[Rachumlakenschlaff]

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.

[Nebullis]

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.

The proteins were changed by changes in the gene. Also, determination of selection is based on the ratio between neutral changes and changes that result in effective differences.

I suspect it matters to you because you spent several posts deriding the study. It matters to us because the effort you invest in dismissing evolution, a foundational theory of science, needs to be based on scientific principles and genuine research. Your argument against the study in the article makes it obvious that you are ignorant of the elementary correspondence between a gene and a protein. The rest of your posts make it clear that you don't have a clue about much of science in general.

[Condorman]

I don't have access to the original paper

Really? It took me 37 seconds to find it. Next time, try whining as your SECOND step.

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 you accuse ME of not reading the article carefully? Based on your performance so far I have grave reservations about your ability to understand the analysis methodology even if you did have access to it. But let's look at the actual passages from the original thread. I have emphasized the relevant portions. Pay attention, this is likely new information to you:

Some say positive selection favors duplicated genes that take on a new function. Others credit the lack of negative selection; because the new gene is redundant, it is free to mutate until it finds a new job. But most studies are based on statistical analyses that cannot distinguish definitively between the alternatives.

Then further down, this point is reiterated:

Every change reduced the enzyme's ability to degrade double-stranded RNA--the enzyme's original job. This hints at a lack of negative selection. But statistical analysis showed that the duplicate gene evolved much faster than would be expected from random change, suggesting that positive selection was at work too

Now what were you babbling about, again?