Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 07, 2020, 15:58 (1507 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You misunderstand Behe's main point. His gene loss made new species, not new functions, although that can also happen.

dhw: You misunderstand my main point. I don’t see how gene loss can MAKE new species, and am proposing that new genes or new functions for old genes make species, and the loss of genes is the RESULT of speciation, because natural selection roots out whatever is no longer required. Please explain why this is not feasible.

DAVID: This statement of yours is specifically totally incorrect. Behe clearly shows loss of genes speciates as does this new entry. The bold is a backward view of the process. The loss causes speciation. It can be seen as a rearrangement of genes and a restructuring of old gene expression in new gene networks of the remaining genes. And why do you drag in natural selection? Your Darwin bias is back.

dhw: I haven’t read Behe, but you have told us that this is his theory. The new entry does not show that loss of genes CAUSES speciation, unless you have omitted something from the quotes. It says that all four studies “found massive gene losses….This suggests that major evolutionary transitions do not occur solely by means of tinkering with existing genes. Instead, it seems that vast numbers of existing genes bb are jettisoned and replaced by entirely different ones.” Do you really believe that there would be a new species if the jettisoned genes were not replaced by new ones? The existing genes that are jettisoned are not needed because they are replaced by the new ones!

Your declaration of 'there must be new genes' I view as a cry of despair! The article is not edited by me to hide gene gains. In that regard, all it discussed was gene loss!!!

The genes that remain will indeed be restructured. All this fits in perfectly with my proposal that speciation is caused by the “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.” In my response to your post, I didn’t “drag in” natural selection. That was a follow-up to the quote “Evolution by bursts is, of course, not expected if natural selection is the main driver.” However, I must stress that I am not arguing with Behe – I can only discuss the points you raise. Now please tell me why my proposal is not feasible.

Because the evidence presented does not support it for new genes. Where I agree is: new functions of old genes by reorganization of gene expression and redeveloped gene wide network associations may well be the cause of speciation.