Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 140 (720772)
02-27-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by JonF
02-27-2014 4:15 PM


I never said anything like "a rare allele hung around for thousands of years." Rare COMBINATIONS is what I'm talking about, and since there should be millions of possible combinations of traits from just about any genome -- except the severely genetically depleted ones -- you should certainly be able to get rare ones.
However, there is such a thing as an allele being rare in a population but favored in a subpopulation and the example of the pocket mice is an example of that. Also the peppered moths.
It's amazing that you all can maintain your faith in mutations which are not known to produce anything but
  • "neutral" changes that have no clear effects but over time probably deleterious effects when new mutations come along at the same loci,
  • thousands of known genetic diseases that are NOT all selected out before birth, causing all kinds of misery,
  • and highly questionable iffy "beneficial" mutations, all the other "beneficial" mutations being figments of the imagination.
Really touching such a degree of faith.
ABE: There ARE no "observed increases in genetic diversity." Sorry, that's some kind of illusion. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by JonF, posted 02-27-2014 4:15 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 140 (720778)
02-27-2014 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taq
02-27-2014 4:39 PM


I already showed how the odds against that render it basically impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 7:11 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 140 (720798)
02-27-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tanypteryx
02-27-2014 5:14 PM


Oh I showed it all right, showed all the impossible situations involved. Some people are blind of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:14 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:31 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 140 (720811)
02-27-2014 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Tanypteryx
02-27-2014 5:31 PM


I guess you didn't read my well reasoned detailed argument that SHOWS that mutation could not possibly have been the source of the allele for black pocket mice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:31 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 140 (720828)
02-27-2014 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tanypteryx
02-27-2014 5:50 PM


Sorry, Tanypteryx. ONE mutation for black fur in a population absolutely devoid of that allele must
must show up just in time for when it's needed, against astronomical odds
ABE: Must show up at one of the genes for fur color
Must not be one of those "neutral" mutations that don't do anything at all /ABE
must show up in a germ cell, against astronomical odds
and that one germ cell has to somehow get selected for parenthood, against astronomical odds
and the two black furred babies out of four that are born must somehow survive the predator that has kept the population light colored forever, against astronomical odds
and survive to adulthood, against astronomical odds
and then just in time venture onto the black lava which will protect them, against astronomical odds.
There is no answer to this logic. So sorry you seem to have a problem understanding it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 5:50 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 7:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 86 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2014 8:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2014 11:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 140 (720862)
02-28-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by AZPaul3
02-27-2014 11:41 PM


Re: Frankie Mouse to the Rescue!
Why should any particular mutation be expected, AZPaul? They ARE random "accidents" aren't they? Let alone one that turns out to be beneficial right when it's needed, at the very gene where it is needed, and it isn't a "neutral" mutation and so on and so forth. And if it DOES recur then that gives credence to my own theory of a recurring normal allele anyway.
It was Taq, not I, who claimed the population was devoid of this allele and that I had to be wrong that it was a normally recurring allele, because it's dominant. I figured and I still figure that it IS a normally recurring allele, but that most of the dark furred mousies that result from its occasional expression get eaten by the owl that likes them so much, because this occurs on the light colored sand among millions of his light-colored mousie brethren. Since it recurs from time to time, when the light mousies ventured onto the lava, its occasional appearance was selected, the light mousies all expired due to the owl's taste for them and the black mousies proliferated.
Now on the lava field I would expect that the allele for the light mousie occurs rarely just as the allele for the black one does on the sand, the owl gets his light colored mousie meal there just as he gets his dark colored mousie meal on the sand.
Taq however told me this couldn't be the case, that the black fur allele couldn't be a recurring allele because it's dominant; therefore it was a one-time mutation; to which I replied that the odds are simply astronomically against such an event.
There are supposedly other indicators. I wonder if they also describe the rare light fur allele on the lava.
So you are welcome to run your theory by Taq. I've given my own.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2014 11:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2014 9:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 02-28-2014 10:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 97 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2014 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 140 (720863)
02-28-2014 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
02-27-2014 7:11 PM


I missed this post and it IS very interesting. Many opportunities to get a dark mousie. Or a light one for that matter. Perhaps even other colors with that many opportunities unless those alleles no longer occur for some reason.
AND mutations are STILL accidents, most of them ARE neutral or deleterious, and didn't you say the light colored population is absolutely devoid of the dark allele, so that if the dark allele is dominant in all 80 genes you still have to wait around for it to occur at the right time in the right place kind of out of the blue as it were. Granted there are many more opportunities than were first presented, but this new information simply makes it a lot more likely that we're talking about normally occurring dominant "D" alleles scattered through the population and not mutations.
ABE: You know what I'd also guess with that many genes for fur color? That there are many shades of fur possible, it isn't only dark and light. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 7:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 02-28-2014 10:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 02-28-2014 3:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 140 (720866)
02-28-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-27-2014 10:32 PM


Not sure what post you are answering but I'm interested in the point you are making and wish you'd make it more clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2014 10:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2014 11:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 140 (721192)
03-04-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blue Jay
02-28-2014 11:56 PM


I was actually making two points:
1.Australia's rabbits may not have descended from a tiny founder population, after all. This might explain why they don't seem to have experienced a genetic bottleneck.
2.Your original question here was regarding the phenotypic makeup of the Australian rabbit population, to which you never actually got an answer. We don't know the phenotypic makeup of the rabbit population, but there is some indication that there is some phenotypic diversity there.
Thanks for the clarification. 1) would explain why their genetic diversity is so high, although I still don't understand the method that was used to assess it; and 2) is of course what I would expect so I hope it may eventually be confirmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2014 11:56 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 140 (721193)
03-04-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NosyNed
02-28-2014 3:19 PM


Re: Deleterious
most of them ARE neutral or deleterious
Don't emphasize the "are" when you don't actually know.
Well, this is what I've gleaned from many online presumably science-based discussions of the information. THEY say this, I get it from THEM. The vast majority are neutral, many others are deleterious, but even if that weren't said it's clear from the fact that there are thousands of known genetic diseases. You can find lists of them online.
And the dark fur mutation is an excellent example of a deleterious mutation. It is clearly very deleterious and, being dominant, subject to strong selection pressure. That is why it is constantly stripped out of the populations.
You give no hint why you regard this as a "deleterious" mutation, and how can it be if it does nothing damaging to the creature?
And of course it's subject to strong selection pressure, as I've said a number of times. But you seem to be implying that it recurs when you say it is "constantly" stripped out of the population.
There are sometimes hints that people here believe mutations do recur, on what basis I don't know, and nobody so far has defended the idea, and neither do you. But of course if they DO recur, then what's to distinguish them from alleles built into the genome of the population? What makes them "mutations" at all, or mistakes in the replication process?
That is, deleterious until there is a nearby dark lava field. Then suddenly it is extremely beneficial.
That is not what the term "deleterious" normally means. I haven't heard the light moth described as "deleterious" in the environment of the soot covered tree trunks, nor the dark moth when the situation is reversed. That is not how the term is used.
normally occurring dominant "D" alleles scattered through the population and not mutations.
and by what magic did one of them appear on one lava field and a different one on another but not both on the same field?
Why would magic be involved? Neither is more favorable than the other on a lava field, and it's a good thing for the mouse that there is more than one way a dark fur can come about.
What's magic is the idea that a mutation, an accident, a mistake, remember, simply showed up on either lava field, at either gene. Since most mutations are neutral the odds are strongly against such an occurrence at all. You need an allele that changes the code from light to dark, not a neutral mutation that would change nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 02-28-2014 3:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2014 9:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 140 (721197)
03-04-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
03-04-2014 9:46 PM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
No, Nosy, that is not how the terms are used. A neutral mutation is one that doesn't change what the allele would have done anyway. It's not related to the level of selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2014 9:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-04-2014 11:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2014 9:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-05-2014 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 140 (721202)
03-04-2014 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tanypteryx
03-04-2014 11:23 PM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
I have not heard it used that way, and in any case in this discussion it's only being used in the sense I gave it. It confuses the issues to give it another meaning. The point I was making was that a neutral mutation would not produce an allele for dark fur in a light colored population, and most of the mutations are neutral in that sense, as I've learned from the experts here and on the internet. So let's not change the definition midstream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-04-2014 11:23 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-05-2014 2:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 140 (721209)
03-05-2014 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tanypteryx
03-05-2014 2:44 AM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
You can't just decide what the words mean after I've been using them in another sense. You even acknowledged I'm using it correctly but now you want to insist on another meaning I'm not using.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-05-2014 2:44 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by vimesey, posted 03-05-2014 7:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 112 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2014 7:32 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 140 (721211)
03-05-2014 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by vimesey
03-05-2014 7:02 AM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
The point is that I was using the word in a particular sense, which Tanypteryx agreed was correct in itself, so that of course one CAN come along and totally miss my point by using it in another sense but that would only serve to muddle things. If that is your aim, then of course go right ahead and create the great muddle you desire. I'll just go away, which is perhaps the whole point anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by vimesey, posted 03-05-2014 7:02 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2014 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 140 (721214)
03-05-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by AZPaul3
03-05-2014 7:32 AM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
So there is always a change in the phenotype as a result of ANY mutation? That is certainly not what I've understood from many an encounter with the concepts, but if that is the case then I stand corrected.
ABE That is the only point that has mattered in how I've used the term.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2014 7:32 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2014 8:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024