Posted: Jan 22, 2011 1:13 pm
by GenesForLife
Behe's paper that you linked actually explains that pretty well. Only when certain genes are deleted can they be evolved again. Not in any other case. Therefore, it is a case of genetic redundancy.

Fucking nonsense, genetic redundancy is not genes being deleted and then evolving again, it is the loss of a gene not affecting the phenotype because there are alternative genes in the same genome. And in the Hayashi paper there was no deletion, there was replacement, firstly, secondly, there was a severe drop in fitness, redundancy doesn't result in loss of fitness, thirdly, thirdly, you are again fucking lying because, if it were a case of redundancy another gene would produce the normal protein, the Hayashi experiment involved replacement with a randomized sequence within a gene, and the fact that they observed adaptive mutations leading to gain of function in the replacement region puts to bed any assertions of a redundant coat protein, in which case one wouldn't have seen the sequence climbing up a fitness peak, but would have caused it to drift randomly.