What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?I didn't say that. This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you. All I'm asking you right now: do you agree that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,
I'll break my observation down with you. . . .
First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?
So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?