Are you assuming that these other sequences do exist in all cases?
but theobald is talking about redundancy, so he clearly refer to the fact that we can change one amino acid by other one.
That is not at all clear, no. He does give examples of proteins where that can be done (such as cyt-c), but that is not a necessary precondition for his argument.
1 Like
his own words: “and is observed in all known proteins and genes”. so we see now that is not observed in all proteins. this also bring up the question of how that protein evolved in the first place if it is so conserved. it is probably very isolated in the sequence space.
We don’t, no. That some protein sequence might constitute a local optimum, and mutant variants off it are selected against, doesn’t mean no other sequence could functionally do it’s job.
Even for the most ultra-conserved sequences known, we also know there are individuals among us (and other species with these genes) carrying mutant versions of them, apparently largely unaffected, and hence the sequences are capable of functionally substituting for the canonical sequence and support life. Those mutants might have ever so slightly lower fitness that manifest on much larger timescales (are visible to purifying selection over the course of many generations in a way that matters in evolution) in ways that don’t translate into any immediate quality of life defects.
I’m sorry but your continued attempt to derive contradictions or falsifications from highly contingent and generalized statements, all stand and fall on your own excessively dichotomous thinking, and total lack of comprehension of protein biophysics.
No, a local optimum does not imply a sequence is isolated(how narrow the peak of the hill is does not say anything about how broad the base is, or whether other functions overlap it in sequence space), it just implies it’s the best one among local variants at it’s current function. We had an entire thread devoted to this that I can’t be bothered repeating here.
Edit: fixed link
2 Likes
Question, @scd: Exactly what does it take for you to admit you are wrong on a question pertaining to a subject regarding which you have no qualifications or knowledge whatsoever?
Asking for a friend…
1 Like
but again, we are talking about redundancy here. and that redundancy is basically about the abillity to replace one amino acid by others. thus, if we cant replace the majority of amino acids in a specific protein then theobald claim is incorrect and it has nothing to do with redundancy.
Yawn.
No, all over again, for the same reasons.
lets agree to disagree.
Person A: “I’m no mathematician, but the square root of 9 is a million.”
Person B: “No, I teach math for a living. The square root of 9 is 3. 3 x 3 = 9. That’s how you know.”
Person A: (Keeps asserting the square root of 9 is a million for dozens of posts.)
Person B: (Keeps explaining, patiently and in various ways, why this is incorrect).
Person A: “Let’s agree to disagree.”
2 Likes
You had me wondering. 
1 Like
I was wondering myself how that happened. 
1 Like
I need a citation of a paper showing it happening over generations.
I’d be interested too. So far I haven’t seen anyone citing sources that refute specific arguments.
actually a gene duplication is just a duplication of existing “genetic information”. so it isnt a new complex information. for why we cant get a new “complex information” see here:
but i can ask you the same: why you disagree with behe and axe when they are experts in their field and you are not?
Of course. Here’s a very small selection.
I like this one here below in particular because it’s also been discussed on this forum, and you can entertain yourself by reading all the exceptionally crappy excuses professionally employed ID-creationist propagandists concocted to try to explain why these results somehow don’t count.
Näsvall J, Sun L, Roth JR, Andersson DI. Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence. Science . 2012;338(6105):384-387. doi:10.1126/science.1226521
Here’s one that showed the emergence of whole-genome duplication(yes, the doubling of the entire yeast genome) evolved 46 times independently over the course of 4000 generations:
Fisher KJ, Buskirk SW, Vignogna RC, Marad DA, Lang GI (2018) Adaptive genome duplication affects patterns of molecular evolution in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . PLoS Genet 14(5): e1007396. Adaptive genome duplication affects patterns of molecular evolution in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
This is a very recent one that shows multiple different, large-scale duplications of different genes were beneficial in a novel environment:
Blount ZD, Maddamsetti R, Grant NA, et al. Genomic and phenotypic evolution of Escherichia coli in a novel citrate-only resource environment. Elife . 2020;9:e55414. Published 2020 May 29. doi:10.7554/eLife.55414
2 Likes
Well as I wrote in my first post in this thread:
I could offer a definition of information myself to show how trivial it is for beneficial genetic information to evolve, but then they (I’m speaking from experience) just invent some bs reason for why that’s not what they mean by information.
And here we have it:
I’ll remind you that you asked for
I have shown what you asked for, with references, regardless of all the bad excuses we will now hear from our resident ID-creationist.
2 Likes
Is the human genome bigger than the chimpanzee genome? If it is, how much? And what is that putative extra genetic material that we have which couldn’t possibly evolve over the course of 6 million years? Do they say?
Oh btw, we didn’t evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. The chimpanzee species we see today also has a 6 million years evolutionary history since that time.
2 Likes
They use ‘Spetnerian metrics’ for information, named after Lee Spetner who wrote a book in which he jumped between multiple methods of quantifying information (all inconsistent with each other) to claim that evolution adds no information to the genome.