there is a research namded : ( Genetic Redundancy Eliminates the Dream of Beneficial Mutations ) : pdfs.semanticscholar.org/99ab/9f57dc2a76af45d04652a69b295344cc208a.pdf
the writer of this research claims it disproves the Theory of Evolution ! what do you think about this ?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was fake or a utterly low quality journal.
I never heard about this journal and the only info about it I can obtain is from its publisher. Somehow, the DOI doesn't work and I can't find any info on the author either. There are typos and the format is inconsistent (ex. random indentation, sometimes there are : after a satellite name, "DNA strap" instead of strand). Also the terms are vague ("shuttles and high-tech equipment") or confused, it seems to keep using interchangeably growth and development.
Regarding the content, the definitions are incorrect and so are the semantic and reasoning. I'm confident that, if I had submitted this paper as an assignment in my studies, it would have been rejected.
I've already issues with the first line defining redundancy because it presents it as a conscious and purposeful strategy instead of a stochastic process that doesn't necessarily provide advantages. Also the comparison with satellites is not fitting because excludes properties of living organisms such as growth and development, in particular in regard to acclimation and adaptation.
Then sentences like "Redundant mechanisms’ duty is to achieve the aims of growth in complete perfection." (the redundancy in the sentence is ironical) and then "This mechanism is necessary; as there is no system with such complexity as that of living organisms unless it will need the redundancy in its different phases of decoding.". Again, "Examples of Original Genes Which Lost Their Functions While the Cell Was Still Alive" ...maybe I'm being biased, but what function can a gene have when the cell is dead?
There are simply too many wrong things about this paper to waste time pointing them out here.
Hello Amr; Nicolo has it right! I'll address only the premise. Whether a gene is "beneficial" or not depends entirely on the conditions of the environment in which it occurs. If the bearer of the "responsible" gene produces more than the average number of offspring in the population, then the gene is beneficial. That's all. It has essentially no bearing on the validity of the theory. Best wishes, Jim Des Lauriers
thanks for your answers . I know this guy is not a biologist and he wrote his paper in poor English . but I need someone to comment on his claim :
In order to get a beneficial mutation with evident effect, this mutation should have the same semblance and technique in all the redundant copies which produce this effect in a genome. The more redundant the genes are, the more we need synchronizing effective mutations on the progressive change, and the more difficult it is to believe in the ability of this change to get a wholesome modell.
Hello Amr; As far as I can tell, the comment is nonsense. "Beneficial" only means that bearers of the gene display a phenotype associated with reproductive rates above the average for that population. What 'redundant copies" is the author referring to? The author's English useage is not the issue. The author doesn't understand the basics of biology. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
the problem with this paper is that you can find it by searching on google scholar and he promotes it as something that refutes the evolution theory .
so please explain how mutations occur in two or more genes (performing the same function) , so that the mutations can have an effect on the biological phenotype ?
Amr; The most straightforward example of that is gene duplication. Many genes have a multitude of duplicates in the genome occupying different loci. One consequence of that duplication is that each locus can come under independent selection. In any future generation, any mutation at any of the loci comes under independent selection. So, the genes may have started out expressing a single function, eventually the phenotypes of the previous duplicates may diverge.
You can find more careful descriptions in any good contemporary genetics textbook. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology