# Constructive Neutral Evolution

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/constructive-neutral-evolution/4675>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [February 20, 2019, 5:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/constructive-neutral-evolution/4675 "2019-02-20T05:31:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 86

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2020, 6:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/constructive-neutral-evolution/4675/86 "2020-07-13T18:42:53Z")

</div>

> [@ETVB](#):
>
> So how can we tell if a gene is de novo, or part of a design?

This question presupposes that “de novo” excludes “part of a design.” That seems obviously wrong to me. If that is the question you meant to ask, then it can’t be answered without accepting its nonsensical premise.

> [@ETVB](#):
>
> In theory you could get what appears to be new information, if there were pre-programmed “sub-routines” set up for adaptation to various circumstances.

It seems to me that you are proposing some kind of magic, and that’s not worth discussing. If instead you are proposing what biologists call “preadaptation,” then we can discuss what that might mean for evolution and/or for whatever it is you mean when you say “a design.” If you are curious about how selection can act “in advance” to “encourage” the development of new coding sequences, see the two papers I mentioned earlier in the thread, especially the one from the Masel group.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/constructive-neutral-evolution/4675)._