Hi Mark.
Sorry for the late response - life happens.
To help me better understand the argument, What is gene duplication, anyway?
I provided a link in the earlier response that explains it better than I could, but I will try.
When cells prepare to divide, their genomes (all of their DNA) gets copied. This process is facilitated by various proteins, which do not copy the DNA with 100% accuracy (pretty close, but not 100%). You are probably more familiar with this imperfection when mutations are mentioned - mutation refers to the incorporation of an incorrect DNA base into the copied DNA. More generally, mutation refers to any change in the copied DNA, gene duplication is basically a type of mutation that involved an entire gene. In this case, a gene is copied twice. This is usually due to the nature of the DNA sequence surrounding the genes. The proteins (called polymerases) that copy the DNA can be 'confused' by long stretches of repetitive DNA, and can sort of 're-start' copying a region of DNA that it had already copied when this kind of DNA is present.
This process also accounts for larger duplication events, called segmental duplications. A big chunk of our own genome is made up of these duplicated segments.
Is this the gene intrinsic to the living animal, being duplicated in the egg/sperm, or in the complete animal?
Duplications can happen in any cell that is undergoing division, but if it happens in, say, a skin cell, it will not be passed on. When we talk about duplicated genes, these are genes that have been copied most likely during the production of a sperm or egg, so they could be passed on to offspring.
(If in the complete animal, then, I guess I'm hearing you say that what we observe as differences between say, father and son, (besides the usual by way of the union of sperm and egg), is because of this process we have observed. At least some of the differences are because of the duplicate (but not exact) genes.
In a way, yes. But the differences between father and son are more likely due to the recombined genes from the mother and father - differences themselves of which are produced via mutations of some sort.
Thus, mutation. And this is not what results in mutation, but is the mutation, with effects/results visible in the product.)
If I am following you correctly, I think yes.
Perhaps to clarify a bit - a
mutation is what occurs in the DNA, the resultant organism is thus a
mutant. As all of us are born with something like 100-200 new unique mutations, we are all mutants. However, a relatively small fraction of the genome actually controls the way we look and function, so most mutations do not affect those sorts of things, though obviously some do. Gene duplications are more likely to affect the way we look/function than plain old point mutations (changes in individual DNA bases).
(Also, I'm hearing you say that if this is indeed a cause of such mutations, it is more likely that those genetics that lend themselves to use starch well, continue to produce results that lend themselves use starch better. Also, it sounds like the starch users have an advantage over the meat eaters in this regard?)
That sounds pretty correct.
As far as argument goes, I don't know enough to argue the duplicate gene business anyway, yet here, if I'm reading right, "appears to be", and "allowing for...populations to more readily...", is still speculation, (or worse, confirmation bias —if it results in positive claim depending on suggestions the phenomenon raises to the observer.) Still, it sound like an intriguing phenomenon.
What you are seeing is the tentative language of science. Less speculation and more cautious/tentative conclusions.
An analogy - you go to a baseball game, and the score is 7-0 going into the 9th inning. The team with 0 has a losing record, the team with 7 has a winning record, so you leave to beat the traffic. Later, someone asks you who won, and you say "Most likely the team that was up by 7". Is that mere speculation, or is it a conclusion based on relevant facts? It is always
possible that the team with no runs rallied in the 9th and won, but is that
likely?
Supposing the suggestions to be true (i.e. more than mere suggestion), is there any indicator of usual size/ distance of mutation per generation, and therefore, of time it takes to go from one form to another? What I'm getting at, is how many useful mutations happen fast enough to accomplish the immense differences between say, a single-celled organism and modern human, in the few thousand/million years since life began? (I'm aware that this is apparently not the only source of useful reproducible mutation, so include those other sources/causes too, in the estimate).
Kimura (famous population geneticist) calculated in 1961 that "
the total amount of genetic information which has been accumulated since the beginning of the Cambrian epoch along the lineage leading to higher mammals may be of the order of one hundred million bits (10^8 bits)."
He used conservative estimates in his calculations.
If we consider that, just thinking of land-based tetrapods (lizards, mammals, etc.), the basic body plan was established more than 300 million years ago, and thus all extant descendants are just tweaks of that original body plan, that seems like plenty to me. One of the hard things to wrap one's head around is the nature of the impact of mutation. There is no 1-to-1 relationship. A single point mutation (changing a single base) could be lethal and cause the organisms to die early in development, it could produce a benefit to the organism, or it may have no impact whatsoever. Gene duplications might have little or no impact, or it could alter the developmental trajectory of, say, brain development.
There are some physiological systems that appear to have required multiple mutations (at least with regard to what we currently see), others that do not.
This is why I generally dismiss claims of 'not enough mutations' - what IS enough? And HOW is that known?
Yes, I realize this is jumping ahead, but it will be one question I would eventually need answered, even if I accepted every report / interpretation of phenomena studied and all the relevant data brought to bear.
I'll do what I can, but I think you are going to have to drop that unilateral skepticism and realize that, given what you've been writing, admit that you were shall we say, a bit premature in your dismissal of evolution given your apparent lack of basic scientific understanding.