|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So what did Adam & Eve look like since they had so much more genetic material? Were they so different that they would be a different species than homo sapiens? I used to wonder about that too. The genetic difference as I finally came to understand it is that they had much greater heterozygosity at more loci throughout the genome than we do. And the effect of that greater heterozygosity would in fact be the opposite of "different" from what I've read: in fact they should have been about as normal, typical, average as it's possible to get. The fact, for instance, that they would have possessed all the genetic possibilities for all the varieties of skin color, means only that they were right in the middle of the color range. Probably brown eyes, B being dominant over b, and dark hair, medium height, etc etc etc. Nobody knows, of course, but I think it is a very satisfying idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Heterozygosity is not the issue. It is really funny that you claim that your idea is defensible - but instead of defending it you go and talk about something completely different.
At the least you are talking about hundreds of extra genes, and you identify "junk DNA" as the "remains" of these genes (even though the vast majority of it is not composed of identifiable pseudogenes)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
duplicate, but not my fault. I am getting 503 errors when I post.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Since Adam and Eve were mentioned, and the nonsense of "original sin" and "the fall" were implied, some thoughts:
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code. Adam and Eve are fictional characters, and the implications of various claims as to genetic depletion are also fictional.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I did think it through and discovered it is defensible. I don't think it is defensible and I suspect that you cannot defend it. But it would be easy to prove me wrong. Just answer the question I asked you before: How does a bunch of folks passing away affect the gametes residing in other folks sitting in a boat? Why is that idea anything short of utterly ridiculous? Perhaps you owe Genomicus that explanation rather than me, but you are responding here. At least when you are blaming stuff on the Fall, we can see where you are coming from, but here it appears that you think the genome some kind of spiritual connection linking members of a population instead of being simply particular genetic material that resides in an individual. No, the idea is not defensible. It's just that you like the idea so much that you keep bringing it up. I was prepared to chalk your repetition up to your bad memory, but if you are now going to insist that you 'discovered' it to be defensible when you really cannot defend it, well that ain't honest. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It affects the living people by wiping out ALL the alleles for a great number of genes, in some cases leaving those few survivors on the ark with many homozygous loci and no opportunities to make them heterozygous; so as those are passed on down the centuries, and people divided into races, they are vulnerable to incompatible combinations and mutations that eventually kill the genes. A mutation here a mutation there over a few thousand years should take its toll on fixed loci. I'd guess that a lot of genetic protections against diseases were lost, along with the functions of organs like the appendix and the gall bladder. And deaths since the Flood would have been added.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It affects the living people by wiping out ALL the alleles for a great number of genes, in some cases leaving those few survivors on the ark with many homozygous loci and no opportunities to make them heterozygous; so as those are passed on down the centuries, and people divided into races, they are vulnerable to incompatible combinations and mutations that eventually kill the genes. Loci dying out because they cannot find a mate? Do you understand that everyone has their own loci and that what you are talking about makes no sense? Mutations might cause loci to disappear, but not some allelle pining away for a missing opportunity to become hereozygous. Of course there would be even more chances for 'incompatible combinations with more alleles available, which causes the whole 'Flood caused it' thing to fall apart. And if the answer is of course mutations, that answer is very curious. Because those mutations do not seem to have prevented the formation of races, nor does recombination appear to have resulted in non infer fertile races. I think this proposition of yours created more problems than it addresses. PaulK has pointed out one them, but overall I doubt that there is any science based reason to believe any of this. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The sin nature is inherited almost the way blue eyes are inherited. You can't avoid it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I assume that you mean that every person on the Ark was homozygous, with the same allele, and all the OTHER alleles were therefore wiped out ?
quote: The "incompatible combinations" doesn't make much sense (it isn't that likely and it wouldn't affect the gene at all). And useful genes wouldn't be "killed" by mutation anyway (don't forget that you would need to eliminate the "live" version which would not be easy in the face of selection favouring its retention)
quote: Not really. Why would it ? What should be true is that we should have evidence of recently inactivated genes. Once they are inactivated they will mutate at the neutral rate, with no selection to interfere. So we should be able to get pretty good estimates of the time since the gene "died". Do we have evidence of many human genes being inactivated in the last 4000 years or so? And how does this explain modern genetic diversity ? Isn't the whole point to explain why there are loci with many more alleles than your beliefs would lead us to expect, without invoking mutation ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There was probably scattered homozygosity on the ark for all those loci, rather than total homozygosity, but the vast majority of alleles would have been lost forever in the Flood.
HOW it might have happened is still speculative, however, something to think about, it just seems the most likely explanation of junk DNA from the YEC point of view. Perhaps you could try thinking like a YEC for a moment, maybe you'd come up with the explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Thats walking back quite a way from your original statement. And makes your rather implausible claims even less plausible (because the inactivated gene has to win out over all the alleles)
quote: That it happened at all is - to be kind - wildly speculative, the more so since most "junk DNA" is not recognisable as pseudogenes at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
it just seems the most likely explanation of junk DNA from the YEC point of view. Perhaps you could try thinking like a YEC for a moment, maybe you'd come up with the explanation. I believe this kind of reasoning to be flawed. Even if this was the natural and undeniable conclusion of either your beliefs or your 'theory', it is useless in a debate other than as a target to verify some prediction made on that basis. Junk DNA is not something predicted from your theory, it is instead something you've incorporated. I totally agree that a YEC, particularly one without any particular knowledge of genetics might come up with a similar theory, and then be unable to reject the idea because of lack of awareness of what contrary evidence exists. But isn't that a useless excercise? How does the fact that you can make up a story about something evidence? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
NN writes: Junk DNA is not something predicted from your theory, it is instead something you've incorporated. Absolutely. There are lots of observed facts that support YEC so we make use of them.
NN writes: ...unable to reject the idea because of lack of awareness of what contrary evidence exists. The supposed contrary evidence in the case of junk DNA is a very iffy thing. Although they think they have found some function there it doesn't seem to be very clear what it does. Here's a Scientific American article on it that shows that the study is far from certain about anything:
Sci Am writes: There has been a lot of debate, inside of ENCODE and outside of the project, about whether or not the results from our experiments describe something that is really going on in nature. NN writes: How does the fact that you can make up a story about something evidence? Who said it's "evidence?" I merely present it as a hypothesis that fits the Biblical Flood, and the Biblical Fall for that matter, a lot better than it fits the ToE. It fits so well that it wouldn't make sense to give it up until something definite is known about noncoding DNA one way or the other, which isn't the case now and by the looks of it won't be for some time to come. ABE: WIkipedia may be more up to date:
Wikipedia writes: In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres. The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. Where only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, the percentage of the genome performing regulatory functions is growing. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function for the organism, as theoretically predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has often been referred to as "junk DNA", a term that has elicited strong responses over the years.[2] The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[3] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[4][5] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[6][7][8][9][10] Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.[11][12][13] Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If "junk DNA" supported YEC why are you inventing silly bullshit in an attempt to "explain" it ? Really it seems that the truth is that there are lots of observed facts that contradict YEC and "must" be "explained" or suppressed.
quote: It isn't clear that the supposed evidence of "function" is sufficient to conclude any real function for anything considered genuine junk (not all non-coding DNA is junk) But equally it IS clear that there is no good reason to suppose that even most junk DNA consists of pseudogenes let alone all of it as you claim for some reason I cannot fathom.
quote: Obviously that is untrue. At the very least you have jumped to a daft conclusion without considering the facts that we do know, or even the plausibility of your scenario. The kindest thing I can say is that you are in no position to claim that junk DNA does better fit with TEC belief - and that you are quite clearly wrong to say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Who said it's "evidence?" I merely present it as a hypothesis that fits the Biblical Flood, and the Biblical Fall for that matter, Uh, Faith, please...
You said it was evidence in the Great Debate thread. You did acknowledge that Genomicus would not accept it as evidence. If you agree that it is merely your hypothesis or proposal, then we agree, but that does not change the fact that called it evidence. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024