Genetic Redundancy and Natural Selection

I hate to start a new thread at a time when I am already vastly behind in my replies on other threads - but I just read an interesting article by Dr. Peter Borger on the topic of genetic redundancy (Dr. Borger is an inactive member of these forums I believe).Dr. Borger's primary assertion is that natural selection and gene duplication can not account for the startling level if genetic redundancy found in the genome.He uses the SRC gene family as an example case. Summarizing his explanation, the SRC genes code the family of proteins (8 in total) that activate cellular division. Non-synonymous point mutations in these genes are often lethal because they code proteins that don't "turn-off" leading to cancerous cell division.SRC proteins are not identical (sharing only 60-80% of their sequences), so since these genes are highly selective against mutation it is highly unlikely that they arose as a result of gene duplication - they would have to have evolved separately.While mutation often results in a lethal phenotype knockout experiments on SRC genes show that mice can survive without some SRC genes.Now, Dr. Borger argues this as evidence of a designed system - and initially I agree with his assessment - but I'd like to give my darwinist friends here the opportunity to provide a rational explanation. How is it possible for evolution to generate redundancy within genetic systems?

You *are* a bit busy in other threads, but I have a couple requests for this thread proposal.Could you define "non-synonymous point mutation?" Not everyone is going to know what that means.And could you explain how evidence *against* evolution as an explanation for SRC genes is evidence *for* a designed explanation?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

You *are* a bit busy in other threads, but I have a couple requests for this thread proposal.

---

Certainly - sorry for not being more clear.

quote:

---

Could you define "non-synonymous point mutation?" Not everyone is going to know what that means.

---

Assuming I don't have a misunderstanding of the concept myself - a non-synonymous point mutation is a change to the nucleotide sequence (GATC) in a gene that causes a corresponding change to the protein(s) coded by that gene by replacing one amino acid in that protein chance with a different one. Because of the redundancy in the genetic code many mutations are synonymous: they change the DNA nucleotide sequence but do not result in a change to the resulting protein because they still code for the same amino acid.

quote:

---

And could you explain how evidence *against* evolution as an explanation for SRC genes is evidence *for* a designed explanation?

---

Design is simply the conclusion that I and the author of the article draw. I could go into detail, but it seems to be beyond the scope of the question. I'm not asking readers to come to the conclusion of design - I am asking readers to demonstrate how darwinian evolution explains genetic redundancy. I ask because I'm curious if a functional hypothesis has been developed yet within the darwinian framework.

Issues outside the intended scope of your thread proposal are probably best left unmentioned. There's an edit button.

quote:

---

Issues outside the intended scope of your thread proposal are probably best left unmentioned. There's an edit button.

---

Good point - here's why I mentioned the conclusion of design: The article I linked is the first in a series. Dr. Borger outlines in subsequent articles a YEC design-oriented baramin-based hypothesis that seems to fit the data rather well. I'm wondering if darwinian evolution has a corresponding hypothesis - and if so how well does that hypothesis fit the data? (I'm not trying to be condescending here - I'd really like to know!)

Okay, if you could include a link to the message in Biological classification vs 'Kind' where the baramin-based hypothesis's supporting evidence is outlined then that should be fine.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Okay, if you could include a link to the message in Biological classification vs 'Kind' where the baramin-based hypothesis's supporting evidence is outlined then that should be fine.

---

Sorry...I'm not sure I understand. I don't think I've posted the supporting evidence in the Biological classification vs. 'Kind' thread (unless there is a specific post you are referring to?). It was my intention to bring up some of it in responses to posts on that thread - or are you asking me to post the evidence on that thread and then link it from here? I'm happy to comply - just not sure I'm following what your request is.

One of the primary goals of EvC Forum is to host discussions that actually get somewhere, and we attempt to achieve that goal through moderation that keeps discussions from drifting off topic or leaving points hanging or unsupported and so forth. We also try to make sure topics are clearly defined before they're promoted. If you're planning to take your thread in a direction that's based upon baraminology that I'd feel more comfortable if we had a working definition of baraminology and its supporting evidence. So if it's not already in the Biological classification vs 'Kind' thread then that would be a good place to put it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

One of the primary goals of EvC Forum is to host discussions that actually get somewhere, and we attempt to achieve that goal through moderation that keeps discussions from drifting off topic or leaving points hanging or unsupported and so forth. We also try to make sure topics are clearly defined before they're promoted.

---

A noble goal indeed.

quote:

---

If you're planning to take your thread in a direction that's based upon baraminology that I'd feel more comfortable if we had a working definition of baraminology and its supporting evidence. So if it's not already in the Biological classification vs 'Kind' thread then that would be a good place to put it.

---

I don't intend to discuss baraminology in this thread - I was hoping to receive one or more answers to a specific question posed to darwinists.I agree it would be good to define baraminology and its evidence - and I have been and will continue to try and do so in that thread. My only reasoning for mentioning mine and Dr. Borger's conclusion of design here was so that respondants would understand my perspective on the issue. Since it is possible my bias toward YEC thinking is influencing my conclusion I may not have adequately considered possible evolutionary hypotheses to answer the question I posed. I felt disclosing my position would give those who responded a better frame of reference to answer the question.Does that clear things up? If you still disagree I will happily edit out the mention of my conclusion.

Hide comments.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Hide comments.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

There really are people named Peter Borger out there. One of them did used to be a post doc fellow at the University of Sydney. And one did used to be at the University of Groningen in the Medical Sciences college where he published a number of papers in the technical journals in the 1990's. And maybe this Peter Borger's real name is actually Peter Borger, but whoever he is, the information about his credentials is unlikely to be correct.

---

I don't know Dr. Borger personally - I have no clue about his credentials nor do I really care. Whoever wrote the article in question makes some good points regarding natural selection and genetic redundancy. The point here is not to perform a character assassination on the author of the article. The point is to demonstrate how evolution can account for this problem. I asked a very specific question and am hoping for a very specific answer - neither really has anything to do with Dr. Borger. I wouldn't be surprised if you and others dodge the question and instead attack Dr. Borger's credentials - but that would lead me to suspect that you don't have an answer....However, if it needs clarified Dr. Borger has defended his credentials here on these forums. Now, would you please approve the thread?*Edit: Sorry, after re-reading the above I may have come across rudely - that was not my intent. I appreciate you pointing out the supposed flaw in Dr. Borger's credentials (now resolved), but didn't find it particularly applicable to the question I posed.Edited by BobTHJ, : Added clarifying note

Hi Bob,To avoid having any influence on the thread I'll go back and hide my comments that might tend to do that. Just please keep in mind that you'll be asked for evidence supporting your position.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread copied to the Genetic Redundancy and Natural Selection thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.