[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?

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Condorman, with utmost civility, kindly said:

Next time, try whining as your SECOND step.
Pay attention, this is likely new information to you.
Now what were you babbling about, again?

Sorry, personal attacks and all embedded "information" are summarily being dismissed as a waste of everyone's time.