|
Author
|
Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 106 of 455 (785279)
06-01-2016 10:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by 14174dm
06-01-2016 5:04 PM
|
|
Re: Was Adam Human?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by 14174dm, posted 06-01-2016 5:04 PM | | 14174dm has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 107 of 455 (785281)
06-02-2016 12:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
06-01-2016 10:54 PM
|
|
Re: Was Adam Human?
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)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Faith, posted 06-01-2016 10:54 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 108 of 455 (785283)
06-02-2016 1:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
06-01-2016 10:46 PM
|
|
Re: Was Adam Human?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Faith, posted 06-01-2016 10:46 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 109 of 455 (785284)
06-02-2016 1:32 AM
|
|
|
On Adam and Eve and "the fall"
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. Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a tendency to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free. What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. Ayn Rand —Ayn Rand Lexicon 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.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 5:51 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 110 of 455 (785285)
06-02-2016 1:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
06-01-2016 10:46 PM
|
|
Re: Was Adam Human?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Faith, posted 06-01-2016 10:46 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 5:03 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 111 of 455 (785290)
06-02-2016 5:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
06-02-2016 1:35 AM
|
|
junk DNA a sort of fossil record of former life
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2016 1:35 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 112 of 455 (785294)
06-02-2016 5:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
06-02-2016 5:03 AM
|
|
Re: junk DNA a sort of fossil record of former life
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 5:03 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 113 of 455 (785296)
06-02-2016 5:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
06-02-2016 1:32 AM
|
|
Re: On Adam and Eve and "the fall"
The sin nature is inherited almost the way blue eyes are inherited. You can't avoid it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2016 1:32 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 114 of 455 (785306)
06-02-2016 8:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
06-02-2016 5:03 AM
|
|
Re: junk DNA a sort of fossil record of former life
quote:
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;
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:
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 gene
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:
A mutation here a mutation there over a few thousand years should take its toll on fixed loci
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 ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 5:03 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 9:45 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 115 of 455 (785314)
06-02-2016 9:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
06-02-2016 8:15 AM
|
|
Re: junk DNA a sort of fossil record of former life
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2016 8:15 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 116 of 455 (785315)
06-02-2016 10:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
06-02-2016 9:45 AM
|
|
Re: junk DNA a sort of fossil record of former life
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 9:45 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 117 of 455 (785334)
06-02-2016 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
06-02-2016 9:45 AM
|
|
Is lightning evidence of Thor?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 9:45 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-03-2016 12:00 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1463 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 118 of 455 (785342)
06-03-2016 12:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
06-02-2016 3:56 PM
|
|
We know about lightning, we don't know much about noncoding DNA
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2016 3:56 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 119 of 455 (785343)
06-03-2016 12:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
06-03-2016 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: We know about lightning, we don't know much about noncoding DNA
quote:
Absolutely. There are lots of observed facts that support YEC so we make use of them.
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:
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
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:
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.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-03-2016 12:00 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 120 of 455 (785345)
06-03-2016 12:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
06-03-2016 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: We know about lightning, we don't know much about noncoding DNA
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-03-2016 12:00 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by Faith, posted 06-03-2016 1:12 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2