Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 166 of 518 (808859)
05-14-2017 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:08 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:
I can't offer an explanation for an increase in frequency I don't think even exists.
Since each mutation appears in a single individual, it is rather hard for an allele to appear in even 1% of the population without an increase in its frequency.
See Message 66
quote:
I already gave an answer to this. It's meaningless if the "new" alleles do not change the function of the original.
And I have already explained why that is very badly wrong.
quote:
That paper actually says that all the variations are a good thing because they vary the product. Not so if they are "neutral" mutations that DON'T vary the product despite the sequence variation. In fact the statement is a very strange assertion, even nave.
And the paper is right. It is neither strange nor naive if you understand what the genes do. Which is explained in the paper.
quote:
It seems to me all the answers to my simple YEC model are nothing but unnecessary complications based on standard ToE assumptions that treat mutations as normal.
You can consider the facts to be "unnecessary complications" if you like. But if you do so you prefer a simplistic fantasy world to reality.
quote:
Even assuming that a difference in DNA sequence means a difference in product? That's really a sort of heresy.
What makes you think that the paper makes that assumption ? Or that it is even relying on DNA sequences rather than the protein sequences ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 518 (808860)
05-14-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
05-14-2017 8:31 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Since each mutation appears in a single individual, it is rather hard for an allele to appear in even 1% of the population without an increase in its frequency.
Such an "increase in frequency" is absolutely meaningless if it does the same thing the original allele did. It simply won't be lost, it will be passed on, and it should be passed on at the same rate the original and the other versions of it are passed on, which would look like an increase according to your reckoning but that's an illusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 8:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 05-14-2017 8:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 8:44 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 518 (808861)
05-14-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:12 AM


Re: The model in more detail
quote:
No. what I mean is that scientists are operating under a false paradigm that won't tell them what is really going on because they have false assumptions to begin with.
That "false paradigm" is looking at what the genes actually do instead of relying on an abstract theoretical model that ignores those facts. That is where the complications come from.
quote:
Treating what is really a disease process as if it were normal is not going to show you "what is really going on."
Life is just a disease then ? Seriously. The complications come from looking at what the genes do. Looking at how skin colours are actually produced, looking at the functions of the proteins produced by the genes, looking at how the actual genes correspond to skin colour. All things that Gary Parker didn't do. At all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 518 (808862)
05-14-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:37 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:
Such an "increase in frequency" is absolutely meaningless if it does the same thing the original allele did. It simply won't be lost, it will be passed on, and it should be passed on at the same rate the original and the other versions of it are passed on, which would look like an increase according to your reckoning but that's an illusion.
Imagine a pile of US coins that add up to $100.00.
Now imagine that some of those coins are converted to French Francs, British Pounds and Japanese Yen.
The value is still the same but the diversity has increased.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 170 of 518 (808863)
05-14-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:37 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:
Such an "increase in frequency" is absolutely meaningless if it does the same thing the original allele did.
Wrong. Because we still have to explain how it happened, even then.
quote:
It simply won't be lost, it will be passed on, and it should be passed on at the same rate the original and the other versions of it are passed on, which would look like an increase according to your reckoning but that's an illusion.
If you think that NOT increasing in frequency would somehow create the illusion of an increase in frequency then you are going to have to explain why. But that is what you just said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 9:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 518 (808866)
05-14-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
05-14-2017 8:41 AM


Re: The model in more detail
That "false paradigm" is looking at what the genes actually do instead of relying on an abstract theoretical model that ignores those facts. That is where the complications come from.
No, they ARE "relying on an abstract theoretical model" by treating mutations as normal variations. That's the problem.
Treating what is really a disease process as if it were normal is not going to show you "what is really going on."
Life is just a disease then ?
Mutations are a disease, even when they are "neutral." Treating them as normal modes of variation cannot have good consequences in the end either.
Seriously. The complications come from looking at what the genes do. Looking at how skin colours are actually produced, looking at the functions of the proteins produced by the genes, looking at how the actual genes correspond to skin colour. All things that Gary Parker didn't do. At all.
Sounds good but what if it's an illusion under due to the assumptions of the ToE?. The article that purports to be "looking at how [eye] colors are actually produced" is looking at a mutation in a gene that happens to have some effect on eye color, based on the assumption that mutations produce all new variation, when all that you are looking at is one aberrant way eye color may continue to be produced even with a change in an allele's sequence. There is something really absurd about the idea that a change in the sequence of a part of a gene that is clearly accidental explains how any trait is normally produced. The theory that is guiding the investigation is actually crucial to finding out "what is really going on."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : change "under" to "due to" for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 8:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 518 (808867)
05-14-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by PaulK
05-14-2017 8:44 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
An increase in the frequency of a particular mutation, a mistake in replication that changes the sequence of a particular allele, is an illusion if the mutated sequence does what the original allele did. In that case it is NOT really a new allele at all and its increase is utterly meaningless.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 8:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 11:05 AM Faith has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 173 of 518 (808870)
05-14-2017 9:47 AM


The evolutionists god called nonrandom SELECTION requires beneficial mutations for its supposed divine selective process. The problem is there is no such thing as a beneficiasl mutation. Explosions, radiation, recombinations do not make beneficial mutations...... hence there is no selction and the god of selection dies in the theory and in real life.
SEE Thread Debunking the God of Selection

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 05-14-2017 9:49 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 518 (808871)
05-14-2017 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Davidjay
05-14-2017 9:47 AM


Hi Davidjay,
This is the wrong thread for this argument. You should be making this argument in the Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Davidjay, posted 05-14-2017 9:47 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(2)
Message 175 of 518 (808882)
05-14-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:08 AM


Gene Frequency
I can't offer an explanation for an increase in frequency I don't think even exists.
But it does. You don't get to "not think" a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 176 of 518 (808884)
05-14-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
05-14-2017 8:56 AM


Re: The model in more detail
quote:
No, they ARE "relying on an abstract theoretical model" by treating mutations as normal variations. That's the problem.
It's not an "abstract theoretical model" and they aren't relying on it. The only "problem" is that - unsurprisingly - reality is more complicated Gary Parker's simplistic model. Which is only a problem for you.
quote:
Mutations are a disease, even when they are "neutral." Treating them as normal modes of variation cannot have good consequences in the end either.
That sounds like a call for eugenics.
quote:
Sounds good but what if it's an illusion under due to the assumptions of the ToE?
It obviously isn't. How could it be ? The genes do what they do, and the melanocytes do what they do whether they evolved or not.
quote:
There is something really absurd about the idea that a change in the sequence of a part of a gene that is clearly accidental explains how any trait is normally produced.
And by "absurd" you mean that you don't like it. Too bad for you.
quote:
The theory that is guiding the investigation is actually crucial to finding out "what is really going on.
In terms of the actual genetics of eye colour it doesn't matter whether the variant allele is a mutation or not, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 8:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 518 (808886)
05-14-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
05-14-2017 9:00 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:
An increase in the frequency of a particular mutation, a mistake in replication that changes the sequence of a particular allele, is an illusion if the mutated sequence does what the original allele did. In that case it is NOT really a new allele at all and its increase is utterly meaningless.
Even if it didn't make any difference then obviously the observed frequency is real and not an illusion. Saying otherwise is insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 9:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 3:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 178 of 518 (808894)
05-14-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
05-14-2017 11:05 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
You count it as a separate allele and that's what makes it seem to have increased in frequency, but since it takes selection to bring about an increase in frequency, and that means that it has to have a positive impact on the organism, a very positive impact, which wouldn't happen with eye color or skin color or even immune system protection unless it imporoved health enormously, and certainly won't happen at all if it's a neutral mutation, there is no increased frequency. Most likely it is a neutral mutation that should be counted with all the other versions of the allele. Counting it separately from the other versions of the allele simply creates an illusion and apparently scientists fall for it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 11:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 4:18 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 179 of 518 (808896)
05-14-2017 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
05-14-2017 3:56 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:
You count it as a separate allele and that's what makes it seem to have increased in frequency
The frequency is observed. It is a fact. Of course we have to count the alleles as different in some way to actually count them. But since they are different that isn't a problem. Ignoring the differences to pretend that they don't exist would be a problem.
quote:
but since it takes selection to bring about an increase in frequency, and that means that it has to have a positive impact on the organism, a very positive impact, which wouldn't happen with eye color or skin color or even immune system protection unless it imporoved health enormously, and certainly won't happen at all if it's a neutral mutation, there is no increased frequency. Most likely it is a neutral mutation that should be counted with all the other versions of the allele. Counting it separately from the other versions of the allele simply creates an illusion and apparently scientists fall for it
Scientists are "making the mistake" of telling the truth instead of inventing stupid excuses to ignore it. Surely you can do better than this crap,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 180 of 518 (808898)
05-14-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
05-14-2017 4:18 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
there is no increase in frequency if the mutation does the same thing as the original allele.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 4:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2017 4:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 183 by jar, posted 05-14-2017 5:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024