A system of flexibility is required in order for evolution to work. Gene Duplication has been structured to fit a particular system which advocates that duplicated genes have the flexibility to evolve new functions without affecting the primary gene. It’s been a long-held belief in evolution which has been recently put to the test by taking the best examples evolutionary gene duplication had to offer as well as the best information on how genetic information is supposed to arise which was described by scientists that was cited in various journals.
The first part of this paper begins with a major blow to natural selection as being the leader for creating new information…
“Research into the evolution of genes has shown that the peptides they code for are of a finicky and precarious nature, both marginally stable and prone to aggregation. Protein folding happens to be a highly complex and synergistic process, involving a number of epistatic relationships among many residues.”
“This phenomenon, compounded with the issue of interactions between protein molecules, can significantly complicate adaptive evolution such that in the majority of cases the overall effects on reproductive fitness are very slight. Many arguably “beneficial” mutations have been observed to incur some sort of cost and so can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy. Indeed, the place and extent of natural selection as a force for change in molecular biology have been questioned in recent years.”
“Moreover, several well-known factors such as the linkage and the multilocus nature of important phenotypes tend to restrain the power of Darwinian evolution, and so represent natural limits to biological change. Selection, being an essentially negative filter, tends to act against variation including mutations previously believed to be innocuous.”
Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! Isn’t evolution supposed to have the ability to tinker with gene duplication without affecting the function of the original? All this negative selection is not good for understanding evolution, benefit is required! Did the research turn up any? Let’s take a look…
“Were selection to be completely relaxed and any manner of changes permitted, this would only serve to guarantee complete degeneration. It would invariably lead to the introduction of null and nonsense mutations, scrambling the open reading frame (ORF), and degrading the cisregulatory elements involved in transcription—leading to the gene’s pseudogenization. Thus, a measure of purifying/stabilizing selection seems necessary for duplicate preservation, and any evolutionary divergence would proceed under a relaxed regime rather than none at all.”
The primary purpose of this research was to see if novel genetic information can arise by gene duplication using the best available information on evolutionary gene duplication! Even with it’s best explanation and examples, it fails to pass the test! “A key problem associated with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution is that many of the putative incipient and intermediate stages in the development of a biological trait may not be useful themselves and may even be harmful.”
Where is this flexible system that evolution is suppose to work under? It’s sure not showing up with new observations concerning tested data! The paper concludes by noting that accidental gene duplication adds to the size of some genomes. “However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information, he said. “This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present.”
This falsification of gene duplication has been advocated for decades among creationists and the modern intelligent design movement. It is interesting to note that the lead researcher Bozorgmehr, an evolutionist who came up with the same conclusion about natural limits to biological change that creationists and ID proponents have been saying! You see, interpreting evolution as “just happens” is one thing, but testing it is quite another! The research verifies the creationist model, variants within it’s own kind while nature is in a pattern of going in reverse.