|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Why so many alleles? Aren't they just mutations? Mutations don't normally do anything good. Parker showed how the whole range of human skin colors can be produced in one generation by only two genes with two alleles each according to standard Mendelian principles. That's a LOT of variation in one generation. And if there are yet more genes for skin color there's a lot more than that and without any extra alleles. The main problem with this very narrow argument is that you are extrapolating from one gene to all genes. Just because skin color may or may not be determined by two genes with two alleles each does not mean that other physical characteristics are governed the same way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Could be, but the vast majority of traits probably follow the simple Mendelian system. Probably? Why?
I LOVE that it's so "narrow." Simplicity is beautiful. I meant "narrow" as in focused on just one species. Also, biology isn't simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: My contrary assumption would be, as usual, that all those difference in DNA sequences are probably mostly "neutral" mutations that don't change the original function of the allele. Is there evidence against this idea? Is there evidence FOR this idea?
I don't really grasp what point you are trying to make about the numbers or percentages of these mutations within a population, except that it is based on assuming that they do something good for the population, which I'm doubting. So that where you see the numbers as indicating some percentage of good I see them as indicating some percentage of bad. From all indications you seem to accept natural selection, so we can proceed from there. If these alleles were detrimental or less beneficial than other alleles then we wouldn't find them in about the same abundance. This is because less beneficial or detrimental alleles would be selected against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Here's the Mendel square for skin color from Gary Parker again, showing the range of colors from darkest to lightest based only on two genes of two alleles each: We already know that Parker's model is not correct. The Wiki page lists at least 7 genes involved in skin color: Human skin color - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Parker himself (in 1982) said there was at least one more gene for skin color than his chart shows and you should have noticed by now that I've allowed for many more than that. The point of this chart is to demonstrate that even from a mere two genes with two alleles each the variations are enormous even in only one generation. That alone should make the case for the production of all the diversity of living things from the original genome for each Kind. Again, you can't extrapolate from one gene to the entire genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Ran across this paper:
A Three–Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Haplotype in Intron 1 of OCA2 Explains Most Human Eye-Color Variation - PMC It lists multiple alleles for the OCA2 gene, and those alleles are not equal in function. Different combinations of alleles produces different eye colors. This is an example of more than 2 alleles for the same gene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: I can't read the paper, it's too technical and it's hard on my eyes as well, and your summary is nothing but an assertion. It isn't an assertion. It is the conclusion of the paper as backed by the facts presented in the article. Sorry, but a handwave won't make this evidence go away.
Faith writes: Different combinations of alleles at one locus? What do you mean? What's combining with what? How many different eye colors? Alleles are defined as different gene sequences at the same locus, so yes, at the same locus. There is more than two allele for the OCA2 gene, and those multiple alleles have different functions meaning that there is more than 2 functions for that gene. This runs counter to your model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: there is no increase in frequency if the mutation does the same thing as the original allele.
Counting the number of individuals in a population with a specific DNA sequence has nothing to do with function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: If I can't grasp the argument for whatever reason there is no debate. I believe eye color is based on genes with two alleles whose function can be expressed in a Mendel's square. I think the belief in mutations as the source of functioning alleles is false, not demonstrable in reality, just an artifact of the ToE. Ignorance is not a valid basis for an argument, especially when it is followed by stubborn reiteration of the now debunked argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: You can't just say it must be functionally different without any proof whatever . . . I already gave you that proof, and you turn a blind eye (pun intended). Stubbornly refusing to accept the evidence casts a poor light on your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Exactly what are these "30 known alleles" and why isn't this discussed? Obviously it's assumed that they ARE alleles, meaning alternative forms of the gene that do different things, presumably in this case varying the eye color. They are OBSERVED to be alleles since we can sequence them. Alleles are defined by their DNA sequence which can be easily determined, allowing scientists to determine which individuals have which alleles. As shown in the previous papers, multiple alleles (i.e. more than two) result in a wide range of eye colors. Two alleles can't do it. It requires more than two alleles to produce the variety of eye color in humans.
But to be bona fide alleles they have to do something different. They do do something different. They produce different eye colors.
This is a gene for eye color we're talking about. Even if the mutated allele did do something new all it could do is produce a new shade of eye color. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether the new function increased in frequency due to positive selection or neutral drift does nothing to change the fact that they have different functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: That is correct, and since it has nothing to do with function you can't claim it's positively selected just based on the sequence, you have to show that it does change the function. The sequence can't be selected, only the function can be selected. To stress this point again, whether the allele increased in frequency due to positive or neutral selection has nothing to do with the fact that there are more than two alleles with more than two functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Well nothing yet has shown anything actually observed, that I have seen. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the facts go away. I have already linked to the peer reviewed paper that contains the very facts you claim don't exist, and you still refuse to address it.
No, let's get this much sorted out please. 1) There are TWO alleles and two only, per gene, in my YEC model. In reality, there are more than two alleles for some genes as defined by function. Your model doesn't match up to reality, so it is rejected.
It is possible to construct a Mendel square for codominance using two genes. It is possible to build a model of our Solar System with just one planet. That doesn't mean there is just one planet in our Solar System. You seem to have a serious problem understanding the difference between reality and models. If I showed you a map of Kansas that had a 10,000 foot mountain range going down the middle of Kansas, which would be wrong, the map or the actual state of Kansas? You seem to be saying that the actual state of Kansas would be wrong because the map shows a mountain range going down the middle of it. Do you see the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: It has to do with the fact that they aren't alleles, period, Why aren't they alleles?
And there is no such thing as "neutral" selection that I know of. A Google search for "neutral selection" finds 78.3 million hits. Have you heard of Google?
As I keep saying, there seems to be an illusion of positive selection based on the assumption that these are in fact alleles, when this hasn't been shown and what they most likely really are is just neutral mutations -- when you count the separate sequences you create the illusion of selection when it's nothing but the mutated being passed on at the same rate as all the other versions of the same allele. You are deluding yourself. Whether these alleles are being selected for or not has nothing to do with the OBSERVATION that they have different functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: I can't read that paper for various reasons s I've said. That doesn't change the fact that it contains the very observations you claim don't exist.
I'm not sticking my head in the sand or any of the other crass accusations you keep laying on me. The very fact that you can't even do a simple Google search for "neutral selection" shows how you are suffering from self imposed ignorance. It isn't that you can't understand it. It's that you don't want to understand it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024