Here is basically the first page of the article (which is all I had access to):
Great attention has in the past been paid to the mechanisms of evolution by gene duplication (that is, neofunctionalization and subfunctionalization). By contrast, gene loss has often been associated with the loss of redundant gene duplicates without apparent functional consequences, and therefore this process has mostly been neglected as an evolutionary force. However, genomic data, which is accumulating as a result of recent technological and methodological advances, such as next-generation sequencing, is revealing a new perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic change that has great potential to cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.
Two main molecular mechanisms can lead to the loss of a gene from a given genome. First, the loss of a gene can be the consequence of an abrupt mutational event, such as an unequal crossing over during meiosis or the mobilization of a transposable or viral element that leads to the sudden physical removal of the gene from an organisms’ genome. Second, the loss of a gene can be the consequence of a slow process of accumulation of mutations during the pseudogenitzation that follows an initial loss-of-function mutation. This initial mutation can be caused by nonsense mutations that generate truncated proteins, insertions or deletions that cause a frameshift, missense mutations that affect crucial amino acid positions, changes involving splice sites that lead to aberrant transcripts or mutations in regulatory regions that abolish gene expression. In this Review, the term ‘gene loss’ is used in a broad sense, not only referring to the absence of a gene that is identified when different species are compared, but also to any allelic variant carrying a loss-of-function (that is, non-functionalization) mutation that is found within a population.
Here, we address some of the fundamental questions in evolutionary biology that have emerged from this novel perspective of evolution by gene loss. Examples from all life kingdoms are covered, from bacteria to fungi and from plants to animals, including key examples of gene loss in humans. We review how gene loss has affected the evolution of different phyla and address key questions, including how genes can become dispensable, how many of our current genes are actually dispensable, how patterns are biased, and whether the effects of gene loss are mostly neutral or whether gene loss can actually be an effective way of adaptation.
So, let’s translate what they’re saying here: “speciation” (their term is “phenotypic adaptation”) is the result of a LOSS of INFORMATION! This points, of course, to the “front-loading” of the LCA of the various branches of the so-called “Tree of Life.” Absolute bad news for Darwinism. We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
This is what one of the authors has to say in an interview:
“The genome sequencing of very different organisms has shown that gene loss has been a usual phenomenon during evolution in all life cycles. In some cases, it has been proven that this loss might mean an adaptive response towards stressful situations when facing sudden environmental changes” says Professor Cristian Cañestro.
“In other cases, there are genetic losses –says Cañestro- which even though they are neutral per se, have contributed to the genetic and reproductive isolation among lineages, and thus, to speciation, or have rather participated in the sexual differentiation in contributing to the creation of a new Y chromosome. The fact that genetic loss patterns are not stochastic but rather biased in the lost genes[pav: IOW, this is where you’re going to find the genomic differences between species you compare] (depending on the kind of function of the gen or its situation in the genome in different organism groups) stresses the importance of the genetic loss in the evolution of the species.
There you have it: “evolution” through “gene loss.” I.e., “evolution” through “loss of information.” Evolution does not PRODUCE “information”; it DESTROYS “information”. You can read about in the book: “Genetic Entropy.”
In sum: the war is over, and we won! Congratulations everyone!
Well, it’s never that easy: as even the author of the above wrote:
This paper ought to be the death-knell of Darwinism, and, of course, “neo-Darwinism,” but, even the authors who report this new “perspective” have not changed their Darwinian perspective. Somehow, they will find a way to tell us that the Darwinian ‘narrative’ always had room in it for this kind of discovery. As Max Planck said, and I paraphrase, “a theory does not prove itself right; it’s just that the scientists who opposed it eventually die.”
But a victory in the real world is what serious thinkers and real scientists are looking for, not the impossibility of victory in the eyes of committed and aging ideologues. As that has now been granted, it now remains for Christians (or, if Christians are just too bone-lazy to do the work, reality-oriented pagans and uncommitted atheists) to build a new foundation on the ruins of materialistic Darwinism.