A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument

If one acknowledges the precision and perfection of the replication system of DNA, and thinks it makes good evidence of a Creator, as you've said of yourself, it would seem to follow that the same precision and perfection is to be expected of all His works, and that nothing can be written off as accidental. If He can design the complex DNA molecule and its amazingly orchestrated workings, He could also design a method for increasing the number of alleles without error. I would have to assume that since the precision we've already talked about is chemically executed as it were, that the same accuracy must also be possible for any chemically executed function of DNA. Mistakes can't be attributed to the Creator, they have to be part of the degeneration of Creation since the Fall. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But DNA replication is not perfect, is it? SO it doesn't follow that everything should be perfect and without stochastic processes. But there is no evidence that He DID do such a thing. It is something you are making up. But that is assuming that the way life works is a "mistake."But this is all off topic - a distraction. Even if everything was created perfect as you suggest, we are discussing how things work NOW. Even if it is true that the fall is responsible for stochastic processes, they still exist NOW. Perhaps the fall put the processes of evolution into motion, but those processes ARE at work now, so if we want to understand biology, we study evolution.HBD

But if I'm answering the question where did all the other alleles per locus come from since the ark if on the ark every individual only had two per locus, then I'm going to answer it from a creationist point of view, not an evolutionist point of view. There may be other creationist explanations than the one I'm giving about mutation, but sticking to mutation, from my point of view it can't be the miserable mutation process that exists today, that makes everything from uselessness to instant death and only very rarely something the organism can make use of. The many alleles per locus are GOOD alleles, they FUNCTION, so they aren't like today's miserable collection of duds and death dealers. The evidence is1. that mutations today deal mostly duds and death but by contrast the many alleles per locus are viable.2/ Imputing to God any form of error or incompetence is really a form of unbelief. Seems more like an observation to me, that mutations are mistakes. [/qs]See my first answer above. I may have been sidetracked somewhat by Ned's post, but it's not really off topic. I'm answering the question about more than two alleles per locus since the ark.I'm not talking about all the processes of evolution, just mutations. RELIABLE mutations are the only possibility I can think of.Everything I think is aligned with the creationist view of a perfect original Creation that is degenerating because of the Fall. It wouldn't make sense for me to think in evolutionist terms about biology or anything else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you are not really answering anything, you are just making stuff up. Which is saying "making stuff up." There is no evidence of a mechanism that produces "reliable mutations." That is not the evidence. That is an exaggerated, misrepresentation of reality. That is not evidence either, but an opinion. And I did not impute error or incompetence to God, I said that what you think are errors and mistakes are not really so.So, the idea is that alleles increased by 350% in the dog kind by some unknown "reliable mutation" mechanism which then suddenly stop functioning and began making mistakes. This requires that this mechanism knows how to make mutations by intentionally manipulating nucleotides. To say I'm skeptical is an major understatement.HBD

HBD, if I'm asked to explain how alleles beyond the two in the original individual were added, I have to speculate about how it might have occurred. Calling that "making things up" is just poisoning the well. ALL theories about the ancient past are "making things up" really. Everything Darwin said was certainly "making things up." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, your perseverence is commendable. Period.You do know that there are thousands of scientists on evolutionary biology alone who share your xian beliefs? You also know that they do not go to work every morning in an intent to destroy the basis of your faith?What they (just like their buddhist or atheist colleagues) do is use science to get answers - not use answers to do science.What you are doing is vomiting on those honest scientists and their achievements. If there was a god, I'd venture a guess that s/he would not like that at all.

There is a difference between looking at the evidence and saying this suggests such and such and saying things that go against the evidence because one has a preconceived notion about what the conclusion should be. Not only is there no evidence that there is a mechanism that can produce "reliable mutations" but there is evidence about how mutations ARE produced. There is not evidence that supports the idea that the original creation was perfect in the way you are describing it; that is an assumption you have based on preconceived idea of what perfect means (actually the Bible says the original creation was "very good" which is not the equivalent of perfect).You are free to speculate, I don't see a problem with that, but those speculations are hardly evidence against criticisms of your genetic depletion hypothesis.HBD

You were asked for an explanation of how so many alleles were formed. The .answer you gave was how those alleles came to be without challenging any of your preconceptions. For the most part scientists don't add that caveat.Especially, Darwin didn't. he based his explanations on solid evidence and known physical process. Whereas you will posit any impossible and un-evidenced scenario that saves your preconceptions.

Yes! Excellent way to put it. Discussions like these are meant to challenge our preconceived ideas as is the scientific process in general. "Making stuff up" is answering criticisms of your preconceptions without having to actually address those preconceptions.

That's the way this debate goes. Darwin was wrong about most of what he said. He assumed microevolution was open-ended. It isn't but you still all think it is. He thought natural selection accounted for the varieties and races or "species," but nothing more than isolation is needed to account for that. You all still believe the wrong stuff. I'm coming up with some right stuff because I don't have YOUR preconceptions, but you aren't anywhere near rethinking them are you? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that is what you believe.We, on the other hand, have concluded that our version of evolution is correct because all the evidence supports it. No, you are coming up with incorrect stuff because you have never studied genetics and you don't know what you are talking about.We, on the other hand, can look at what is known about genetics and clearly see that none of the stuff you are coming up with actually describes reality.Reality trumps belief every time, Faith, every time.

Nice. You answer my "belief" with yours.

Well, I answered your "belief" with our conclusions.Just trying to help.

Another term for them would be beneficial mutations.No need for a new name for an observed process -- mutations happen, some deleterious, some neutral and some beneficial.If it was not in the original individuals then it must be a mutation.If it benefits the bearer in survival and reproduction then it is by definition beneficial.Enjoy

Getting back to this ... Well I worry about not being able to discern what the argument is when it keeps wiggling. It's fine to be tentative, but if your foundation is tentative then the conclusion necessarily is tentative at best, and you need to recognize that as well. Think of it as taking a snap-shot of the genotype\phenotype mix of the first\origin generation of the daughter population from the isolation. If one could tabulate all the allele frequencies of all the genes you would have a definition of that population at that moment.We could do Hardy-Weinberg ratio calculations on them:

quote:

---

​

The Hardy-Weinberg ratio is the starting point for much of the theory of population genetics. It is the ratio of genotype frequencies that evolve when mating is random and neither selection nor drift are operating. ...

​

These frequencies are reached after a single generation of random mating from any initial genotype frequencies ...

---

That would quantify your initial population. Agreed, some traits are somewhat invisible to the eye, leading to better health for instance, but most of the phenotype selection would be apparent in different sizes, different details, and they would be apparent if you were to document each individual rather than look at a tv image of a herd for instance.So "very homogeneous" would be in the eye of the beholder and the detail they invoked. Ever looked at a herd of cows that all appeared superficially the same but differed in details? Curiously I think your "hardest to explain" problem is in your own making by not seeing the diversity in the original population. So we have a lot of agreement thus far, but ... Well, I think what we have here is one of the reasons you keep saying that people don't understand your argument, as we are using this word in slightly different ways.If it is an observation that you base your hypothesis on it is part of your argument that leads to that hypothesis, this is part of the formal structure of the way science is described.Your argument is not your conclusion, it is the path that leads to your conclusion: if persuasive it should lead others to a similar conclusion.The conclusion is not the argument it is the hypothesis that is based on the argument/s that are presented to support it.Your hypothesis is that these processes require reduced genetic diversity. As an hypothesis it is testable and falsifiable.This gets us to the point of new phenotype mixes beginning to occur ... Do you agree?Enjoy