In the manuscript in question, I reported finding multiple opsin visual pigment genes in ostracod crustaceans. I concluded that these genes were the result of gene duplications. The reviewer, who admitted not being a molecular biologist, took issue with concluding that multiple genes were due to gene duplication, writing:
"...while humans indeed have 3 opsin genes, it is not certain that they all arose from duplication - the rod, blue, and red/green lines have been separate for millennia, and it is possible that some have entered the genome by other mechanisms."
When I get reviews back, I often take notes (meant only for myself), such that I summarize the reviewers comments, and can understand and remember them later more easily. In response to this reviewer's comments, I wrote:
"True, aliens just MIGHT have come down and put opsins in our genome. Short of that ALL GENES ARISE BY DUPLICATION!!! (He did say he was not a molecular biologist)."
As I wrote on a previous post the dogma among evolutionists now is that most genes originate by duplication. My reviewer had a pre-1950's view of gene evolution. He failed to understand, as Ingram had done as early as 1961, that genes likely have a long history, and a deep common ancestry. The reviewer has failed to come to grips with the common ancestry of genes. Just as pre-Darwinian biologists believed that each species was created independently, my incompetent reviewer, and pre-Ingramian biologists believed that genes may be independently created. I wonder how many other people fail to understand the deep common ancestry of genes.
I wonder how many people fail to grasp the deep common ancestry of all biological entities, united by a deep history, diverging through new combinations, and through specialization of duplicated entities.