Criticizing the idea of gene duplication as evidence that all species can emerge

Criticizing the idea of gene duplication as evidence that all species can emerge Before the previous break, there were a good number of questions from our valued followers, and we promised to publish publications about it, but late as usual. One of the questions raised by Jamal Wazzani was about gene duplication as evidence that all living species can be created by Darwinian evolution: "Is there empirical scientific proof that one new protein (only one, not 98,000 proteins) or even one new enzyme (usually enzymes smaller than proteins) can be formed? Here you can explain how to produce new proteins and genes through mutations just write in the search engine this sentence (( Les families multig niques ) and will show you images explaining you the mechanisms of producing new proteins and new genes and to shorten the search time these sites explain the mechanisms through simplified images." This explanation of the Darwinian scenario of gene and protein formation is inaccurate, but it expresses a well-established rule of Darwinism's dealings with living systems, says Behe; if anything, Darwinism produced it. In Darwin's Doubt, Meyer explains the Darwinian scenario of possible protein formation precisely: "Evolutionary biologists typically depict this process starting with a gene's 'multiplication event'. Although many different mechanisms are capable of generating DNA replication, the most common mechanism occurs during the cross-over step in meiosis - one of the two types of cell division that produces sex cells or gametes in the same sexually reproducing animals. But sometimes the symmetrical chromosomes exchange parts of unequal length, resulting in the chromosome missing part of the DNA - the chromosome that picked up a smaller piece of the material that came out of it - and another chromosome that received a larger piece of genetic material and won a new sequence of chromosomes, this excess part may contain one or more genes that the chromosome already has copies of, leading to duplicate copies of the gene on the chromosome. When this happens, one gene may begin to covariate – undergoing mutations – without having adverse effects on the function of the organism, where the other gene does the job. In evolutionary biology jargon, mutational changes in multiple genes are electorally neutral; they initially offer no electoral advantage or disadvantage to the organism or group. Eventually, as mutations accumulate, a new gene sequence may appear in the new organism, encoded for a new structure and function in the protein. At this point, natural selection can select the new gene and its protein product, preserve them, and pass them on to future generations. This scenario, which many evolutionary biologists now refer to as the classical model of gene evolution, has the advantage of allowing parts of the genome to change freely over several successive generations, giving genes more opportunities to search sequence space without being penalized for falling into the valley with loss or diminished function. Well, that's a pretty good scenario. What's the problem with that? “This scenario faces a fundamental problem: the extreme scarcity of sequences capable of forming stable folds and performing vital functions. Because natural selection does not help generate new folds in functional sequences, but only preserves them once they appear, random mutations alone must search for extremely rare folds and functional sequences within a wide sea of possible combinations. This is the big story associated with the X experiments, as his research has shown that the functional sequences that are vacuum-folded from amino acids are extremely rare within the sequence space." The problem is not to detect new proteins and assume that they originated with Darwinian mechanisms, but to provide evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of creating new proteins. X experiments have shown that "the probability of any mutational attempt to generate, or find, a specific functional protein out of all possible peptide sequences with a length of 150 amino acids is 1 in 1077, i.e., its chance by chance is one in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." This is the magnitude of the problem faced by those who seek “laboratory experimental scientific proof of the possibility of forming a single new protein” through Darwinian mechanisms, and those who deal with Darwinism as a Muslim taken for granted, it is natural to refer to anything that already exists, and tell us that Darwinism has produced it, just as Behe explains in this passage. In the 1997 Darwin Black Box, Michael Behe explains the problem of one of the other gene duplication scenarios: “The gene duplication and mixing hypothesis says nothing about how any protein or protein system was initially formed; either slowly, suddenly, or if it is a natural selection or some other mechanism. Keep in mind that it may somehow mimic the clock-pulsing mousetrap, or the crowbar may mimic the mousetrap hammer, but these similarities don’t give us anything about how the mousetrap is made. In his paper on "Simulating Evolution of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acids," published in the Journal of Proteomics in 2004, Behe explains with Snook how Darwinian mechanisms produce any proteins that are created alongside previously existing protein structures. "The need to interpret very large populations [10 9 or larger] to build the smallest multicellular trait Risedues, which requires two nucleotide modifications over 10 8 generations by the processes we described in our model], and the need for large populations to exhibit more complex traits or to accelerate the appearance of those traits, suggests that gene multiplication and point mutations are inefficient mechanisms alone, at least for many multicellular species. In simpler language, the possible Darwinian scenario collides with the observed reality. In his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution, Behe summarises the magnitude of gene duplication reasoning in these terms: “Darwinians like to think that doubling the genome from the magic shots of random mutations has suddenly given the genome vast new possibilities. But doubling the genome, that is, having a backup copy of every gene to take advantage of, and 100 million years ago gave baking yeast no advantage that it would not have. This brings us to a very important point. Multiplying a single gene, or even the entire genome, does not appear to randomize a complex new one.”6 1 Dr. Stephen Mayer, Darwin's Doubt: The Sudden Emergence of the Life of Beings and the Argument for Intelligent Design, The Center for Proofs 2016, p. 2 Ibid., p. 327. 3 Ibid., p. 329. Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemistry Challenge of Evolution, 2nd Edition, Brahin Center 2018, p. (5) Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004). 6 Dr. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for Darwinism's Frontiers, The Center of Brahmin 2019, p.106. - Management of the Brahin Center — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-01 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/نقد-فكرة-تضاعف-الجينات-كدليل-على-إمكانية-نشوء-كافة-الأنواع-الحية