|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I see you added the line about nucleotide diversity. Dr. A pulled that same trick on me once.
It doesn't help with understanding, however.
Nucleotide diversity is the extent of nucleotide polymorphisms within a population, and is commonly measured through molecular markers such as micro- and minisatellite sequences, mitochondrial DNA[16], and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs So are you saying that MtDNA and microsatellites are measuring nucleotide diversity? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My view of all these things seems to be pretty compatible with standard creationist thinking as I've encountered it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
So are you saying that MtDNA and microsatellites are measuring nucleotide diversity? Nucleotide diversity is one way of measuring genetic diversity. Nucleotide diversity can be measured with mtDNA and microsatellite sequences. And it's not a trick. I just updated the Wikipedia entry since it was clearly lacking in comprehensiveness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
These are mutations of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My view of all these things seems to be pretty compatible with standard creationist thinking as I've encountered it. I don't think 'standard creationist thinking' includes any opinion about genetic diversity. Creationists in general don't bother with this stuff. Your theory about why evolution does not work is something I have never heard any other espoused by any other creationist, including the doctors who believe that evolution is 'lies from the pits of hell' and those thinkers from the Discovery Institute. But yeah, your ideas about death are fairly standard creationist thinking, despite the problems I've identified with that thinking. 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 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't think 'standard creationist thinking' includes any opinion about genetic diversity. Creationists in general don't bother with this stuff. Your theory about why evolution does not work is something I have never heard any other espoused by any other creationist ... Creationists usually discuss it as "loss of information" which certainly implies that evolution doesn't work because it loses information, though I haven't found it elaborated much. I think my terms are clearer and I made it my own particular argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Creationists usually discuss it as "loss of information" which certainly implies that evolution doesn't work because it loses information What is "it"? Often it is the unspecified pronouns that muddle thinking. Loss of information is a completely different idea than what you propose in this thread. In essence the 'loss of information' idea is an attempt to say that evolution cannot accumulate to produce anything useful, and not that mutations, if mutation did create new alleles, could not add diversity in a meaningful way. So yours, and conventional Creationism are two entirely distinct and not even wholly compatible approaches. And quite frankly, neither approach is actually required by a literal reading of Genesis. All that is required is that the actual origin of man was by special creation 6000 years ago. If that is the case, then there is insufficient time for evolution to work even if it is possible and no need to demonstrate that evolution cannot work. And of course both ideas do have some things in common. Both insist that evolution cannot work when all that is needed is a statement that it was not used, and both of them have the same issues with the Biblical text that I've discussed. 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 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Creationists usually discuss it as "loss of information" which certainly implies that evolution doesn't work because it loses information What is "it"? Often it is the unspecified pronouns that muddle thinking. I think you get the prize for muddled thinking on any subject I've ever discussed with you. However, "it," which is pretty clear from the context, is my argument about loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. That's my version of it. The usual creationist version is the argument about loss of information. The information that is lost is genetic information.
Loss of information is a completely different idea than what you propose in this thread. In essence the 'loss of information' idea is an attempt to say that evolution cannot accumulate to produce anything useful, That's probably a fairly muddled way of putting it but it will do for the moment: my argument is along the same lines. Evolution loses, it does not accumulate, anything. That's the essence of MY argument. They call it information, I call it genetic diversity but the same thing is intended. It's you who are muddled as usual. You have misrepresented my argument in this thread and on other occasions many times. There's hardly any point in mentioning it any more.
and not that mutations, if mutation did create new alleles, could not add diversity in a meaningful way. Mutations aren't the core of my argument either. They come up because people here make them the issue, as they also would if loss of information were the argument instead. And now this thread is into a more sophisticated version of the mutation challenge than usual, the use of mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites to measure genetic diversity, and although just getting a basic idea of what on earth these are and do has been difficult, to put it mildly, and I still don't see any rational explanation for any of it, I have some small improved idea about it that has convinced me it's one of the more major deceptions in the whole deceptive mess of the ToE.
So yours, and conventional Creationism are two entirely distinct and not even wholly compatible approaches. There are differences, mostly because I've elaborated a different terminology and way of approaching it, but otherwise they are basically the same argument.
And quite frankly, neither approach is actually required by a literal reading of Genesis. It takes a supremely muddled mind even to have that idea, which you keep repeating. Genesis doesn't REQUIRE any particular approach to these questions. But evolutionary science does and evolution contradicts basic facts in Genesis and that's why arguments based on the Bible aim to show the fallacies in evolution.
All that is required is that the actual origin of man was by special creation 6000 years ago. If that is the case, then there is insufficient time for evolution to work even if it is possible and no need to demonstrate that evolution cannot work. And of course both ideas do have some things in common. Both insist that evolution cannot work when all that is needed is a statement that it was not used, and both of them have the same issues with the Biblical text that I've discussed. You are welcome to make your own argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But the usual creationist argument is that mutations always lose information, although they never seem to come up with any good reasons to believe it. They almost never come up,with a measure of information either, making the whole thing vacuous.
That's quite a way from your argument which tries at every stage to ignore mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: The way added mutations could mess up a breed is by changing major characteristics.
Chimps and humans have different characteristics, yet neither is broken. Chimps and humans differ by 40 million mutations, yet neither is broken. Your claims are contradicted by reality.
And this is after the Whozit breed has been pretty well established, so that it's ALREADY lost genetic diversity in its formation, which is NECESSARY to its formation. You would first need to show that anything it loses is necessary.
The idea that one mutation could come along and increase its genetic diversity in any meaningful sense of the term is quite laughable. Then you need to answer a simple question. Why do you think chimps and humans are physically different from each other? Isn't it due to the genetic differences between the genomes of each species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So are you saying that MtDNA and microsatellites are measuring nucleotide diversity? You can measure nucleotide diversity in any type of DNA. DNA is constructed of nucleotides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: I think you get the prize for muddled thinking on any subject I've ever discussed with you. However, "it," which is pretty clear from the context, is my argument about loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. That's my version of it. The usual creationist version is the argument about loss of information. The information that is lost is genetic information. Ultimately, your definition is meaningless. If we went back to the common ancestor of chimps and humans and tracked every single mutation that accumulated in each lineage, you would call every one of those changes a loss in information. You would define human evolution, with our evolution of upright walking and big brains, as a loss in information. In the end, evolution works just fine with what you define as a loss in information. Evolution doesn't need to produce an increase in information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. The analogy I have used before is a home run in baseball. Everyone defines it as hitting the ball over the fence on the fly. However, you come along and define it as hitting a ball 1,000 feet, and then claim that no one has ever hit a home run. However, no hitter needs to hit the ball 1,000 feet in order to jog around the bases, so your definition doesn't matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But the usual creationist argument is that mutations always lose information I'm not famliar with that argument though I suppose this is a version of it, from Jonathan Sarfati:
Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. However he also gives the argument I recognize as a version of my own:
But the finch beak variation is merely the result of selection of existing genetic information, while the GTE requires new information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. I keep losing the page I'm on but here's another page from the same book: That's Chapter 5. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 all get into the problem of evolution's inability to provide new information, which is a version of my argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well, no. Arguing that mutations lose traits still claims that mutations can add genetic diversity. So it is quite a different argument, although still foolish and still short of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However, "it," which is pretty clear from the context, is my argument about loss of genetic diversity by evolutionary processes. That's my version of it. The usual creationist version is the argument about loss of information. The information that is lost is genetic information. Ultimately, your definition is meaningless. If we went back to the common ancestor of chimps and humans and tracked every single mutation that accumulated in each lineage, you would call every one of those changes a loss in information. But I just said I DON'T use the argument about information, but that it's a VERSION of my argument which is about genetic diversity. And I DON'T say that mutations are a loss in information, OR a loss in genetic diversity either. So you've got this discussion all garbled somehow or other. My argument is that to get new traits or phenotypes you have to lose genetic diversity. Jonathan Sarfati probably disagrees with me. He'd say you can't get anything NEW without new information, that all the changes we see are brought about by existing information. He also doesn't think we should use the term "microevolution." I haven't been convinced he's right about that. Anyway I don't have an opinion about mutations you find in chimps.
You would define human evolution, with our evolution of upright walking and big brains, as a loss in information. Not my argument. I don't discuss mutations as a loss in information. What I would say is that different races are the result of isolation of some portion of the entire human population, which contains a particular set of genetic possibilities, or new gene frequencies, that form the race after many generations of mixing together the new gene frequencies. This is also how you get domestic breeds and subspecies in the wild -- by losing some genetic material so that a particular set of genetic possibilities form the new breed or species. The point of this is that whenever you get phenotypic change you also get loss of genetic possibilities or of genetic diversity. But the ToE assumes you can get endless phenotypic changes without taking into account that it requires loss of genetic diversity to get them. All this occurs with the existing or built-in genetic possibilities, or microevolution, nothing new is added, nor can it be added.
In the end, evolution works just fine with what you define as a loss in information. Evolution doesn't need to produce an increase in information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. Again I don't argue about information, only about genetic diversity. And since phenotypic change requires a loss of genetic diversity you DO need an increase if evolution is to continue past the boundary of the Species. I gather Sarfati and others might not bother about the loss of genetic diversity but just say all changes we see occur from the existing "information," and if you are going to get something truly new you are going to need new information, and that doesn't occur.
The analogy I have used before is a home run in baseball. Everyone defines it as hitting the ball over the fence on the fly. However, you come along and define it as hitting a ball 1,000 feet, and then claim that no one has ever hit a home run. However, no hitter needs to hit the ball 1,000 feet in order to jog around the bases, so your definition doesn't matter. It's a very poor analogy for the actual situation being described.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024