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

by David Turell , Friday, September 11, 2020, 22:18 (1533 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, September 11, 2020, 22:32

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.

dhw: Firstly, why is this thread headed “not Behe”?

DAVID: To point out people other than Behe are making the same observation.

dhw: So why is it a “different view” if, as you claim, it is now the accepted view?

The start of being accepted at least for adaptations within species. Behe is about actual speciation.

dhw: 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? [Thirdly], is there really unanimous agreement that “advances always result from loss of genes”, as you claimed? (I disputed the use of “always”.) And [fourthly], 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?

DAVID: The point at issue is whether new species are due to new gene complexes appearing. Of course new genes appear, but in established species we follow with minor modification, if at all. This is a new issue with the field in flux. What I have found in the current literature is appearing to be supportive of Behe. The issue is how speciation occurs, not whether new genes appear.

dhw: If the issue is in flux, please don’t claim that articles written in 2013 have been discredited and that “advances always result from loss of genes”. According to the article you quoted, loss of genes accompanied adaptation. There was no mention of innovation or of speciation. And since your only objection to my proposal was that there was no support for the acquisition of new genes, and you have now withdrawn that objection, please explain why you continue to object to my proposal.

2013 articles reflect thinking at that period of time. We are talking about new analyses related to how new species might appear. Remember the article I quoted had this headline: "By Losing Genes, Life Often Evolved More Complexity" And what is found is disappearance of DNA. If loss of DNA results in beneficial adaptation within a species, it is easy to make a stretch, as you do in so many of our debates, to suggest that might be the way new species appear. Behe's book makes quite a case for it. At least accept that point.