There are many examples of supposedly duplicate genes. However, none have been experimentally shown to add anything to the species. Specifically a new gene needs to be expressed, controlled and called on to act by the rest of the organism, it needs to be expressed. That there are so many apparent duplicates and yet no one seems to be able to experimentally get a new duplicate to work is clear proof against evolution. In fact, real scientists are loath to say that a duplicate does indeed work. The two citations, one from your buddy Lindsay who is an absolute joke and says anything is a fact without substantiation and the other from a magazine do not contradict my statements.
1) The duplication may be helpful right off the bat.
2) Parents in sexual species very frequently have more than one child. Mine did. If a lizard has 40 offspring in one litter, maybe 20 of them carry a given parental gene.
3) Now that you have two copies of the gene, one can change. Yes, some mutations, perhaps most, are harmful but that's what natural selection weeds out.
1. extremely doubtful due to what I said above. In addition, even if it gave a somewhat better survival ability it would have to more than double it to get above the 100% chance of replication needed for it to in any way become fixed in a species. (see below).
2. Number of children does not matter because it is a question of population genetics. You know quite well that I have totally demolished that argument since I have posted it more than once. Here it is again:
As I have been pointing out, family size does not matter so long as it is the same as the average family size of the species. You can use any number you like and you will see that the new trait will dissappear. Since you like big numbers we shall use ten children each generation in a rather small species of only 1000 individuals:
Generation 1: 1 mutant and 999 non-mutants
Generation 2: 5 mutants and 9995 non-mutants
Generation 3: 25 mutants and 99975 non-mutants
Generation 4: 125 mutants and 999875 non-mutants
Generation 5: 625 mutants and 9999375 non-mutants
We started with mutants as .1% of the population, we ended with mutants as .0625% of the population. So obviously the mutation is losing ground, not gaining it as evolution would require.
And in addition to the above you can look at Andrew's Post#1641 Where using the craddle of evolutionism, the most biased site on the internet for evolution, TalkOrigins, he shows that even those folk refute your statement.
3. See my paragraph above.
Evolution postulates that a population changes over time, but it stays integrated and fully functional even as it drifts or else it will die out.
What evolutionary theory postulates is proof of nothing. It is the truth of those postulates which is what these threads are about, so your statement above is meaningless. Science and logic argue against that postulate. That a whole species would coevolve gradually through a bunch of mutations without becoming separate is itself a logical argument against evolution. The scientific arguments against it are presented in my post #347 and still stand unrefuted.
Gore3000 has been given more experimental evidence than Morton’s Demon can shake a stick at:
In fact, real scientists are loath to say that a duplicate does indeed work.
On the contrary, “real scientists” do not doubt that gene amplification is a common mutation leading to an increase in protein expression when it would be of benefit to the organism. Often the duplication contains the appropriate regulatory regions of the promoter along with the gene. When this occurs there is absolutely no reason why it would not be expressed as the parental.. In fact Gore3000 frequently cuts and pastes pages out of his favorite book which clearly says so.
Localized reduplication (gene amplification) of a DNA segment that includes a proto-oncogene, leading to overexpression of the encoded protein