The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response, Defensor-of-Apollo. Clarifying my assumption about the existence of species Some folks argue that there is a biological essentialism, which creates specific relations between and among organisms and their environment that is necessary and sufficient to be classified as a member of a species; while others do not (1). I posited the assumption about the existence of species to preempt the possibility of Pro suggesting that any gain of function vis a vis new genes is not necessarily a basis for new biological information, but rather just a continuum of the protein group or morphological feature. So, I was essentially trying to prevent our scientific debate from morphing into a philosophical discussion on the ontological basis of organisms. Disagreement with Pro's species assertion I disagree with Pro's notion that an organism can form a species without evolving some naturally-selected new trait that provides an advantage. If an organism becomes isolated from the main group of the same species and nothing changes, then it is in fact still the same species. By definition, a new species is one that has diverged from a common ancestor allowing it to flourish within a new niche. Thus, a new trait must emerge in order for an organism to be classified as a different species. Basic background: biological vs. genetic information Biological information implies potential physiologic functionality or utility, whereas genetic information can only be valid if it is arranged in a very specific manner (2) and translated accordingly (3). Consequently, if genetic information is rearranged, it has the potential to establish new genetic information. Moreover, an added layer of complexity is seen eukaryotes where nucleotide sequences called exons are translated into functional biologically active information (i.e., proteins), while others called intron are spliced out before the protein is translated from the transcribed RNA (4). So, the genetic information embedded within a gene is not always related to the biological information embedded within the protein's structure. Rebuttal of Pro's proof #1 Pro suggests that lactase intolerance supports his postulate because it provides evidence for loss of genetic information. But in most adult humans, lactase is mainly regulated at the transcriptional level and thus its expression is only down regulated and not lost (5). So, the genetic and biological information is still there: the DNA is transcribed into RNA; the protein is just not made and thus its function is not activated. Thesis Since Pro wants me to shoulder the burden of proof in this debate, I want to explicitly state my thesis: New genetic information can and does arise in the form of new genes and can give organisms a measurable characteristic that distinguishes it from other organisms. Opening argument The first example I will present is the jingwie gene that has been characterized in a group of African Drosophila species (6). The molecular mechanisms involved in created this new genetic information are: 1) gene duplication, 2) retroposition, and 3) exon shuffling (7). Briefly, the hypothesis is that in an ancestral species there were two single copy genes called yellow-emperor and alcohol dehydrogenase. Yellow-emperor was duplicated into two genes: one called yellow emperor and the other called yande. Whereas yellow emperor maintained its original function, alcohol dehydrogenase transposed into the third intron of yande as a fused exon and recombined with the first three yande exons forming the jingwei gene. The novel gene product is a chimeric protein that binds more substrates than alcohol dehydrogenase and affects fly development (8) The heart of this debate is about how new biological information can be gained by new genetic information. The jingwei gene satisfactorily addresses this issue. I am looking forward to opponent's response. References 1.http://plato.stanford.edu... 2.http://www.biology-online.org... 3.http://www.biology-online.org... 4.http://www.ndsu.edu... 5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6.http://www.dpgp.org... 7.http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org... 8.http://en.wikipedia.org...