|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: And I have already explained why that is very badly wrong.
quote: 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: 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: What makes you think that the paper makes that assumption ? Or that it is even relying on DNA sequences rather than the protein sequences ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Wrong. Because we still have to explain how it happened, even then.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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 Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : change "under" to "due to" for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: That sounds like a call for eugenics.
quote: 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: And by "absurd" you mean that you don't like it. Too bad for you.
quote: In terms of the actual genetics of eye colour it doesn't matter whether the variant allele is a mutation or not, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Even if it didn't make any difference then obviously the observed frequency is real and not an illusion. Saying otherwise is insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
there is no increase in frequency if the mutation does the same thing as the original allele.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024