Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]You misunderstand Behe's main point. His gene loss made new species, not new functions, although that can also happen.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]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.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]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.[/i]
> 
> 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 “[i]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 [b]are jettisoned and replaced by entirely different ones[/b].[/i]” 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 [b]because[/b] they are replaced by the new ones! 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 “[i]Evolution by bursts is, of course, not expected if natural selection is the main driver.[/i]” 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.