Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)|
|That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.|
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?
|Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.|
Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.
Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.
|To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.|
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.
Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.