Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

How do you show new proteins are the product of evolution is the evidence shows so little variance?

You do what they did here:

A Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts

Which I also expounded on at length here and which you never responded to:

Criticism of Both Flavors of Creationism

There are some things in biology that only make sense in the light of evolution, and the gradual and de novo gain of novel protein coding genes is one such thing. I mean just take a look at this section in this paper: De Novo Genes Have Unique Sequence Characteristics as Compared with Conserved Genes The de novo candidates share a number of structural properties that differentiate them from the genes conserved outside the two genera. They are significantly shorter, have a lower codon adaptation index and a higher aggregation propensity compared to conserved genes (supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online). Their biosynthetic cost is also lower than those of noncoding sequences, in agreement with an intermediate stage from a noncoding to a coding state (supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online). When recent, de novo genes are not enriched in intrinsically disordered regions compared to conserved genes. The low propensity of recent genes to disorder was previou…

And your crap about duplications and more about that yeast de novo gene paper and how to show they evolved here:

Criticism of Both Flavors of Creationism

Those are fixed gene-duplicates in yeast, not the rate of occurrence of duplication mutations “in vertebrates” that you asked for. I quote that paper for you again like I did a month ago: Note that by “gene duplication rate we” mean the rate at which a duplicated gene is created by mutation and becomes fixed in the population. The fixation probability of duplicated genes should be largely affected by natural selection (14). I could of course just refer to that offshoot of the Lenski experiment in which the total genome size for E coli increased by over 20% from hundreds of duplications in less than 3000 generations to show what happens when a locus prone to duplication suddenly has a positive fitness effect when amplified. Incidentally the method used in the paper you link is phylogenetic, that is they’re using common ancestry to calculate a rate of fixed duplicates over deep time by counting differences between species thought to share common ancestry. A method you explicitly r…

Your endlessly recycling questions and arguments have been answered by pretty much everyone around here probably a hundred times by now.