The book Darwin Devolves

[Seeker]

I like Lee. If nothing else he's a brother in Christ. But it really does seem that he is only capable of observing any and all evidence through a lens of his own preconceptions.

I second that, though I don't claim to be a Christian.

[shunyadragon]

About 1 per gene per 100 million years! In eukaryotes...

Blessings,
Lee

Not a coherent answer, and a meaningless assertion.

[HMS_Beagle]

Not a coherent answer, and a meaningless assertion.

It's just Dory quote-mining a value from a paper he hasn't read and doesn't understand.

[Roy]

About 1 per gene per 100 million years! In eukaryotes...

Checking Dory's source exposes that this is the fixation rate, not the occurrence rate. It's also, as he noted, the per gene rate, not the rate for the entire genome.

Factoring in the current human population and number of genes, with an approximated generation time of 25 years, gives an estimated rate of gene duplication mutations in humans of about seventy thousand every year. That's almost enough to duplicate every gene three times.

That differs from Dory's suggested commonality by 13 orders of magnitude.

[Roy]

Did you realize that there are typically multiple duplications in every human that weren't present in either parent? Now imagine how common duplicated genes are in something like E. coli.

No, I wasn't aware of that.

What do you base your "unlikely" on?

Well for one:

Source: Lehigh response

The rate of any particular gene suffering a degradative mutation is expected to be about a hundred times faster than duplication. Thus every gene that could help by being degraded would have an average of 100 chances to do so for every one chance another gene would have that could help by duplicating.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So Dory bases his "unlikely" on being ignorant of how frequent gene duplications are, and being ignorant of means of correcting hypomorphs other than gene duplication (which he was told a week ago but has apparently forgotten).

[lee_merrill]

Checking Dory's source exposes that this is the fixation rate, not the occurrence rate. It's also, as he noted, the per gene rate, not the rate for the entire genome.

Factoring in the current human population and number of genes, with an approximated generation time of 25 years, gives an estimated rate of gene duplication mutations in humans of about seventy thousand every year. That's almost enough to duplicate every gene three times.

That differs from Dory's suggested commonality by 13 orders of magnitude.

Which would make the human genome project impossible. But I believe the 1 in 100 million years is a population fixation rate per gene.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Which would make the human genome project impossible. But I believe the 1 in 100 million years is a population fixation rate per gene.

Blessings,
Lee

You may believe this, but . . . not supported by a legitimate scientific reference not quoted out of context, which is your modus oporandi.

[lee_merrill]

You may believe this, but . . . not supported by a legitimate scientific reference not quoted out of context, which is your modus oporandi.

How have I misquoted the reference?

Source: Zhang

Lynch and Conery estimated that gene duplication arises (and is fixed in populations) at an approximate rate of 1 gene^-1 100 million years (MY)^-1 in eukaryotes such as Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, D. melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans…

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

How have I misquoted the reference?

Source: Zhang

Lynch and Conery estimated that gene duplication arises (and is fixed in populations) at an approximate rate of 1 gene^-1 100 million years (MY)^-1 in eukaryotes such as Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, D. melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans…

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, as Roy pointed out unethical dishonest selective citation to justify your religious agenda.

[Roy]

Checking Dory's source exposes that this is the fixation rate, not the occurrence rate. It's also, as he noted, the per gene rate, not the rate for the entire genome.

Factoring in the current human population and number of genes, with an approximated generation time of 25 years, gives an estimated rate of gene duplication mutations in humans of about seventy thousand every year. That's almost enough to duplicate every gene three times.

That differs from Dory's suggested commonality by 13 orders of magnitude.

Which would make the human genome project impossible.

It wouldn't, of course, since that still leaves 280 million people born every year who don't have a gene duplication. The HGP can (and did) simply note what gene set is possessed by more than 99.9% of the population.

Your objection is akin to claiming it's impossible to know how many fingers humans have because some people are amputees.

But I believe the 1 in 100 million years is a population fixation rate per gene.

What you believe is irrelevant.

How have I misquoted the reference?

You've quoted it correctly. But you've shown no sign of understanding what it means, and several signs of not having the faintest idea.

[lee_merrill]

In the book Darwin Devolves, Behe mentions work by Thornton that states that evolution doesn't seem to have a reverse:

Source: Thornton

Whether evolution can go back to an ancestral structure just by reversing the selection pressure on function has been a long-standing issue, but one hard to address based on just the history of forms. Bridgham et al. have now physically reconstituted ancient versions of a regulatory protein ... They find that amino acids that were essential in an ancestral protein become neutral in a more recent form, where they are then subject to erosion by genetic drift. This loss deprives natural selection of the necessary raw material with which to reverse the historical substitutions — they are no longer 'adaptive' as they were in the other direction. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no turning back.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Behe writes:

Source: Darwin Devolves

In fact, they predict that further work “will support a molecular version of Dollo’s Law.” That is, “as evolution proceeds, shifts in protein structure-function relations become increasingly difficult to reverse.” If they are right, as there is every reason to think, the results throttle Darwinian evolution even further.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

In the book Darwin Devolves, Behe mentions work by Thornton that states that evolution doesn't seem to have a reverse:

Source: Thornton

Whether evolution can go back to an ancestral structure just by reversing the selection pressure on function has been a long-standing issue, but one hard to address based on just the history of forms. Bridgham et al. have now physically reconstituted ancient versions of a regulatory protein ... They find that amino acids that were essential in an ancestral protein become neutral in a more recent form, where they are then subject to erosion by genetic drift. This loss deprives natural selection of the necessary raw material with which to reverse the historical substitutions — they are no longer 'adaptive' as they were in the other direction. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no turning back.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Behe writes:

Source: Darwin Devolves

In fact, they predict that further work “will support a molecular version of Dollo’s Law.” That is, “as evolution proceeds, shifts in protein structure-function relations become increasingly difficult to reverse.” If they are right, as there is every reason to think, the results throttle Darwinian evolution even further.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

As clearly demonstrated by The Lurch and Roy Behe clearly unethically and selectively abuses science for a religious agenda, and you persist in mindlessly citing his trash.

[Roy]

In the book Darwin Devolves, Behe mentions work by Thornton that states that evolution doesn't seem to have a reverse:

Right. It's difficult to reverse a whole series of adaptive or neutral changes.

So what?

[shunyadragon]

In the book Darwin Devolves, Behe mentions work by Thornton that states that evolution doesn't seem to have a reverse:

Source: Thornton

Whether evolution can go back to an ancestral structure just by reversing the selection pressure on function has been a long-standing issue, but one hard to address based on just the history of forms. Bridgham et al. have now physically reconstituted ancient versions of a regulatory protein ... They find that amino acids that were essential in an ancestral protein become neutral in a more recent form, where they are then subject to erosion by genetic drift. This loss deprives natural selection of the necessary raw material with which to reverse the historical substitutions — they are no longer 'adaptive' as they were in the other direction. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no turning back.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Behe writes:

Source: Darwin Devolves

In fact, they predict that further work “will support a molecular version of Dollo’s Law.” That is, “as evolution proceeds, shifts in protein structure-function relations become increasingly difficult to reverse.” If they are right, as there is every reason to think, the results throttle Darwinian evolution even further.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

In more careful reading, evolution is not dependent on nor is their any concept of a reversal. Hiw is this meaningful to the discussion?

[lee_merrill]

Right. It's difficult to reverse a whole series of adaptive or neutral changes.

So what?

Hiw is this meaningful to the discussion?

So evolution would tend to get stuck, even if selective pressure was reversed, it would be difficult for the mutations to reverse.

Source: Darwin Devolves

If they are right, as there is every reason to think, the results throttle Darwinian evolution even further.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee