No Gore. Wrong again. What I wrote had nothing to do with Jenny. You were just being very obtuse ruling out any potential effect of a duplicated gene. Vade and I suggested several instances where duplicated genes can have an immediate beneficial effect. The xylose example is very easy to grasp. I also pointed out earlier how even neutral duplicates could persist being next to "good" genes.
Mendel was very lucky in that the genes which encoded for the phenotypic traits he was tracking showed independent assortment. However when genes are so close together on the same chromosome, they get passed on as if they were "one" gene. Imagine now the duplicate sitting right next to your "dominant" gene in your little pundit square.
No, I am not being obtuse. I am telling you that you are wrong. First of all a duplicate will not work until it is 'connected' to the rest of the organism - just like a tv will not work if you do not have electricity. I have already shown that such is the case, I have given scientific evidence that a gene that is not expressed does not work. You have rebutted by saying that duplicate genes always have the expression factors duplicated at the same time. Such a statement is totally ridiculous to speak of about random mutations. There is nothing that tells where the expression code is to be found within all the non-coding DNA between genes. In fact, there is nothing to tell, where a gene starts. There are no 'start' codons. There are only 'stop' codons. As I mentioned before, the only way scientists have been able to find the starts and ends of genes is by comparing the DNA to that of a protein produced by the body and matching the sequence of amino acids to the DNA that coded it. So you are way out in left field on that.
Mendel was very lucky in that the genes which encoded for the phenotypic traits he was tracking showed independent assortment. However when genes are so close together on the same chromosome, they get passed on as if they were "one" gene. Imagine now the duplicate sitting right next to your "dominant" gene in your little pundit square.
Is this ignorance or obfuscation? It does not matter if it sits next to another gene or not, the picking of genes to be passed on is totally random and whether it gets picked every time the one next to it gets picked or not, the chances of its being picked are still 50% - like those of every other gene in the genome.