Posted: Jan 22, 2011 2:45 pm
by GenesForLife
Царь Славян wrote:
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.
I'm proposing a special case of redundancy that would replace deleted genes.

You are speaking out of your arse then, in cases of redundancy, if we were to delete genes, no re-evolution will happen.
Looks like you just handwaved everything away to have your little deposition of shit.

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.
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?

The gene was not deleted, in place of a region within a gene, a random sequence was introduced, firstly.
Secondly, Behe's paper doesn't say anything about genes being deleted, it states that if loss of genes provides a benefit, that loss will be part of adaptive selection, and a lot of the documented mutations within laboratory experiments fit this category, that is all, Care to show where Behe's paper states that "only when genes are deleted, they will reevolve, ergo redundancy"?

Nowhere does he state "all genes can evolve only when deleted" , and since the paper doesn't say what you claim it does, your post will be reported for quote mining.

You are still speaking out of your rear, with nary a citation to back your perurile garbage up. I asked you for direct empirical evidence, not ex-recto drivel, now put up or shut up.

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.

Bzzzz, fail again, care to go back and read the very wikipedia article you thought constituted evidence for your drivel?
The problem with attempting to use redundancy to explain anything is this

From an evolutionary standpoint, genes with overlapping functions implies minimal, if any, selective pressures acting on these genes. One therefore expects that the genes participating in such buffering of mutations will be subject to severe mutational drift diverging their functions and/or expression patterns with considerably high rates. Indeed it has been shown that the functional divergence of paralogous pairs in both yeast and human is an extremely rapid process. Taking these notions into account, the very existence of genetic buffering, and the functional redundancies required for it, presents a paradox in light of the evolutionary concepts. On one hand, for genetic buffering to take place there is a necessity for redundancies of gene function, on the other hand such redundancies are clearly unstable in face of natural selection and are therefore unlikely to be found in evolved genomes.

That is from the same Wikipedia article that you quoted, and quoted selectively, and irrelevantly.
To explain things clearly to you, note the bolded bit and learn why evidence indicates redundancies are not a good explanation and are not likely to be found in evolved genomes at all. In other words, you have lied again.