|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I guess she could be just ignoring existing variation. But of course it is obviously daft to think that restoring variation to the same level as the parent species would make the daughter species anything but a "nice clear species" (to the extent that real species are "clear"). After all the parent species had the same level of variation.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I've taken an interest in the season of Winter, specifically in the changes that mark its beginning. I have observed that every year, as we enter winter the temperature inevitably does down. And it turns out that this is true everywhere in the world, even in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are reversed.
Obviously this means that world temperatures are on an inevitable downward trend. Some people tali about other seasons, or even invoking the dubious "science" of global warming. But that is just a tactic to confuse the issue. By thinking only of Winter we can see the clear downward trend, which will inevitably end when the temperature reaches absolute zero.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You mean it's another thing we mustn't look at too closely, lest we find out that it is evidence against YEC belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You've even managed to confuse yourself. You refuse to deal with the actual theory of evolution, insisting on your own (strawman) instead. And we don't care if you prove that false because none of us believe it. In the real theory of evolution genetic variation can increase. Evolution does not act like a peculiarly close-minded breeder, who cannot accept any new variation (as you admit there are plenty of possible variations that do not get in the way of real breeders - and evolution has no intended outcome that variations could interfere with anyway). The real theory of evolution accepts the fact that mutations can produce useful traits - and even with the restrictions imposed by your demand for proof some small examples have been found. Simply assuming that it cannot happen is convenient for you but hardly a convincing argument. And if praying to God doesn't help you understand, why should we expect it to help anyone else ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The cases with absolute proof are rare because it is hard to get absolute proof. The evidence is far more abundant.
quote: The whole point of your argument is that the "built in" variation is NOT sufficient. Adding to it, then, is precisely what we need to answer you.
quote: This assertion of yours has already been refuted. So long as genetic diversity can increase between speciation events it can offset any losses during speciation events.
quote: In your, biased, opinion.
quote: How like a creationist - always blaming someone else for your mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The point of your argument is that variation must run out, bringing evolution to a halt. This is the only truly relevant "sufficiency" to this discussion.
quote: A solution which takes thousands of years - perhaps many thousands - while providing no short-term help is obviously worse than a solution that can have effects within a few generations. So your point has no relevance to the discussion - it is true no matter which side is right. Are you going to blame God for your failure to understand that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Which is, of course, the point of your argument. Although you are wrong again because there is considerable evidence for common ancestry and throwing out the best explanation we have for it inevitably creates problems.
quote: It really doesn't. Especially not in the timescale allowed by YEC belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: And now you are complaining that scientists haven't invented more jargon. Of course the sole reason for the complaint is that you got the definition wrong. But you have to blame other people as usual.
quote: But of course the two are not separate even in your argument. Selection - natural and artificial - is by phenotype. And if these phenotypic variations are all allowed within the breed, how can you say that a new mutation would automatically be rejected by a breeder ? Are you suggesting that new mutations must always fall outside the acceptable phenotypic range ? Because that is the only way it could happen. Even then the extension to evolution would be silly, because evolution does not have the artificial standards used by breeders - so expecting it to follow them is just plain daft.
quote: Are they, or is this something you made up ? I doubt that it is true for the many different alleles in the immune system or in the alleles for human eye colour for a start.
quote: Only in the sense that your lies are really, really silly. Maybe if you pray more, your God will give you some better ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The article obviously said no such thing. Try reading it. Or even the section you quoted.
quote: Mutations usually create new alleles (at least at the level of genetic sequences) but it is abusing the terminology rather to say that is creating a polymorphic gene.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024