Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 4:31 AM
419 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 418 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,997 Year: 6,603/21,208 Month: 2,364/2,634 Week: 27/525 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 136 of 225 (757597)
05-11-2015 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:20 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's really rather strange to claim there is no evidence for such obvious facts as that you can get all the enormous variety of traits from simple sexual recombination. Even if mutation provided the genetic stuff it would still be a fact that all the enormous variety of traits come from simple sexual recombination of the genetic stuff.

Wrong. We know that at least some variation comes directly from mutation. Examples have been provided of exactly that, and no denial from you overcomes that obstacle.

Claiming your point to be obvious is not an argument. Provide some evidence.

quote:
... Likewise, there are degrees of dominance and recessiveness with some traits.

With some traits? How does this help you? With some traits there is complete dominance.

If you have some evidence, please provide it, otherwise your assumption that mutations can play no role in evolution because of the way dogs are bred is a losing argument. Your argument to the contrary requires a mechanism for which you have provided no evidence. None.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 137 of 225 (757598)
05-11-2015 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:39 AM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
You assume mutations are the source of diversity, I believe they are instead a destructive process that destroys functioning genes and produces disease. This makes them a product of the Fall, which accumulates over time, which is why there's much more disease now than there could have been on the ark.

1) You have no evidence of what disease existed on the ark. The Bible is silent on the matter. The animals were only on the ark for a few months anyways.

2) Your belief is not proof. You claim you have made some point over and over again, and now you admit that the basis of your claim is merely your belief. Perhaps you will understand why people take issue when you declare that you've won a debate?

3) The result of at least a few mutations is well known to be something other than disease. You are arguing against the evidence.

I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.

Isn't this pretty much central to your unsupported argument? You claim to know that the process does not involve mutation. How do you know that?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 138 of 225 (757599)
05-11-2015 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:39 AM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.

And you say you've been working on this for ten years?

A geneticist would take five seconds to answer this question.

You assume mutations are the source of diversity ...

If, as you assert, the alleles weren't there then, and if, as we know, they are then now, then by definition what has happened in between to bring them into existence is mutation. This isn't an assumption, that's just what the word "mutation" means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 139 of 225 (757600)
05-11-2015 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:37 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
The usual error, Dr. A. I haven't denied that there are ways genetic diversity increases. I'm talking about what happens when SELECTION from among the diverse options occurs in the formation of new subspecies, breeds etc.

And selection does indeed reduce genetic diversity. But as selection is not the only process involved in evolution, it would be mind-bogglingly stupid to overlook all the other processes.

See above. To get new breeds you have to cull the diversity.

And to have diversity to cull, you need something to create the diversity. As happened in every single example of breed formation we have looked at so far.

It doesn't matter for this process whether the source of the genetic stuff was built in or mutations it still has to be culled to get new phenotypes, and that's when you have evolution ...

But when mutations occur, that is also evolution.

... and that's when evolution can be seen to eliminate the very grounds for evolution over enough time.

No, selection removes "the very grounds for evolution". While mutation creates more "very grounds for evolution" for selection to act on.

This has been explained to you, Faith. Examples have been given. It is not a difficult concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 225 (757603)
05-11-2015 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Zatara
05-08-2015 12:59 AM


Re: Evolution of Birds
Zatara writes:

Anyone who has raised identical twins has observed the dramatic effects of mutation in just one generation. Their twins may have started out with identical DNA, having come from the same zygote; however, in just nine months in utero the mutations have yielded differences noticeable to all but a casual observer.

I hadn't heard this before. Every division has mutations, but for new mutations to have a significant and measurable impact on a fetus as it grows in utero is new to me. Certainly a significantly non-neutral mutation in the first ten days while there are very few cells could have a significant impact, but with few cells it's a low probability event. Can you provide some supporting documentation?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Zatara, posted 05-08-2015 12:59 AM Zatara has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 141 of 225 (757606)
05-11-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It was the mixing together by inbreeding over many generations of the new gene frequencies they shared as a group, in comparison to the population at large, that eventually resulted in their characteristic appearance.

Yeah, but just where did that diversity come from? You seem to believe that it comes from some kind of super genome rather than from diversity generated by mutations. What reason is there to believe that? Is there a single bit of genetic evidence for such a thing in humans or dogs or cats?

If evolution works as claimed in the theory of evolution, then the issue is not whether some subset of the species (like races or breeds) is less diverse than the entire set. Of course that must be true. The question is whether humans as a whole must be less diverse than the species they evolved from. Not as a subset but as a whole. Because humans of all races and hues are inter fertile there is always the possibility to reintegrate any diversity.

Which brings us to another of your errors. Post speciation mutations do not interfere with generating humans as you suggests. We can look at all of the variations we see among humans currently and ask, if that particular variation did indeed result from mutation, did it interfere with that particular person being a human? And the answer is no. Even if the person is no longer considered a member of a particular race, something which we would not claim for social reasons, the person still human. The mutation does not interfere with him being distinct from the pre homo sapiens species that he came from.

Yes, a variation in some poodle might well prevent some pup from winning 'best in breed', but unless that variation prevents the pup from being a dog at all, then mutation does add to the variation in the dog population. And that is sufficient variation for evolution to work on unless humans prevent the new dog from mating.

So far none of your 'ends to evolution' seem to work. It is of course possible to come up with scenarios where diversity is cut off from a population and then lost when the animals can no longer interbreed, but nothing prevents mutations from causing more diversity in either population.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:48 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 142 of 225 (757610)
05-11-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
05-11-2015 10:01 AM


Re: You do have to follow the argument

I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.

And you say you've been working on this for ten years?

A geneticist would take five seconds to answer this question.

A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.

If, as you assert, the alleles weren't there then, and if, as we know, they are then now, then by definition what has happened in between to bring them into existence is mutation. This isn't an assumption, that's just what the word "mutation" means.

Sure, I agree, if you are willing to accept that those new "alleles" are all destructive and not the stuff of valid inheritance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 10:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:13 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 3:00 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 3:50 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 143 of 225 (757614)
05-11-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It was the mixing together by inbreeding over many generations of the new gene frequencies they shared as a group, in comparison to the population at large, that eventually resulted in their characteristic appearance.

Yeah, but just where did that diversity come from? You seem to believe that it comes from some kind of super genome rather than from diversity generated by mutations.

Perhaps you haven't followed this argument in a while. There's nothing super about the original genome that I postulate except it's a lot healthier than today's. It had a lot more functioning genes than we have because 95% of them have died since the Flood, perhaps a few before the Flood. It had much more heterozygosity for many more traits, so that a big bottleneck like the Flood didn't reduce it all to fixed loci like today's cheetah and elephant seal, but still had a lot more genetic possibilities that could be played out in microevolution. A perfectly normal genome without all the death in it we see today.

What reason is there to believe that? Is there a single bit of genetic evidence for such a thing in humans or dogs or cats?

Sadly not. Today all creatures have a lot of death in their genomes.

If evolution works as claimed in the theory of evolution, then the issue is not whether some subset of the species (like races or breeds) is less diverse than the entire set. Of course that must be true. The question is whether humans as a whole must be less diverse than the species they evolved from. Not as a subset but as a whole. Because humans of all races and hues are inter fertile there is always the possibility to reintegrate any diversity.

That is true, we don't "speciate" by the official evolutionist definition that applies to many other creatures. But as a whole species we have lost an enormous amount of genetic diversity if junk DNA is dead genes that used to be alive and if we used to have a lot more heterozygosity.

Which brings us to another of your errors. Post speciation mutations do not interfere with generating humans as you suggests. We can look at all of the variations we see among humans currently and ask, if that particular variation did indeed result from mutation, did it interfere with that particular person being a human? And the answer is no. Even if the person is no longer considered a member of a particular race, something which we would not claim for social reasons, the person still human. The mutation does not interfere with him being distinct from the pre homo sapiens species that he came from.

What an extremely weird straw man you have invented here to pretend it is an error of mine. I haven't a clue what you think you are saying.

Yes, a variation in some poodle might well prevent some pup from winning 'best in breed', but unless that variation prevents the pup from being a dog at all, then mutation does add to the variation in the dog population.

I do wish you would get this basic point: adding diversity happens, but it interferes with the formation of subspecies. That's all I'm saying, and there are conclusions to be drawn from the normal processes by which subspecies form. It takes reproductive isolation which means the avoidance of alleles that don't belong to the breed. Mutations would add such alleles that breeders don't want. It would make breeding impossible if mutations occurred frequently.

And that is sufficient variation for evolution to work on unless humans prevent the new dog from mating.

Sure if it happened as you say it could be selected. The odds are it wouldn't be but it could be, so then it would get worked into your breed over a few generations and you'd be back at square one with a slightly different breed with no further ability to evolve. I really don't think you are getting the picture here. You can increase genetic diversity, the usual way being the reintroduction of other animals to your breed, but to GET a breed you have to select the genetic material and that's the reduction of genetic diversity that HAS to happen. Of course if you don't care about breeds you can increase diversity in many ways, but if you aren't getting new subspecies you aren't getting evolution anyway.

So far none of your 'ends to evolution' seem to work.

There's only one and it does work, all that's happening is nobody is getting it. The ways it is misunderstood are zany.

It is of course possible to come up with scenarios where diversity is cut off from a population and then lost when the animals can no longer interbreed, but nothing prevents mutations from causing more diversity in either population.

Theoretically, sure, if you're willing to wait hundreds or thousands of years hoping the creature can survive that long and you have no investment in maintaining your breed or race. A "new species" is often genetically depleted like the cheetah, which for its survival potential could benefit from some new genetic diversity but so far no helpful mutations have shown up.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 12:09 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:10 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 144 of 225 (757616)
05-11-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:48 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Perhaps you haven't followed this argument in a while. There's nothing super about the original genome that I postulate except it's a lot healthier than today's. It had a lot more functioning genes than we have because 95% of them have died since the Flood, perhaps a few before the Flood. It had much more heterozygosity for many more traits, so that a big bottleneck like the Flood didn't reduce it all to fixed loci like today's cheetah and elephant seal, but still had a lot more genetic possibilities that could be played out in microevolution. A perfectly normal genome without all the death in it we see today.

That's a lot more than just health. And it's just a postulate. If you rely on that postulate without evidence then you cannot prove anything. I don't see in your post any indication that I or the other posters misunderstand your position. Since you are suggesting that you have proven your point, it is enough for me to simply point out places where you have made assumptions.

Maybe the earth's population was never reduced to just eight humans, three of whom were direct descendants to two of the others. There is then no need for any of the shenanigans you postulate. It appears Coyote is right. We aren't getting any science from you. We're getting a sermon.

And of course during the discussion evidence that new variations have been the result of mutation has been provided. I think the ball to demonstrate your contrary approach is squarely in your court. It has been there for something approaching a decade.

And that is sufficient variation for evolution to work on unless humans prevent the new dog from mating.

Sure if it happened as you say it could be selected. The odds are it wouldn't be but it could be, so then it would get worked into your breed over a few generations and you'd be back at square one with a slightly different breed with no further ability to evolve.

If you want to convince me that the 'odds are', then show me the math. I'm surely not going to take your word for that. And besides all of that, I still have the diversity from other breeds to draw on.

You claim in every discussion that nobody gets your point. The genesis for your claim is, in my opinion, that you do not follow the consequences of what you propose. Most of the time people are several steps ahead of you when it comes to coming up with scenarios which disprove your ideas. We don't have to wait for you to actually state those scenarios when they follow from your ideas.

If, in fact, evolution is a dead end for the reasons you give, then dogs as a whole must be less diverse than the wolves specie or species that they come from. Yet they are not. You can speculate all you want on 'much more heterozygosity' at the beginning, but the creation of diversity by mutation over time explains the variety we see on earth extremely well. And there is no evidence of this super genome you discuss. Such a thing isn't even necessary if we accept special creation and do away with evolution other than kinds It is instead solely an assumption, and an uneeded one, for displacing evolution.

In short a belief and not an argument against evolution. Get some evidence.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 3:43 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 145 of 225 (757617)
05-11-2015 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.

That's right. A geneticist is neither trying to disprove or prove such a thing. The geneticist is instead following the evidence. You on the other hand are highly motivated to make stuff up and ignore the evidence.

I'm not sure why you think your statement is a solution to anything. It is instead confirmation that you don't have any proof or evidence that evolution cannot work.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Denisova
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 146 of 225 (757620)
05-11-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

Let's point out to your flaws.

Evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity....

Here is how evolution *actually* is conceived: genetic mutations produce genetic change. When this change matches the environmental conditions, they will be reinforced and retained. When they are harmful, they will be weeded out due to their very disadvantageousness: they will bring lower survival and/or reproduction chances. And along with their carrier, they will die out and not be passed to the next generation.

When the genetic variance is piling up, the subpopulations will experience genetic divergence. When this genetic divergence accumulates to the extent the two sub-genomes are genetically not compatible anymore, the subpopulations do not interbreed anymore (or interbreeding will not produce valid offspring) and genetic isolation occurred and by definition speciation took place.

As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.

From this we conclude:
1. there is NO reduction in genetic diversity but DISPERSION. NOTHING of the original genetic diversity is lost, it's just PARCELLED OUT to split genomes
2. EVEN THEN, the reduced genetic diversity in any of the two distinct genomes is not "required" by evolution but a CONSEQUENCE. Consequences cannot be requirement, that would be just plain unsound logic.

I think hereby the whole framework of your posts just collapsed.

Edited by Denisova, : Only some improvements in style.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Denisova has responded
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 6:37 AM Denisova has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 147 of 225 (757621)
05-11-2015 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.

Quite so: this is why the geneticist can account for loci with more than four alleles and you can't.

Sure, I agree, if you are willing to accept that those new "alleles" are all destructive ...

Those particular alleles are, yes. That's how I chose them. That's why I chose them. So, are you now willing to admit that mutation has increased genetic diversity in Canis lupus?

... and not the stuff of valid inheritance.

I can attach no meaning to this phrase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 148 of 225 (757625)
05-11-2015 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
05-11-2015 2:10 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
That's a lot more than just health. And it's just a postulate. If you rely on that postulate without evidence then you cannot prove anything.

It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption but that doesn't bother you, only MY postulate bothers you. What is actually KNOWN about mutation is that it is responsible for thousands of diseases, that most of it doesn't affect the phenotype (so far, I consider this a very ominous fact myself), while the known useful mutations are so rare it's hardly worth mentioning.

But this brings me to something I've wondered about which is sort of an aside: why is it that the emphasis among evolutionists seems to be so predominantly on NOVEL mutations, those that occur in individuals for instance, rather than the huge shared store of genes in the genome which are generally understood to have been the product of mutation anyway? It's that genetic store in the genome from which all those traits are developed by the processes I'm describing, that you zanily deny but is such a well known process I don't know how you can. Sexual recombination makes each of us different from our parents using their own genetic stuff. If a bunch of humans get isolated from the rest of the world, over generations the multiple recombinations of their collective own genetic stuff will eventually produce a characteristic type of human being. This is so ordinary a fact your denial takes the breath away. Beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough to contribute to these scenarios, they come from the genetic material already in the genome. Whether that was put there by mutation or was built in isn't really important when focusing on these processes. The point is that the eventual appearance of our isolated clan after generations of inbreeding will be identifiably its own, and different from other clans. Surely you don't dispute that this simple process of isolation and inbreeding is how we have Mongolians and Navajos and Icelanders and Inuit and Pygmies and Italians and Bushmen and Samoans and Arabs and Indians and Filipinos and so on and so forth? These processes I'm talking about produce all the different types. Novel mutations probably contribute something or other here and there, but most often a disease.

So what I'm focusing on really should be readily recognizable.

If, in fact, evolution is a dead end for the reasons you give, then dogs as a whole must be less diverse than the wolves specie or species that they come from. Yet they are not.

You keep saying this but it makes NO sense at all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 2:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2015 3:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2015 5:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 149 of 225 (757626)
05-11-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
05-11-2015 3:43 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption

It's a direct observation, Faith. As has been pointed out to you some jillion times.

But this brings me to something I've wondered about which is sort of an aside: why is it that the emphasis among evolutionists seems to be so predominantly on NOVEL mutations, those that occur in individuals for instance, rather than the huge shared store of genes in the genome which are generally understood to have been the product of mutation anyway? It's that genetic store in the genome from which all those traits are developed by the processes I'm describing, that you zanily deny but is such a well known process I don't know how you can. Sexual recombination makes each of us different from our parents using their own genetic stuff. If a bunch of humans get isolated from the rest of the world, over generations the multiple recombinations of their own genetic stuff will eventually produce a characteristic type of human being. This is so ordinary a fact your denial takes the breath away. Beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough to contribute to these scenarios, they come from the genetic material already in the genome. Whether that was put there by mutation or was built in isn't really important when focusing on these processes. The point is that the eventual appearance of our isolated clan after generations of inbreeding will be identifiably its own, and different from other clans. Surely you don't dispute that this simple process of isolation and inbreeding is how we have Mongolians and Navajos and Icelanders and Inuit and Pygmies and Italians and Bushmen and Samoans and Arabs and Indians and Filipinos and so on and so forth? These processes I'm talking about produce all the different types. Novel mutations probably contribute something or other here and there, but most often a disease.

Real genetics is more interesting than the genetics you've made up in your head. You should really try to learn something about it some time. Who knows, you might even enjoy it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 150 of 225 (757627)
05-11-2015 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Perhaps you haven't followed this argument in a while. There's nothing super about the original genome that I postulate except it's a lot healthier than today's. It had a lot more functioning genes than we have because 95% of them have died since the Flood, perhaps a few before the Flood. It had much more heterozygosity for many more traits, so that a big bottleneck like the Flood didn't reduce it all to fixed loci like today's cheetah and elephant seal, but still had a lot more genetic possibilities that could be played out in microevolution. A perfectly normal genome without all the death in it we see today.

I think you have some severe genetic problems to solve here.

For example, a particular gene locus in the human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles.

Now let's be merciful to your claim and assume the 3 sons of Noah were adopted. Members of the same family EACH having a different allele of the same gene is impossible due to Mendelian genetics. Because an allele is inherited either from the father or from the mother. ANY of the sons can only have the allele from his father or from his mother. That would reduce the numbers of alleles to max. 10.

But let's assume the 3 sons were adopted and had different alleles. That would yield 16 alleles at most.

Intermezzo: this BTW already is a very unlikely scenario. Think about the odds of 8 people, although no family of each other, ALL having different alleles of the same gene. AND also mind that this must be for ALL alleles over ALL the many different traits observed in human genetic diversity. I don't need to argue, I assume, this to be virtually impossible.

But, gee, I promised mercy so let's go on with 16 alleles.
Now, may I request you to explain where the 59 - 16 = 43 remaining ones came from?

And with the animals on the Ark the problem aggravates. Because according Genesis 7:2-3 Noah was commanded to take of each clean animal 7 and of each unclean animal 2 on the Ark (God only seems to know why Genesis 7:8 though indicates that "pairs" of each animal entered the Ark, hence irrespective of them being clean or unclean - but just let's stick to the 7:2-3 version).

Hence, for the clean animals max. 4 alleles for each gene were available. Yet, like in humans, in many extant animals genes involve many alleles (sometimes dozens).

The problem even worsens when one takes into account the claim of YEC that 2 millennia before the Flood, the whole human population was confined to only 2 individuals, which implies a maximum of 2 alleles per gene.

Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information but their own claims imply a gigantic and astonishingly rapid emerging of new genetic information. At a rate of punctuated evolution even would cause Gould and Eldredge falling off their chairs due to sheer baffling astonishment.

Edited by Denisova, : Language mistakes corrected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Denisova has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017