Posted: Jan 22, 2011 2:29 pm
I'm proposing a special case of redundancy that would replace deleted genes.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.
Wrong. Behe's paper clearly states that these things happened ONLY and only when genes were first deleted. And in teh paper you cited, the gene was first deleted. And it then evolved again. So what's teh explanation? RM+NS, or genetic redundancy?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.
Obviously if in no other case have we seen RM + NS evolve new functions EXCEPT where genes were first deleted, then RM + NS is NOT a good explanation. Genetic redundancy is a better explanation.