Adding information to the genome.

Good. Because that's the answer to your question.The vast majority in increase in gene function is produced by gene copying followed by modification of one of those copies or the resplicing of exons from one or more genes. We know this because of the patterns formed by similarities in the genes of living organisms.

Mr Jack,First of all thank you and congratulations on having the courage to offer a straight answer.Now then, these "patterns formed by similarities in the genes", can you give me a reference to that?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This article at Science Daily describes a research study related to gene duplication: The article describes a study of the genomes of animals relevant to human evolution that specifically looked at gene duplications. They found evidence that there was an increase in the rate of gene duplication leading up to chimps and humans. There's a reference to the journal article from Nature at the end of the article.--Percy

calypsis, there is no such thing as "genetic entropy".

What a strange sentence. It is evident from reading this thread that the essential prerequisite was not "courage", but for you to finally add a grain of definite meaning to your hopeless foggy stew of shifty evasion.

It is irrelevant because DNA does not need to function to be "seen" by natural selection. For instance, junk DNA can act as a buffer to protect functional DNA from damage, and it would confer an evolutionary advantage.What you are *trying* to imply is that natural selection is a process that either sees something happening in DNA and conserves it, or does not see something happening and ignores the change. The question is irrelevant because natural selection does not work that way. As a genetic change becomes less dramatic the effects of other changes begin to dominate the survival of the organism, but natural selection still operates on the minor change. It operates on it regardless of functionality, so requiring it to "function" is completely arbitrary on your part.DNA does not need to be "functional" to be selected for, so your question is irrelevant. It is like asking how black a car tire has to be to be put on a car; the most proper answer is that the question is irrelevant to determining if it goes on the car or not.

Gosh, there's so many of them. I'd expect any decent general undergraduate textbook on Biology to cover it at least in passing; a book on genetics or evolution should cover it too. Unfortunately the best reference I have for it is drawn from Open University course materials and they are not accessible to you.Googling around, I managed to locate: Zhang, J. (2003) Evolution by gene duplication: an update (TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.18 No.6) which seems to be a pretty good review paper on the subject. The references section should contain plenty more for you to follow up on.Edited by Mr Jack, : Tag fix

And conversely all non-coding DNA applies a cost everytime it's copied. Probably not a relevant factor in Eukaryotes; but it probably accounts for some of why bacterial and viral genomes are so much more densely packed with protein coding regions (Viruses often even overlap genes).

Genetic fallacy of course ...

The mechanism by which MRSA has evolved from Staph. aureus could be described as adding "information" to the genome, depending on how you define "information".The mechanism is that an alternative penicillin binding protein (PBP2a), is produced in addition to the usual penicillin binding proteins. The protein is encoded by the mecA gene, and because PBP2a is not inhibited by antibiotics such as flucloxacillin the cell continues to synthesise peptidoglycan and hence has a structurally sound cell wall.Note that there is no loss of function, no loss of information. The opposite is true: the bacterium has evolved the ability to survive flucloxacillin therapy, by acquiring a new gene (extra "information").

What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics? They certainly point to a universe who structure is that of conservation and not innovation as required by the evolutionary theory.

Please explain how these laws impact the Theory of Evolution. Why do you think they are contrary to the TOE?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

How can the person first posing the question be guilty of evasion?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Thank you, Percy.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Thanks, Mr Jack.The problem with gene duplication as a path to increased genomic complexity is that in some ways the phenomenum is its own worst enemy. When a gene duplicates its susceptibility to natural selection is (roughly) halved. A deleterious mutation to one copy is compensated for by the other copy, rather than being selected out. This results in rapid "subfunctionalisation", with two damaged genes doing the work of the undamaged original.This means that the two subfunctionalised copies are actually constrained to their tasks (assuming the original gene was a vital one) and neither of them actually have the luxury of evolving into something novel.This is probably why Zhang writes (under the heading of "Outstanding questions"):

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin