|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're right, I did call it evidence, but you seem to be making too much of that word. It's like the fossil record and the strata are evidence for the Flood, it's a general compatibility between the observed physical facts and the Biblical revelation. But yes, I did call it evidence.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You're right, I did call it evidence, but you seem to be making too much of that word. Really? Given the requirement for evidence as support of argument in the science forum, I would think that evidence is of high importance.
It's like the fossil record and the strata are evidence for the Flood, it's a general compatibility between the observed physical facts and the Biblical revelation. In short then, not only in junk dna not evidence for your position, but neither are the fossil record or the geological column evidence for the flood. Instead those things just fit your narrative regarding say, the grand canyon, said feature having zero mention in the Bible. Is this really what you meant to convey? I think some of these things would be a surprise to regular participants. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You mean it's another thing we mustn't look at too closely, lest we find out that it is evidence against YEC belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But we need to explain new genotypes... how do new genotypes arise? So, back to my example of cytochrome C (cytC). This is a coding gene that is widely used for species identification, aka. a bar coding gene. (Note: unfortunately it is not a universal bar code meaning it doesn't work with all types of organisms. We don't use it for fungi, for example, but it is widely used for plants and animals). Every species has a unique cytC sequence(s) that can be used to identify an organism as a member of a species. Say you discover an organism that you are not quite sure what species it is, maybe it has a unique morphology or form that makes it difficult to place it with a particular group. Or maybe the distinction between species requires the analysis of very obscure characteristics. You could sequence the cytC and compare that sequence to a database in order to identify what species the organism is. OK, let's start with a single mating pair with maximum number of alleles at the cytC locus - a, b, c, d. These alleles could segregate into sub-populations so that 4 species, subspecies, varieties, breeds, whatever you want to call them have a unique cytC identifier. THE PROBLEM. There are many, many more species than 4 that would have come from a single ark pair. Even working from the genus level in Canis or Drosophila, there are dozens of species with unique cytC sequences. Even being generous and considering there to be 10 actual unique species within each of those genus, that would mean there needs to be 6 alleles of cytC that have arisen since the ark kind. Yes, your hypothesis would only involve shuffling alleles around and altering allele frequency, which is sufficient to explain evolution within a population, that is, how a population with brown fur becomes a population with white fur. But it is a small part of the big picture and it doesn't explain how we have the actual genetic diversity that we observe today. I've been trying to understand all this but it remains undecipherable. I do, however, have some questions that might eventually help clarify it. You say that from a single pair on the ark the maximum number of "species" that could come from it is four. But what do you mean by "species?" You say
Every species has a unique cytC sequence(s) that can be used to identify an organism as a member of a species. And you also say:
OK, let's start with a single mating pair with maximum number of alleles at the cytC locus - a, b, c, d. These alleles could segregate into sub-populations so that 4 species, subspecies, varieties, breeds, whatever you want to call them have a unique cytC identifier. So each separate breed of dog has its own unique cytC sequence? You can identify, say, a spaniel from a wolfhound from a poodle by their own unique sequence? Or a Persian cat from Siamese? Or from a lion, or a lion from a tiger? A grizzly from a polar bear? See, if all it does is distinguish cat from dog from bear there is obviously no problem, right? And when you start out saying we need to explain "new genotypes," my answer is that there shouldn't be any new genotypes anywhere in the evolution of a Kind. ************************AbE: I think I misunderstood what you meant about genotypes. Now I think you were just saying I'm wrong about phenotypes because of course genotypes underlie phenotypes. In which case my answer is of course you can get new genotypes the same way you get new phenotypes, from the changed gene/allele frequencies. You keep thinking more is needed to get a new breed or subspecies but it's not, changed gene frequencies is all it takes. Remember again that evolution itself has been defined as nothing more than a change in gene frequencies. That ought to show how much change you can get from nothing more than "shuffling alleles." Changing genotypes in this context is just getting a new frequency of genotypes from the new frequencies of alleles. Not new in the sense of absolutely novel, just new in the sense of new frequencies of some combinations -- that's all it takes to make a population characterized by different phenotypes from the parent population. /AbE **************************** But you are apparently saying more than that (identifying dogs from cats from bears etc):
There are many, many more species than 4 that would have come from a single ark pair. Even working from the genus level in Canis or Drosophila, there are dozens of species with unique cytC sequences. You can eliminate drosophila from the list because God didn't command Noah to save insects or bacteria, or even plants for that matter, although I'm willing to think about plants. But it's still unclear what you have in mind with these "dozens of species with unique cytC sequences." Perhaps you could be a little clearer about all this? ***************************************************ABE: The more I think about this the less sense it makes. OK, let's start with a single mating pair with maximum number of alleles at the cytC locus - a, b, c, d. These alleles could segregate into sub-populations so that 4 species, subspecies, varieties, breeds, whatever you want to call them have a unique cytC identifier.
1) These alleles are species identifiers, you say, so how is it that two individuals of the same Kind/Species would have four different species-identification alleles among them? 2) When that pair mates, say they are dogs, they aren't going to have four new species or even one new species, they are going to have a litter of puppies. Which should all have the same cytC identifier since they are all of the same Kind/Species, shouldn't they? 3) After they grow in numbers to a sizeable population then they might split off into subpopulations and eventually become new subspecies of dogs. But they'd all still have the cytC identifier for Dogs, wouldn't they? What are you saying? That when a new subspecies emerges, at some point it gets a new cytC identifier? What would bring that about? At what point would you expect it to emerge in the process of its evolution? All I can think is that if it is a species-identifier then it is a Dog identifier, not a dog-breed identifier, in other words it is an identifier of the Biblical Kind or Species. If that's the case then it would make a wonderful way of defining what a Kind is. Can you please sort all this out? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's like the fossil record and the strata are evidence for the Flood, it's a general compatibility between the observed physical facts and the Biblical revelation. We know you're bluffing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Faith writes: And when you start out saying we need to explain "new genotypes," my answer is that there shouldn't be any new genotypes anywhere in the evolution of a Kind. 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 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know what your problem is, so I'll just ask how you expect to get something other than the BB's, bb's and Bb's of a particular genotype in the process of microevolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I sometimes think you must inhabit some other universe.
Anyway:
In short then, not only in junk dna not evidence for your position, but neither are the fossil record or the geological column evidence for the flood. Oh but they are, in the general sense I said. Dead DNA great evidence for the Fall, which brought death into the world and was punished by the Flood; fossils and strata great evidence for the Flood.
Instead those things just fit your narrative regarding say, the grand canyon, said feature having zero mention in the Bible. It is absurd to have to explain something as obvious as the attempt by creationists to show the physical evidence in the world that supports the Bible. No mention IN the Bible is needed, what an utterly absurd idea. The Grand Canyon is chock full of evidence for the Flood since it exposes the strata to such a great depth, which is only one of dozens of ways it proves the Flood as I've many times demonstrated. The billions of dead things found in the strata are superb evidence for the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't know what your problem is, so I'll just ask how you expect to get something other than the BB's, bb's and Bb's of a particular genotype in the process of microevolution. When mutation produces a 𝔅 or a β or a ƃ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh but they are, in the general sense I said. Dead DNA great evidence for the Fall ... Be specific. How does this notion of "the Fall" predict that organisms will carry only those pseudogenes predicted by the theory of evolution and no others?
The billions of dead things found in the strata are superb evidence for the Flood. Be specific. How does this notion of "the Flood" predict that the fossil record will exhibit exactly that order predicted by the theory of evolution and not some other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I don't know what your problem is, so I'll just ask how you expect to get something other than the BB's, bb's and Bb's of a particular genotype in the process of microevolution. I'm [not] surprised to see that you've blocked out mutation again. I'll probably get bored with this eventually, but until then I'll just give you more information about the recent findings that demonstrate it happening in the peppered moth. This is what we mean when we ask for evidence. Peer reviewed, meticulous and detailed work in prestigious publication.
The classroom example of a visible evolutionary response is industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia): the replacement, during the Industrial Revolution, of the common pale typica form by a previously unknown black (carbonaria) form, driven by the interaction between bird predation and coal pollution1. The carbonaria locus has been coarsely localized to a 200-kilobase region, but the specific identity and nature of the sequence difference controlling the carbonaria—typica polymorphism, and the gene it influences, are unknown2. Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record. We have begun to dissect the mode of action of the carbonaria transposable element by showing that it increases the abundance of a cortex transcript, the protein product of which plays an important role in cell-cycle regulation, during early wing disc development. Our findings fill a substantial knowledge gap in the iconic example of microevolutionary change, adding a further layer of insight into the mechanism of adaptation in response to natural selection. The discovery that the mutation itself is a transposable element will stimulate further debate about the importance of ‘jumping genes’ as a source of major phenotypic novelty. From NatureThe industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element | Nature Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1108 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined: |
If Adam and Eve had more functional genes than current humans, why wouldn't those genes be active. So having multiple genes for melanin production, Adam & Eve would be black with black eyes.
Why would they not be similar to Down Syndrome? In Down Syndrome an extra copy of chromosome 21 is active. The active genes have major impacts on physical and mental development compared to average people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I sometimes think you must inhabit some other universe. Not so fast, Ms. Faith.
Oh but they are, in the general sense I said. Dead DNA great evidence for the Fall, which brought death into the world and was punished by the Flood; fossils and strata great evidence for the Flood. As you have acknowledged, those things are evidence in the fairly useless sense that the are 'generally compatible' with the narrative you push. But not in the sense in which we all mean evidence. And not in the sense in which you know I meant when you asked who called them evidence, and when you insisted that I was making too much of that word. The sense in which they are facts, which if proven true, separate your proposition from the other propositions on the table.
It is absurd to have to explain something as obvious as the attempt by creationists to show the physical evidence in the world that supports the Bible. You aren't explaining anything. What you are doing is completing the confirmation that you don't have any real evidence. Again, that some fact "supports the Bible" is an extremely low standard. That is particularly true when we are discussing propositions that you have made up after finding out the facts.
The billions of dead things found in the strata are superb evidence for the Flood. Again, as you have already acknowledged, and as you point out here, evidence as you use the term means only 'generally compatible". The Bible says the flood killed lots of things, and there are fossils of lots of dead things. However once we get into the details we find that the structure, order, etc of the fossils reflects exactly what evolution predicts, and does not reflect the flood. Similarly, your description of junk DNA does not either 1) separate your propositions from evolution. Both are equally compatible or 2) explain the detailed make up of junk DNA. In fact, you have to be told the nature of DNA before you make up the next element to your narrative to explain it. Why after such an exercise would it be amazing that your story matches the facts. You made it up after the fact. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I don't know what your problem is, so I'll just ask how you expect to get something other than the BB's, bb's and Bb's of a particular genotype in the process of microevolution. Why are you defensive? I quoted your remarks without any comment. One way to get something different is to have an imperfect copy of either the B or the b. That would be a mutation. But of course you knew that given that the issue here is your denial of the role of mutations. So what was the point of your question? 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