Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
But they didn't change the gene. They changed the protein that the gene coded for. This is very clearly stated, they made "... nine amino acid changes that separate the duplicate from the original". Amino acids make up proteins, not genes. Furthermore, they seem to have confused themselves because they refer to both gene duplication (the focus of the research) and end up talking about protein duplication. I would suggest you read the article carefully.
Nebullis wrote:
How do you think they changed the protein?
I don't know. I don't have access to the original paper and the synopsis doesn't say. In reality, it doesn't matter anyway. Let's stipulate that they changed the gene. Naturally, they got what the changed gene coded for. What does it prove? They made changes to a gene (the action of intelligent agents), got different proteins (completely predictable), and those proteins did not perform as well as the original. So far I'm not impressed. They then do some sort of statistical analysis (presumably along the lines of determining how fast the presumed duplicated gene evolved into a useful form - but who knows?) which the synopsis doesn't specify but the claim is made that the analysis is evidence of positive selection. And I am expected to accept this as incontrovertible proof of duplicated genes in action. The standard for proof in the field of evolution is incredibly low compared to real science.