Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 10, 2020, 12:51 (1535 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I suggest that the process is on-going, with a constant acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes. Natural selection merely decides which genes are necessary and which are not.[…]

DAVID: The acquisition of new genes in your statement now in red is not supported. Remember I am forced to use Darwin-biased articles, and this one agrees with Behe in carefully couched terms. Your Darwinism is showing.

dhw: You are not forced to do anything. You quoted the article as if it confirmed that evolutionary advances always result from loss of genes. The article does no such thing. [And you say it agrees with Behe, but your heading says "not Behe"!] As far as my own proposal is concerned, the acquisition of new genes has plenty of support: [I offered you three articles, plus another which you yourself quoted:

Under “Evolution: viruses critical role” you have even quoted another source:
'The second study, Sakashita et al., involves endogenous retroviruses that act as another type of enhancer—gene regulatory elements in the genome—to drive expression of newly evolved genes. This helps fine tune species-specific transcriptomes in mammals like humans, mice, and so on.

DAVID: Your articles are from 2013, not current presentations. Research advances, and yes new genes appear, but it still appears major evolutionary changes, as per the article I presented and from Behe's book result in loss of DNA. It depends upon which genes you are looking at and how much new they create. Let's stick with apples, not oranges.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that new genes appear, i.e. that my proposal IS supported. I’m in no position to say whether 2020 researchers have unanimously agreed with your claim that “advances always result from loss of genes”– which I disputed and which I’m happy to see you have now greatly modified - and the article quite explicitly did not support this claim (why else did you say "not Behe"?). And I’d be surprised if there was unanimous agreement in 2020 that any research carried out in 2013 is now past its use-by date. I’m also in no position to say how much new is created by new genes, and nor I suspect are you, but the only reason you gave for rejecting my proposal was that there is no support for “the acquisition of new genes”. Yes there is, so why is my proposal not feasible?

DAVID: Of course older literature is constantly reviewed and used. My point is older findings, if in dispute with new discoveries or reviews cannot be used as refutations. Behe's book describes large species alteration through deletion of DNA. The article you've read supports it in large part, but couched with Darwin qualifiers as I noted.

Firstly, why is this thread headed “not Behe”? Secondly, you have agreed that new genes appear, and my proposal includes the appearance of new genes. Are you really certain that research carried out in 2013 concerning the appearance of new genes has now unanimously been discredited, even though you agree that new genes appear? Secondly, is there really unanimous agreement that “advances always result from loss of genes”, as you claimed? (I disputed the use of “always”.) And thirdly, has the scientific world now unanimously discounted my proposal? I would have thought it was sheer common sense! Has it really been proven that new species never have new genes or new uses of old genes, and how could any organism survive loss of genes if the genes were not unwanted or “dispensable”, as in the article you recommended?