DNA duplication, mutation, and information

[Michael_Okoko]

@scd

@Michael_Okoko

Third, the SRE-binding function didn’t exist until evolution rewired the steroid ligand preferences of ERE-specific receptors. So yes, it meets your definition of a new function

are we talking about the same paper? i was referring to this one actually:

Its either you have some sort of amnesia or you just love to tell lies. This is your first time citing this paper. The paper you cited first is on the God hypothesis thread:

@scd

@Rumraket

Reference please.

@Michael_Okoko

Citations?

here:

Evolution depends on rare chance events, 'molecular time travel' experiments show | ScienceDaily

Mechanisms for the Evolution of a Derived Function in the Ancestral Glucocorticoid Receptor - PMC

Then Faizal linked a follow-up study:

@Faizal_Ali

@scd

from the article: " In screening thousands of alternative histories, the researchers found no alternative permissive mutations that could have allowed the protein’s modern-day form to evolve". “Among the huge numbers of alternate possible histories, there were no other permissive mutations that could have opened an evolutionary path to the modern-day GR,” Thornton said"

so what makes you think otherwise?

More recent research from the same lab, for one thing:

…

Scientists create alternate evolutionary histories in test tube

Which is it amnesia or dishonesty? So far the evidence points to the latter.

@scd

“Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, thereceptor’s affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership withchemically similar, more ancient ligands.”

This is irrelevant since it was never the topic of our discussion until now. This is the mess you get into when you cite or say things you are clueless about.

@scd

@Michael_Okoko

Of course there would be cases where a single change won’t suffice and this is a fact we all agree to, so why do you keep bringing it up?

because i think there is a time problem here for evolution.

There isn’t. Its your strawman problem.

@scd

if we agree that at least 2 parts are needed in order to evolve a new organ (or any other complex biological system), then we need to calculate how long it takes to evolve them.

I don’t agree. Evolution uses whatever is available be it one or ten parts. You don’t need to calculate how long a feature would take to evolve if that feature already exists. Instead you need to estimate how long it took an existing feature to evolve to its current state. What is the point in calculating the probability of you existing at this moment, if you already exist?

@scd

so we need to calculate how many mutations are needed to evolve a single part and then multiple it.

No we don’t. Instead we need to isolate the system of interest, get it’s genes and/or proteins and use them to estimate the number of genetic changes that happened and how long since they happened.

@scd

so if the chance to get a new functional part is say one in a billion, then we will need billion^2 mutations to get that new organ.

Let me let you in on a secret: nature cheats, get over it.