Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by David Turell @, Friday, October 16, 2020, 15:15 (9 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: …no matter how we define speciation, it would still leave wide open the question of how loss of genes can create anything new. Why do you think it is not feasible that the loss of genes RESULTS from speciation, as above?

DAVID: Answered: Gene loss, gene network modifications, changes in gene expressions altogether are reasonably capable of of speciation.

dhw: That is not an answer. Why is it not feasible that there will be genes which a new species will not require and will therefore jettison?

DAVID: Note the red above. I answered your suggestion with agreement.

Your answer ranks gene loss alongside the other two factors in CAUSING speciation. I am proposing that gene loss is the RESULT of speciation – the genes are not needed and are therefore discarded.

dhw: Do these studies claim that evolutionary innovation is caused by loss of genes? And do they discount the possibility that evolutionary innovation is caused by new genes and new functions for old genes, while useless old genes are jettisoned? And do you happen to know if Behe has examined the incidence of new genes in new species?

DAVID: I've seen no mention from him of new genes. Why do you ignore the article on chimps and us? It says there was gene loss and reorganization!!!

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that there is gene loss! I am disputing the argument that gene loss CAUSES speciation, and this whole discussion began by my disputing the claim that evolutionary advances “always result from loss of genes”. All you have come up with is the fact that genes get lost during adaptation, and initially you disputed the concept of new genes. The fact that speciation must involve reorganization of genes is so obvious that it is barely worth stating.

We can stop here. Basically we do not know how speciation works. Just theories, not Darwin's


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum