|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did read that but since it is hard for me to read anything of any length I may have missed something. the question I have is whether there is really any difference among the alleles since "neutral" mutations don't change the function. So when function is described -- the codominant function of two alleles -- isn't it possible most or all of the alleles do the same thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have to argue for positive selection, otherwise only the original Adam and Eve alleles would be common (only 4 common alleles, or 2 if you like). I don't think so. Just random recombination of Adam and Eve's two genes with two alleles per gene for skin color could produce in one generation all the different skin colors. There is no lack of diversity in this system. Diversity is all a matter of the many possible combinations of the two alleles per gene. But my main argument is for a random selection anyway, the random favoring of certain alleles over others in the simple migration of a part of a population to another location where it has reproductive isolation. You get new gene frequencies that way, that bring out new phenotypes, others decreasing and even eventually disappearing from the new population. The original two alleles per gene now seems to me to be completely sufficient for all the diversity of life we see, including the formation of every species including some exotic or strange ones. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Faith writes: I'm going with two alleles per gene If by this you mean only two alleles per gene in the original human population, in your scenario this is demonstrably false. Both Adam and Eve could have contributed two unique alleles per gene for a total of four. Even though you believe you only need two alleles per gene, you actually have a potential maximum of four. I know but I've come to the conclusion that it was most likely two and I'm going with that for now. I think it's going to hold up. I've already given some of my reasoning for this.
This is better for your scenario because now people have to demonstrate at least five alleles for a gene before they can claim any arose through mutation, and then they still have to show they produced new function. Well I'll see how it goes. I'm going with two alleles per gene in all generations, mutations contributing nothing new/beneficial. I recently came to this conclusion from the various facts I've already given that show great variation possible from nothing more than the many possible combinations of genes with two alleles each. I expect to try to defend this more as the thread proceeds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is worth mentioning again that eye color is determined by at least 6 genes, and skin color by at least 10. That's good, I figured there had to be more genes and more information about this since Parker's 1982 book. Since you can get the whole range of skin color in one generation from only two genes with two alleles each this shows that you don't need a lot of alleles per gene. In fact although I expected there must be more genes for these traits I didn't expect there to be this many, they seem unnecessary considering the great range of diversity possible from two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Faith writes: I don't think so. Just random recombination of Adam and Eve's two genes with two alleles per gene for skin color could produce in one generation all the different skin colors. There is no lack of diversity in this system. Diversity is all a matter of the many possible combinations of the two alleles per gene. Again, the extreme variation at certain loci is there, whether or not 2 alleles would perform the function. That extreme variation that is there is due to mutations, right? Which so far you've only shown to have unique functions in two examples as I recall. In my model mutations are an accident, a disease process fundamentally, even if mot of the time they manage to avoid changing a functioning allele, meaning they have the same function as the allele they replace; or, rarely, even manage to create a new sequence that really does do something beneficially different (I have my doubts about this but that discussion would be far down the road for me).
bluegenes writes: Faith writes: But my main argument is for a random selection anyway, the random favoring of certain alleles over others in the simple migration of a part of a population to another location where it has reproductive isolation. You get new gene frequencies that way, that bring out new phenotypes, others decreasing and even eventually disappearing from the new population. The original two alleles per gene now seems to me to be completely sufficient for all the diversity of life we see, including the formation of every species including some exotic or strange ones. Then how have many, many "new" alleles in the MHC become common in 300 generations? Mutation and drift certainly won't give that result. Almost all the mutants would be very rare. I'm not following you. First I don't see what drift has to do with any of this. But mostly I don't see why there couldn't be some enormous number of mutations at a locus that seems to be prone to mutation. I don't expect anything good to come of mutations, though, at best noninterference with the function of the allele they change.
The only thing that might (possibly) explain this is strong selection. Apart from that we would need humans and other mammals to have been around for far longer than 300 generations.......... Again I'm not following your thinking. I'm thinking only of mutations occurring as mistakes in DNA replication and don't see that there is anything that would particularly promote or prevent that occurrence if they're accidents of replication. Some loci are more prone to mutation than others for whatever reason, perhaps you know the reason but I don't, but in my system they are a disease process, not good for the organism.
bluegenes writes: Then how have many, many "new" alleles in the MHC become common in 300 generations? Mutation and drift certainly won't give that result. Almost all the mutants would be very rare. The only thing that might (possibly) explain this is strong selection. Apart from that we would need humans and other mammals to have been around for far longer than 300 generations.......... So, which is it? I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My thinking on this subject has changed due to appreciating how much variation is possible from two alleles per gene with more than one gene. Here's Gary Parker's discussion of the great range of skin color possible from just two genes with two alleles each:
From What Is Creation Science?, 1982 paperback by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, pp 113-114 (this part written by Parker):
The amount of skin color we have depends on at least two pairs of genes. Let's call these genes A and B. People with the darkest skin color have genes AABB as their genotype (set of genes for a trait); those with very light skins have aabb. People with two "capital letter" genes would be "medium-skinned," and those with 1 or 3 such genes would be a shade lighter or darker. Now, let's start with two medium-skinned parents, AaBb. [here is] a genetic square that shows the kind of children they could have. Less than half (only 6 of the 16 combinations) would be medium-skinned like their parents. Four each would be a shade darker or lighter. One in 16 of the children of medium-skinned parents (AaBb) would have the darkest possible skin color, while the chances are also 1/16 that a brother or sistr will have the very lightest skin color (See Parker, Reynolds and Reynolds, 18977b). Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), how long would it take to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today? Merely one generation! In fct, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Afr4icans, and some -- perhaps a brothe or a sister in the family -- as light as the lightest Europeans. So here's the chart, though my reproduction of it will no doubt leave a lot to be desired: -------- /AB------- Ab------ aB -------ab =========================== AB---- --/AA ------- AA-------Aa-------Aa---------- /BB------- Bb-------BB------- Bb Ab ------- /AA-------AA------Aa-------Aa---------- /Bb-------bb------BB-------bb aB------- /Aa-------Aa--------aa--------aa---- -- ---/BB-------Bb-------BB--------Bb ab------- /Aa-------Aa-------aa--------aa---------- /Bb-------bb-------Bb--------bb I'm Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
bg writes: Faith writes: I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference. See if Message 66 makes it any clearer to you. Particularly, concentrate on the point that we would only have mutations (new alleles) on ~1% of our coding genes as individuals. The rest would be identical to the four in Adam and Eve. So, take a random gene and examine it on 100 people, and you'd expect the original 4 alleles + perhaps 1 individual with a new one on average. But you think we NEED mutations to get new alleles and I don't, so how many there are on a gene doesn't tell me much; all I can say is the fewer the better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Basically, if we all differ from Adam and Eve on just 1% of our coding genes, then take one gene, examine it in 100 people, they should mostly have the original 4 alleles, but we might expect 1 or 2 exceptions. Meaning that many mutations, right? But here I am thinking two alleles per gene in Adam and Eve and that many normal functioning alleles in every genome since. Mutations are only an interference, not a source of beneficial alleles. If only two genes with two alleles each can produce all the skin colors in the genetic square I tried to reproduce a few posts ago, and three genes would increase that variation enormously, there is simply no need for mutations/more alleles, and since mutations are known to be accidents of replication that mostly produce nothing at all new, often produce disease and only very very rarely anything useful or beneficial at all, I reject mutations altogether.
So, if we see something completely different, then, as serious YEC scientists, we need an explanation. For the HLA genes, very strong positive selection is the only one! All I can say is we don't need it, we don't need to select mutations that would do more harm than good in most cases.
At first sight, it seems to pose serious theological problems. The new mutant alleles are taking over from the original designs. Well, since I attribute mutations to the death/disease legacy of the Fall what that would mean is that the Fall is more potent in living systems now than the original Creation was. Something to lament as a sign of the increasing genetic deterioration of life.
However, I can think of a way around that. It's actually diversity itself which is being selected for in the immune system. Not if most or all of those alleles are really neutral mutations that do not change the function of the allele. And you haven't addressed this possibility yet.
Is it plausible that the MHCs that we see in mammals could arise in a young earth scenario? Actually, no, but I'm giving it a good try. But we wouldn't WANT them to arise if they are bad for the organism, as in the end they must be.
With other things, like the Y-chromosome, it's not worth bothering. Not only Noah, but Adam as well gets himself easily falsified. By imputing genetic processes to YEC thinking that are not our thinking but a straw man, perhaps so. But if all the diversity we see is easily attributed to genes with two alleles each there is no problem for Adam OR Noah.
I'll try to bring some animals and their Ark bottleneck into the discussion. I've already answered the bottleneck objection a million times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We don't need new alleles. All new phenotypes are the product of new combinations of the existing alleles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You haven't grasped the fact that a gene with two alleles in combination with others genes with two alleles is all it takes to produce all the diversity of life we see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's so nonsensical I can't understand it well enough to answer it. They have their own genes and two alleles each to bring about all the variations among them, why would they need human ones? Besides, they no doubt all have the same genes we do for many functions. What ARE you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gave an answer to that paper, that's all I know.
ABE: You claim different functions for all those alleles, but haven't shown it. As I suggested they could all be neutral mutations that don't change the function but continue to do what the original allele did. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Absolute screaming nonsense. Nothing I've said implies such nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again I have NO idea where such nonsense comes from. None. There's no point in repeating it, it simply makes no sense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024