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

The alleles that are the subject of this discussion are mutations, which I don't regard as alleles. And as the Mendel squares easily demonstrate, more than two alleles per gene are not needed for all the diversity we see in living things. Yes, that is MY model, not the ToE; however you will find it expressed this way even in referenced articles by bluegenes and maybe even Taq. It's kind of hard to avoid even though it isn't part of the ToE model. That's why I put it in parentheses. Kind of just occurs in the course of this sort of discussion. Where did all those sequences come from that are being altered by mutations anyway? I don't expect an answer or even want one since it isn't the topic. Yes, according to the ToE, but we're trying to have a debate here, right? Or maybe not. I am anyway. So the views of both debaters really should be kept in mind don't you think? By the YEC model I'm trying to keep on the table there is definitely a bone fide allele. I reject the ToE idea that they are the result of mutations. I keep trying to keep this clearly stated too, so there shouldn't be a lot of confusion. If you just want to insist on the ToE there is no debate and so buhbye. Sorry, I missed it. All I've seen is assumptions and no evidence. They are called "alleles" rather than mutations, that's an assumption. As "alleles" they are said to have increased in frequency. I've said that isn't the case if they are just different sequences with the same function being counted separately, which would create a false increase in frequency. I don't know if I saw it. Maybe I didn't think it worth checking on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know. But he has not proved that they "all do something uniquely beneficial," what's the proof? I've been arguing that the supposed frequency is an illusion based on their being assumed to be alleles that change the function of the gene, when they are most likely neutral mutations that don't change the function of the gene (or the allele whose sequence they alter). The two false assumptions support each other: He infers changed function from the supposed increase in frequency, but that increase in frequency is an illusion if they are only neutral mutations, since counting the appearances of each new sequence separately would give a false idea of increase if they are only neutral mutations. He needs to show actual positive change in function and I don't know how you do that with the immune system. It could be done with eye color or skin color.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because the claim is that these "alleles" code for a different protein and different function of the gene than the allele whose sequence they changed, but there is no evidence that they code for anything other than the original allele did (the one at that particular locus whose sequence they changed). A change in sequence that does not change the protein or function is just a neutral mutation. Calling it an allele confuses things. Its sequence codes for a different protein and different trait than other sequences for the same locus. If it only does what the others do it's a neutral mutation. If you are still stuck on calling it an allele please provide a term that allows for this crucial distinction I'm talking about. They aren't alleles according to what I say above, they are merely mutations, changes in the DNA sequence that do not code for a new protein or a new trait, and in my model there are lots of mutations occurring all the time, most of them neutral which is why I'm assuming that's what these are, or deleterious. Mutations ARE increasing. In my model they are not true alleles and they are not a good thing for the organism. That will not do since the different result is crucial to this discussion. It's false to call it an allele if it only does what all the others do at that locus despite its different sequence. According to this thread there has been an increase in these different sequences and that seems to be treated as synonymous with a change in function of the gene. I wouldn't doubt the increase in changed sequences, which is an increase in mutations, which fits with the YEC model just fine. I disagree with their assumed beneficial change in function: I haven't seen it proved, I've only seen it assumed. A change in sequence happens all the time; it's called a mutation; mutations are KNOWN to be predominantly neutral. Why are these treated as functioning alleles instead.Taq posted a paper back there somewhere (I'd have to go track it down) which he claims proves a change in function for some mutations or other, but it's too technical for me, and it's hard on my eyes, at least because its being too technical means I have to spend too much time on it. If you or anyone else can translate it into clear nontechnical English so I can read it that would be a great service to this topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

.There is no evidence one way or the other, but it needs to be proved and can't be assumed that the function is not the same.ABE: Since most mutations are known to be neutral, others deleterious and very very few very iffily beneficial, it ought to be common sense to provide evidence that any mutation is beneficial, but no, all these on this thread are ASSUMED to be beneficial.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't call a mutation a mutation, I have to call it an allele, so I can't point out that mutations are usually neutral, second deleterious, so I can't dispute the argument that I have to account for alleles that Adam and Eve didn't have on the ground that they are just neutral mutations; and I can't suggest that what is being called an increase in frequency due to positive selection isn't that if these are really neutral mutations, it's an illusion caused by counting new sequences, which are really mutations, as alleles.Far as I can see the debate is over and the evos won again. So what else is new?

Here's the quote that keeps being passed along from bluegenes' post on the MHC genes: What I would like to know is what constitutes a "relatively high frequency in the population?"There are, what, about seven billion of us now?Say a single allele has 1000 variants (not a mere 200). I'm sure they wouldn't be evenly distributed in the population, but if they were neutral mutations one of the variants could be possessed by seven million* of us. Is that a high frequency?That would be the average frequency of the occurrence of a neutral mutation in the population if there were a thousand variants that were all neutral mutations. It would vary quite a bit having to do with where it first appeared so you should find higher frequencies in populations in that area, and of course drift.So, to repeat the question: What constitutes a "relatively high frequency in the population?"Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I arrived at two based partly on the fact that all we can inherit from our parents is one from each, and DNA and therefore a gene is after all two strands wound together. But the Biblical fact that Eve according to Adam is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" is a good reason too. Yes, I wonder those things too, but I suppose we might as well also wonder why we have a blood clotting system or a wound healing system as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

they don't look identical to me:

That's beautiful. And you guys don't believe in intelligent design!

Ooooooobviously I understood some of it. Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My answer to this, for the record, has been that if they are neutral mutations/alleles there is no limit on how many there would be in a given time frame. I'd also add at this point that the fact that there are so many is evidence in itself that they are neutral mutations according to the YEC framework. It should be pretty clear by now that there isn't any.

The binding of something or other to something or other is the evidence. First it would have to be shown that this binding does something beneficial to the immune system. How are they going to prove that? But also it's all about one disease, Dengue fever. What would it prove about different functions of different alleles when it's all about one disease?

Both the rabbit fur and the blood types came up earlier in the thread. Yes, they are sufficient. End of thread, thank you,.

I'm just tired of fighting it and trying to leave for a while. I can't answer the supposed evidences given so even though I might again try to answer them in the future, not right now. I need a break. Capitulating just means I can't prove my case and am giving up trying. The post about rabbits is Message 23 where bluegenes clearly says the varieties of fur color are from different alleles for one gene. Says it, doesn't prove it, so if you can pin it down to multiple genes more power to you.

Just some rough impressions from the Creo point of view.I'm sticking to my basic idea that there were originally two alleles per gene for the vast majority of traits.I'm tentatively conceding that there might have been four alleles between Adam and Eve for SOME genes.I still have the basic idea that the extra alleles are mutations and that mutations are not a normal process but a mistake that usually 1) does not change the phenotype, the "neutral" mutations, 2) often produces disease and 3) sometimes as more of a fluke than anything else produces something that appears to be positive for the phenotype.What NN posted about the gene with three alleles for blood type, (plus a few other rarer alleles) suggests to me that A and B were the originals and that O is a mutation -- a "frameshift" -- that happens to have a positive enough effect to be considered a true variant, but it's one of those I'd consider to be likely a fluke. In NNs post he describes it as lacking functions that A and B have.The extra alleles for rabbit fur color are obviously superfluous since the existing genes are certainly sufficient to vary the color in many different ways. So the extras are mutations that are sort of akin to neutral mutations but do produce some difference, just not anything that could be considered necessary.When someone says that "for all we know such and such an allele might have protected our ancestors from sucn and such a disease" we're deep in evo territory. There are many alleles involved in the immune system some of whose function or phenotypic effect are known, but as Percy's charts point out a lot of them are redundant, doing the same thing. And a lot are unknown. I think this implies that the statement in the article back toward the beginning of the thread that all these alleles are a good thing because they imply the many differences in function needed to protect against the many differences in diseases, isn't really justified.But as I said these are rough thoughts and I don't claim to be following the argument all that well.