Faith writes:
Yes, and a lot of redundancy as I said, which is shown on Percy's chart.
It's not redundancy if they do something different.
Well, but that apparently does happen a lot with mutations. What's the problem here? Many of the positive effects of changing the sequence are redundant, and although it's not clear from anything said so far, probably don't change the function of the original allele.
Are the mutations that separate the human and chimp genome redundant? Do chimp genes do the exact same thing as human genes?
Obviously, they don't do the same thing. They aren't redundant. If they were redundant then chimps would look and act just like humans.
I'm not so sure about that yet. But again all you are doing is declaring the theory of evolution through mutation to explain different species.
I am explaining the differences between species through differences in DNA sequence. You are claiming that you can't change the sequence of the human genome and get something different and functional. Every single primate genome disproves this claim because they have different sequences that are functional and produce different species.
The best system for the immune system would minimize the variability, and that would mean two alleles per gene, co-dominant. The great number of alleles is overal not a good thing because it scatters the benefits. The best I can say for the many alleles is that many DO protect against SOMETHING. Again, for all I know, the same something the original allele protects against, but I understand that the very concept of an original allele makes no sense in the ToE system of thinking.
But that's not what humans have. We don't have just two alleles that protect against all known diseases. We have tons of different alleles with different functions that protect against different diseases.
This would be a lot clearer if we knew what the original alleles for a particular gene do. I suspect the different protective functions of the many alleles don't add anything new to the basic design, just scatter its effects through the population.
Then why are other primate species different from humans if it isn't due to a DNA sequence difference between our genomes?
I think it's turning out there is a big problem here which is obscured by adherence to the ToE: Can you tell the difference between the original alleles for a gene and the mutations?
Are you saying that the original humans and original chimps looked and acted identical to one another right after the flood? If not, what are you going on about? Do you think humans and all primate species started out with genomes that were 100% identical to each other? Was there a time when the rhesus monkey genome was 100% identical to the human genome?