Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 13, 2020, 11:11 (1502 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Well, we have clarified Behe's theory and it is highly suggestive of gene loss playing a major role in speciation since adaptation is mainly from gene degradation.

The examples you have given show that there is gene loss which can be explained by the fact that certain genes are no longer needed when conditions change. Existing genes will take on new functions. This is a far cry from gene loss playing a constructive role even in adaptation. Out of interest, I would like to know if Behe also found new genes in his examples, though I suspect that adaptation itself would not require them, whereas major innovations would. You did not answer my question: what else do you think new genes would be required for if not for innovation?

DAVID: However adaptation does not lead to speciation in the fossil record. Speciation creates gaps. Darwin's gradualism is not proven. Shapiro's theory is another approach, bootstrapping by editing DNA. This is all we have and in comparison I like Behe's approach better since it encompasses a review of genetic evidence. Shapiro is an extrapolation from free-living bacteria. And all Lenski has shown in his E. coli studies is some mutational adaptations in the same species.

We have long since agreed that Darwin was wrong to say that there are no jumps in Nature. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells do the engineering, and it takes into account the research of others into cellular intelligence. I have offered you a proposal concerning the role of new genes, old genes and discarded genes in speciation, and although like all the other theories, it is not proven, I still don’t know why you object to it.