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

I want to acknowledge my opponent's valiant efforts, but unfortunately his argument did not adequately refute my evidence, nor did it provide proof for his postulate. Main focus of the debate The main focus of this debate is whether the genetic information leading to new biological function is lost or gained when generating a new trait within a given species. Clarifying my role My role is to disprove Pro's postulate by validating my thesis with logical and empirical evidence. Specifically, I must provide examples of how gains in genetic information lead to new species-specific biological functions. Reaffirming that the jingwei gene disproves Pro's postulate My opponent rebuts my opening argument by establishing a straw man, which oversimplifies and misrepresents my position. Pro's suggests that it is assumed [emphasis mine] that the jingwei gene has been derived by gained genetic information. This is not assumed but inferred logically from direct sequence expression and functional analysis, and is the simplest explanation available from the data collected by the authors of the paper cited in round 2. The proposed hypothesis is modeled from experimentally controlled data sets and not supposition, which is what my opponent implies with his proposed syllogism. More importantly, Pro has yet not come up with an explanation for how the jingwei gene could have arose from a loss of genetic information, which is what my opponent is tasked to do in this debate. RNASE 1B gene validates my thesis The second example that I will be presenting is the RNASE 1B gene characterized in Pygathrix nemaeus (1). The authors of this paper used sequence analysis and recombinant protein technology to detect positive selection of the RNASE 1B gene on the adaptive evolution in this monkey species. This was inferred from the Ka/Ks ratio calculation (2). Moreover, they showed that the RNASE 1B gene arose from a RNASE 1 gene that underwent gene duplication and nucleotide substitutions occurring in the coding regions, while the paralogous RNASE 1 copy had no sequence or evolutionary changes. So, here is more evidence of a new gene leading to a new biological function within a specific species, thus validating my thesis as true. Further refuting of Pro's Proof #1 The postulate put forth by Pro is regarding the loss of biological information by way of degenerative loss of genetic information as it pertains to all speciation events. Pro's first example was lactose intolerance in humans, which is not a loss of biological information per se; it is just a down regulation of RNA expression. The article Pro provided clearly states that the genetic mutations occurred in the DNA involved in the regulation of the lactase expression and not in the lactase gene (3). So, the lactase biological and genetic information is still present, which is why lactose tolerance in adults was able to evolve differently in different populations. Moreover, Pro's lactose intolerance example is moot because it doesn't lead to speciation, and thus fails to provide support for his postulate. Rebuttal of Pro's proof #2 Pro's second proof, which is a hypothetical thought experiment, is an example of allopatric speciation. This is a situation where there is reduction of gene flow that decreases the genetic frequency within the isolated population. While it is true that selective pressures and random genetic drift in this instance can lead to speciation, I fail to see how this proof specifically demonstrates that a loss of genetic information leads to all speciation. Further, in order for Pro's proof to validate his postulate, it would have to demonstrate that the new trait was caused by the loss of the genetic information from the ancestral species, and this was not done. Thus, my opponent's postulate has yet to be demonstratively proven. It should also be noted that speciation can occur with the same geographic location (4) or an adjacent geographic location (5), so Pro's proof 2, if true, would only provide evidence for one mechanism of speciation and not all. Closing comments I am well aware that there are many definitions for the word species; that is why I provided one for which we can agree. The assumption I put forth was done so we can establish an understanding for the basis of this debate. I am glad that my opponent has accepted my definition and assumption. I would also like to point out that Pro has set the rules of the debate such that Con holds the burden of proof. This implies that I must prove something. In this case, I will prove my thesis to disprove my opponent's postulate. While Pro can provide evidence in his argument, it should be specific to refuting my evidence. My opponent's evidence should not be for proving his postulate, since my opponent didn't want to share the burden of proof. References 1.http://www.biology.uiowa.edu... 2.http://www.med.nyu.edu... 3.http://news.sciencemag.org... 4.http://www.biology-online.org... 5.http://www.biology-online.org...