Adding information to the genome.

What would you say constitues the vast majority of "functionally less important" DNA?

---

"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

I assume you mean "genotypic level". This he demonstrated mathematically. With regard to the phenotypic level, he limited himself to speculation:"I think that even at the phenotypic level,
there must be many changes that are so nearly neutral that
random drift plays a significant role, particularly with respect
to "quantitative characters."" He did, in the generation of variation:"(2) There
is a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under
relaxed selection. In this stage, gene duplication in addition
to point mutation must play a very important role in producing
genetic variations. Needless to say, their fate is largely
determined by random drift.Notice that Kimura saw "relaxed selection" as a prerequisite for the generation of variation. Once variation had been achieved through point mutation of duplicate genes, he saw renewed selection as the arbiter of adaptive value.

---

"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

Just to return to the OP, I assume there are people on this forum that would concede that somewhere along the line, evolution must have created a new gene.Anyone care to suggest how that might happen?

---

"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

I will assume you did mean "genotypic level" in Message 234. Which is why Kimura said this:"I have proposed ``Survival of the Luckiest'' as a phrase that best characterizes my Neutral Theory. (Kimura, 1990a)and this:"I think chance plays a much greater part in evolution, and natural selection a lesser part, than biologists supposed a few years ago."(BBC documentary transcript) No it doesn't. No careful, credible, step-by-step, dawkins-weasel-style building of variation through natural selection. Kimura understood that that was impossible. Selection needs something to select, and that had to be generated by a stochastic process. Duplicate genes cobbled into something useful by drift alone. Pure chance. The hopeful monster.Kimura clearly feared illogicality more than improbability.

---

"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

"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress."Kimura 1991and:"(i) A population is liberated from the preexisting selective constraint. (ii) Thereis a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under relaxed selection."Emphasis. Added.

---

"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

Wounded king, Subfunctionalized Monarch, I cannot let you get away from this. I'm sick to death of pulling out quotes and farting around with HTML tags, so I will put this simple proposition to you:Given that one is simply the physical expression of the other, it is logically impossible that the genotype and the phenotype evolve by different processes.If you don't believe this is true, please provide an illustrative example of how this might happen- remembering that a selective evolution of the phenotype immediately becomes a selective evolution of the genotype.P.S. Characterising an advocate of an opposing viewpoint as a "troll" is cheap at best and paranoid at worst- but let's not get sidetracked. Answer the question.