease.

z8000783 · **#13** by **z8000783** » Feb 17, 2012 3:52 pm

campermon wrote:I was thinking about a little more detail than that..

"Evolution ain't as fucking good as the crazy fucking evolutionist scumbags think it is."

John

campermon · **#14** by **campermon** » Feb 17, 2012 3:54 pm

z8000783 wrote:
campermon wrote:I was thinking about a little more detail than that..

"Evolution ain't as fucking good as the crazy fucking evolutionist scumbags think it is."

John

Atheistoclast · **#15** by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 4:00 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Once again Joe. Can you spell out how this in any way, shape, or form damages the case for evolutionary theory?

Please be specific.

For 40 years we were brainwashed into believing that gene duplicates were the raw material for evolutionary innovation,. We were told that they diverged and acquired new functions. This paper reviews the literature in the introduction and shows how all the recent evidence shos that gene duplicates actually serve as useful backups and are retained as such by natural selection. It then conducts a computer simulation that demonstrates this compensatory effect and how the need to retain existing functionality supercedes any potential for novelty. In other words, it exposes a natural limit to biological change.

trubble76 · **#16** by **trubble76** » Feb 17, 2012 4:06 pm

It doesn't seem to have anything in it that even wobbles evolutionary biology. Perhaps I missed it, could you highlight the specific parts which are the most devastating to current understanding?

Atheistoclast · **#17** by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 4:16 pm

trubble76 wrote:It doesn't seem to have anything in it that even wobbles evolutionary biology. Perhaps I missed it, could you highlight the specific parts which are the most devastating to current understanding?

Look, if gene duplicates are being retained as backups, that compensate for deleterious mutations at paralogous sites, rather than used as substrates for innovation, then evolutionary theory has a major problem explaining how new functionality arises.

z8000783 · **#18** by **z8000783** » Feb 17, 2012 4:19 pm

Is it 'Either/Or'?

John

Paul G · **#19** by **Paul G** » Feb 17, 2012 4:19 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
trubble76 wrote:It doesn't seem to have anything in it that even wobbles evolutionary biology. Perhaps I missed it, could you highlight the specific parts which are the most devastating to current understanding?

Look, if gene duplicates are being retained as backups, that compensate for deleterious mutations at paralogous sites, rather than used as substrates for innovation, then evolutionary theory has a major problem explaining how new functionality arises.

Why is that a nail in the coffin?

Atheistoclast · **#20** by **Atheistoclast** » Feb 17, 2012 4:23 pm

Paul G wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
trubble76 wrote:It doesn't seem to have anything in it that even wobbles evolutionary biology. Perhaps I missed it, could you highlight the specific parts which are the most devastating to current understanding?

Look, if gene duplicates are being retained as backups, that compensate for deleterious mutations at paralogous sites, rather than used as substrates for innovation, then evolutionary theory has a major problem explaining how new functionality arises.

Why is that a nail in the coffin?

Because gene duplication is so central to evolutionary theory. You need to explain where new types of genes orignate.The conventional explanation is that of duplication and divergence.