Behe has not in fact shown that, but what are these thousands of changes? Are you assuming that these processes can’t run in parallel in different genes? Are you assuming that only the gene duplications that result in new functional genes actually happen? I see a lot of Texas sharpshooter situations are lurking around here.
Incidentally, there is no Nobel Prize in evolutionary biology or even in biology.
Of course it can. Those populations are descended from prior populations, and population genetics can tell us how one population turns into another. That’s all this is.
There are 10k genes that are not shared across all four animals. Thousands of changes is conservative. I am not assuming anything here. The Texas sharp shooter claim is being misused.
Not given this data. These Venn diagrams with differences are also in animals we considered closely related.
This was a complement that I think you argue in good faith. I do think you mis use the TSS claim. Observing a gene that is highly preserved shows the opposite of the TSS claim.
Such numbers seem prohibitive. However, we must be cautious in interpreting the calculations. On the one hand, as discussed previously, these values can actually be considered underestimates because they neglect the time it would take a duplicated gene initially to spread in a population. On the other hand, because the simulation looks for the production of a particular MR feature in a particular gene, the values will be overestimates of the time necessary to produce some MR feature in some duplicated gene. In other words, the simulation takes a prospective stance, asking for a certain feature to be produced, but we look at modern proteins retrospectively. Although we see a particular disulfide bond or binding site in a particular protein, there may have been several sites in the protein that could have evolved into disulfide bonds or binding sites, or other proteins may have fulfilled the same role. For example, Matthews’ group engineered several nonnative disulfide bonds into lysozyme that permit function (Matsumura et al. 1989). We see the modern product but not the historical possibilities.
This is Behe admitting it’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
‘All four animals’ don’t matter. Only the human/mouse difference matter. If normal, established processes are fast enough for that, they’re definitely fast enough for the rest.
If you aren’t assuming anything, you have no model. But you seem to be equating gain or loss of many genes with many changes in one gene, which is what Behe is modeling.
What data? What Venn diagrams? So far you have mentioned only one diagram, and most people would say that chickens are quite distantly related to zebrafish.
Is it too much to ask for you to post what you’re talking about before referring to it rather than afterwards? Is it too much to ask for a real citation? And after all that, the figure is irrelevant to the point it supposedly addresses.
The current mechanism (gene duplication and divergence) cannot show rats and mice share a common ancestor based on population genetic mathematics. Both rats and mice cannot be modeled to share a common ancestor with mole rats. If you look at a primate Venn diagram you will see the same problem.
I have to ask you to show your work on this assertion. How does that diagram show any such thing? And are you in fact now claiming that each species was separately and specially created?
We defined common synteny blocks in human, mouse, rat and NMR genomes and identified segmental duplications and lineage-specific insertions and deletions. By analysing single-copy orthologous groups, we constructed a phylogenetic tree involving the NMR and other mammals. As expected, the NMR placed within rodents and its ancestor split from the ancestor of rats and mice approximately 73 million years ago, whereas the ancestor of NMR, mouse and rat split from rabbit approximately 86 million years ago. Thus, in spite of some exceptional traits, the overall properties of the NMR genome appeared to be similar to those of other mammals.
Since you have never looked at any data, much less listened to it, you don’t actually know this. But your conclusion is just insane. This is flat-earth quality crazy. Note that not even the most rabid creationists agree with you.
