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

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 15:23 (1313 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have not mentioned and in fact oppose the concept of chance mutations! That is a total digression. Please tell me what is wrong with what I have written.

DAVID: The human genome study, about thirty years old, shows that all of us, unchanged, are filled with genes with mutations making each of us slightly different.

dhw: Irrelevant to our subject of speciation. (Thirty years old? Then we’d better forget your ridiculous suggestion that studies of “new genes” don’t count because they were written seven years ago.)

All mutations are relevant to the speciation issue. The thirty years refers to the present length of the study time. I thought that was obvious.

DAVID: Our translation and transmission of instructions is tightly controlled as in this entry four days ago:
"Genome complexity: DNA transcription and translation II (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Friday, September 11, 2020, 21:00 (3 days ago)"
and this explains why the mutations mean nothing. I don't know how your 'theory' relates to the major issue of how speciation occurs. The study doesn't seem to show we have new genes.

dhw: You have already agreed that new genes exist. I have proposed that speciation is accompanied by new genes or old genes taking on new roles. That is how my ‘theory’ relates to speciation! According to your version of Behe, evolutionary “advances always result from loss of genes”, and “I view evolution as over and Behe's probable explanation of speciation as a very cogent avenue for a new theory of speciation.” I assumed that meant speciation, but now you suddenly change your terminology:

DAVID: Behe is presenting a reason for species modification.

dhw: Species modification is not speciation! The bear example shows that, just like the article we have been discussing, this theory relates to ADAPTATION, which you agree “goes on either by deletion or gene modification”. It makes perfect sense that when a species adapts to different conditions, certain genes will become unnecessary. But then I would argue that the changes (why “advances”?) do not RESULT from loss of genes: loss of genes is the result of the changes, because they are no longer needed. Let me stress again that I’m not arguing here with Behe. I’m arguing with the muddled case you have presented.

Behe calls his finding "Darwin devolves" and believes his analysis may well tell us how speciation occurs. What In presented is not muddled, but counter to one of your favorite theories straight out of Neo-Darwin.

DAVID: I agree only that a new gene theoretically might appear and its expression will be tightly controlled.

dhw: Yes, of course. There would be no point in a new gene appearing if it didn’t have a particular function.

DAVID: I totally disagree that evolution is ongoing. God has stopped producing it having reached His goal of humans. […]

dhw: That is not the point of our discussion. You objected to my ‘theory’ because you said there was no such thing as new genes. Objection withdrawn. Then you objected because it relied on random mutations, but my theory doesn’t even mention random mutations, and I do not believe in them as the driving force of evolution. Now you object because you have a theory that evolution is finished. OK, then change my tense to “was”, and please tell me at last what you object to.

Currently the human gene study tells us there are many mutations in existing genes and humans are still humans. Where is your theory?