Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

I agree, but I think more argument and clarification is needed for your position. Why is a (restating) "5% rate of occurrence or more in the sample for at least five MHC alleles" impossible in 300 generations by drift alone?I was browsing through the Wikipedia article on Major histocompatibility complex and see some of what you've said, for instance (going from memory) that some genes of the MHC complex have nearly 1000 alleles or more. A simple question is how so many alleles could have arisen and spread through a population in only 300 generations. Which you may have asked at least once already?--Percy

That's a flat out lie. Those are all statements from the theory of evolution. That is an empty assertion with zero evidence to back it. If differences in DNA sequence do not create differences in function, then how in the world do you explain why species look different from each other? How do you explain why alleles function differently from each other?You aren't making any sense at all. Why aren't the differences between species due to the summation of differences in their genomes? Where in the world do you think the physical differences between species comes from?

For the HLA-DRB1 gene there are thousands of alleles in the human population. Your model is falsified. Chimps have 40 million mutations compared to the human genome and they do just fine. Your model is falsified once again.If the human genome can't be changed at all without causing "interference" then humans should be the only species in existence. Obviously, they aren't. Your model is falsified. Strong selection exists and occurs. Since your model can't incorporate reality, it is falsified.

If the DNA sequence of the human genome can't be changed to produce new function then humans should be the only species on Earth. That is what your model predicts.If changes in DNA sequence can lead to new function and new species, then mutations can produce new functions and new species.

Another question would be why all other genes don't have the same variation.

Here's a group of 120 Cubans and 1 MHC gene.Table 1 HLA-A, allele frequencies in
Cuban individuals with a dengue 2 virus infection history.HLA GF (%)
A*02- 22.7
A*30- 10.6
A*24- 9.5
A*68- 8.0
A*03- 7.0
A*29- 6.5
A*23- 5.5
A*01- 5.5
A*31- 4.5
A*74- 3.5
A*33- 3.0
A*32- 2.5
A*34- 2.0
A*36- 2.0
A*25- 1.5
A*26- 1.5
A*66- 1.5
A*11- 1.0
A*80- 1.0HLA human leukocyte antigen; GF allele frequency (as percentageThe easiest way to explain this might be to look at ourselves as individuals. On the YEC model, we are ~15,000 mutations away from Adam and Eve on the whole genome. That would give us ~ 180 mutational hits on the small part that is coding genes, most of them falling on different genes, so we have new alleles on ~1% of the total of ~18,000.So, if we take 120 people as above, what would we expect on a given gene in purely neutral evolution. The four original alleles dominating, and perhaps 1, 2 or 3 exceptions.Now look at the chart, and what do we see? If the YEC model, then signals of very strong selection on lots of new alleles. With a population this size, if 1000 alleles can be tolerated, they'll be there. 100 million births gives you all the point mutations and more. So, it depends on the size of the group you're looking at.Edited by bluegenes, : nothing of noteEdited by bluegenes, : removed mistake in chart

I know but I've come to the conclusion that it was most likely two and I'm going with that for now. I think it's going to hold up. I've already given some of my reasoning for this. Well I'll see how it goes. I'm going with two alleles per gene in all generations, mutations contributing nothing new/beneficial. I recently came to this conclusion from the various facts I've already given that show great variation possible from nothing more than the many possible combinations of genes with two alleles each. I expect to try to defend this more as the thread proceeds.

That's good, I figured there had to be more genes and more information about this since Parker's 1982 book. Since you can get the whole range of skin color in one generation from only two genes with two alleles each this shows that you don't need a lot of alleles per gene. In fact although I expected there must be more genes for these traits I didn't expect there to be this many, they seem unnecessary considering the great range of diversity possible from two.

Based on what?--Percy

That extreme variation that is there is due to mutations, right? Which so far you've only shown to have unique functions in two examples as I recall. In my model mutations are an accident, a disease process fundamentally, even if mot of the time they manage to avoid changing a functioning allele, meaning they have the same function as the allele they replace; or, rarely, even manage to create a new sequence that really does do something beneficially different (I have my doubts about this but that discussion would be far down the road for me). I'm not following you. First I don't see what drift has to do with any of this. But mostly I don't see why there couldn't be some enormous number of mutations at a locus that seems to be prone to mutation. I don't expect anything good to come of mutations, though, at best noninterference with the function of the allele they change. Again I'm not following your thinking. I'm thinking only of mutations occurring as mistakes in DNA replication and don't see that there is anything that would particularly promote or prevent that occurrence if they're accidents of replication. Some loci are more prone to mutation than others for whatever reason, perhaps you know the reason but I don't, but in my system they are a disease process, not good for the organism. I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference.

This would mean that humans can be the only species in existence because the only possible function is that found in the human genome. Since this isn't true, your model is falsified. Then you wouldn't expect other species to have a genome that differs from humans. Since they do differ, your model is falsified.

How are all the numbers derived? I think I follow the logic here. Given the amount of the human genome taken up by coding genes, the 15,000 mutations since Adam and Eve would be sprinkled around so that only a very small percentage of genes would be affected. Most would be unaffected, and a small percentage would have 1 maybe 2 and sometimes maybe even 3 mutations. Certainly it would be very unexpected for any gene to have experienced hundreds of mutations. But so many alleles wouldn't be possible in the YEC Adam/Eve model, would they? Wouldn't the "signals of very strong selection" be evidence that some other model must be in play?--Percy

My thinking on this subject has changed due to appreciating how much variation is possible from two alleles per gene with more than one gene. Here's Gary Parker's discussion of the great range of skin color possible from just two genes with two alleles each:From What Is Creation Science?, 1982 paperback by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, pp 113-114 (this part written by Parker): So here's the chart, though my reproduction of it will no doubt leave a lot to be desired:-------- /AB------- Ab------ aB -------ab===========================AB---- --/AA ------- AA-------Aa-------Aa
---------- /BB------- Bb-------BB------- BbAb ------- /AA-------AA------Aa-------Aa
---------- /Bb-------bb------BB-------bbaB------- /Aa-------Aa--------aa--------aa
---- -- ---/BB-------Bb-------BB--------Bbab------- /Aa-------Aa-------aa--------aa
---------- /Bb-------bb-------Bb--------bbI'm Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See if Message 66 makes it any clearer to you. Particularly, concentrate on the point that we would only have mutations (new alleles) on ~1% of our coding genes as individuals. The rest would be identical to the four in Adam and Eve. So, take a random gene and examine it on 100 people, and you'd expect the original 4 alleles + perhaps 1 individual with a new one on average.

Nonsense.