Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 6:29 AM
322 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 320 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,888 Year: 25,494/21,208 Month: 1,121/2,338 Week: 242/450 Day: 7/55 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 196 of 425 (809038)
05-15-2017 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-15-2017 3:06 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
How can you get from your assumed two alleles to over a hundred without mutation

By realizing that they are mutations, most of which are neutral, not genuine alleles.

"Not genuine alleles?" That could be the title of your textbook.

The idea that any trait needs hundreds of alleles is in itself ludicrous.

Good catch, we'll let the genomes know right away.

You get enormous variation with only two per gene, with a few genes per trait.

How big is enormous? We must get an enormity of enormous variation when we have hundreds of identifiable alleles for many genes.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 3:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 3:25 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 197 of 425 (809039)
05-15-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Tanypteryx
05-15-2017 3:21 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Hundreds of shades of eye color? Hundreds of shades of skin color? Hundreds of fingers and toes perhaps.

If there are seven genes for skin color with two alleles each and you can get sixteen shades from only two, extra alleles are not needed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 3:21 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 3:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 198 of 425 (809046)
05-15-2017 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-15-2017 3:25 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
If there are seven genes for skin color with two alleles each and you can get sixteen shades from only two, extra alleles are not needed.

Well, evolution and mutation do not operate on what is needed. You should know that after all this time arguing about it.

The extra alleles are there whether they are "needed" or not. Mutations just keep on happening in every generation and occasionally they create new alleles. If they are not lethal or do not damage fecundity they are passed on and accumulate in the population.

This has been documented more and more precisely as our methods of genetic mapping have improved.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 3:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 6:36 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 199 of 425 (809050)
05-15-2017 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Tanypteryx
05-15-2017 3:39 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
What an inefficient system. But of course it's not true anyway. The true system is neat and tidy and efficient, does not rely on chance for anything, but all those accidents called mutation do mess things up quite a bit, and are also very bad for us. The ToE has you all fiddling while Rome burns.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 3:39 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 7:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 203 by DC85, posted 05-16-2017 2:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 200 of 425 (809051)
05-15-2017 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
05-15-2017 6:36 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
What an inefficient system.

Yep, isn't it cool! It accounts for the variety of all life on the planet, amazing!

The true system is neat and tidy and efficient, does not rely on chance for anything

Right, so no extinctions allowed.

The ToE has you all fiddling while Rome burns.

Yep, we are playing "Stairway to Heaven" or is that "Dream On"?

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 6:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 05-16-2017 12:56 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 201 of 425 (809058)
05-16-2017 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Tanypteryx
05-15-2017 7:21 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Why are you joining this thread now? You obviously have no idea of what I've ever said or argued here. Ordinarily you seem to post Cheers to anyone who argues with me, obviously having no idea what my argument was about. You don't understand enough to inspire me to correct you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 7:21 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-16-2017 1:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 202 of 425 (809059)
05-16-2017 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Faith
05-16-2017 12:56 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Why are you joining this thread now?

Had a little extra time and I could see you are completely misunderstanding genetics so I thought I'd pop in and help.

You obviously have no idea of what I've ever said or argued here.

I understand all your mistakes....mainly not a shred of evidence and absolute ignorance when it comes to genetics, evolution, and.biology.

obviously having no idea what my argument was about.

It isn't that complicated, plus it is incorrect.

You don't understand enough to inspire me to correct you.

My failure to inspire you is sad, but yes, it it probably best not to embarrass yourself.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 05-16-2017 12:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member
Posts: 872
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 203 of 425 (809060)
05-16-2017 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
05-15-2017 6:36 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:
What an inefficient system

So? , Life is hardly efficient as in a way that makes sense for an engineer, either that or the creator is lazy and has an "ehhh good enough" attitude towards it.

quote:
does not rely on chance for anything, but all those accidents called mutation

What are the chances a complex being that created a complex Universe exists on it's own? Who finely tuned them?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 6:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 204 of 425 (809079)
05-16-2017 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
05-15-2017 1:59 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:

bluegenes writes:

Perhaps it would be easier to explain directly how the new alleles are advantageous, and how they are necessarily different in how they function.

The main problem for me, I think, is that you are assuming there is such a thing as "new alleles" that perform necessary functions for the immune system. This is really the same problem I've been having all along on this subject.

Not "assuming". Observing.

Faith writes:

I don't have a problem with these genes being polymorphous or with the idea that the alleles differ very slightly and that "they are necessarily different in how they function" as long as I assume that they are built in and not mutations.

They have to be mutations, except for an original maximum of 4 alleles per gene.

Faith writes:

(quoting paper)

quote:

...two possible ways of evading detection. One is through mutations that eliminate from its proteins all peptides able to bind MHC molecules. The Epstein-Barr virus provides an example of this strategy. In regions of south-east China and in Papua New Guinea there are small isolated populations in which about 60% of individuals carry the HLA-All allele. Many isolates of the Epstein-Barr virus obtained from these populations have mutations in a dominant peptide epitope normally presented by HLA-All; the mutant peptides no longer bind to HLA-All and cannot be recognized by HLA-All-restricted T cells. This strategy is plainly much more difficult to follow if there are many different MHC molecules, and the presence of different loci encoding functionally related proteins may have been an evolutionary adaptation by hosts to this strategy by pathogens.

Understanding this by my YEC model the idea would be that the necessary alleles were already present and then selected.

By your model, Adam and Eve would have had all the genes (the "different loci" referred to in the article) but can only have two alleles each on them, which, if they are all different, gives us only four alleles per.gene, whereas now there are many alleles at high frequency in the population (easily found in a small sample). That can only be explained by mutation and positive selection.

Faith writes:

This article actually sounds like it assumes that beneficial mutations practically appear as needed, such as here:

quote:

The extensive polymorphism of the MHC proteins has almost certainly evolved to outflank the evasive strategies of pathogens.*

[and this is footnoted] "The extensive polymorphism of the MHC proteins has almost certainly evolved to outflank the evasive strategies of pathogens. That should make sense to you (post Fall).


I would expect that somehow the solution to the problem has to be already present in the system and then it's selected. That is, it was created to function as it does, it didn't evolve for that purpose.

Mutations don't just occur as needed but that's how this sounds.

No they don't. But relatively rare advantageous mutations can occur, then their frequency (the percentage of the population which has them) can increase via positive selection. Your model requires this, as only four alleles per. gene can be there 300 generations ago.

Faith writes:

bluegenes writes:

Bear in mind that there are several of these very polymorphous genes, and that if the Adam & Eve maximum of 4 alleles was all that was available to us, then homozygosity would be common (1/4 of the population on each gene, and most people on at least one).

Homozygosity occurs after many generations of selection as I thinki of it, or by founder effect. But if a gene's function can be illustrated by a Mendel square there's no need for homozygosity to develop rapidly. This shouldn't occur with the skin color or eye color genes that function according to the Mendel square. If these genes you are talking about can be expressed in a Mendel square I'd like to see it.

They can't be shown in a two allele square. They have multiple codominant alleles. There are a massive amount of phenotypes.

Faith writes:

But it's probably that you've chosen a case that is too difficult for me to think through, and since it involves only a few genes I don't think it's very useful for a debate about the YEC model, which seems to me to be able to account for the vast majority of genes, and probably these too but if I'm unable to think it through it isn't a good example for this debate.

The YEC model has to account for it. The thing about the MHC is that your model can only attempt to explain it if you accept that mutation and positive selection can happen. When you hear other creationists claim that one or the other doesn't happen, or that both don't happen, you are now in a position to explain to them that they are inadvertantly describing the YEC model as false through their ignorance.

Faith writes:

And again, I'm going with two, not four, alleles, per Adam and Eve's genes.

That's fine, but it makes it even harder for the model to explain what's actually there, and, so far as the following generations and their MHC genes are concerned, it would make many immune systems weaker than now, because 50% would be homozygous on any given locus. The population would need a lot of mutation and positive selection to give it the defences we see now.

You also need strong, rapid selection for your niche filling after the Ark. You could view all polar bear characteristics as coming from Ark bears with a kind of super genome, but only environmental selection on that genome would explain how their characteristics match the niche.

Natural selection should be very popular with YECs, and they need to learn to stop inadvertently destroying their model by attacking the concept.

Edited by bluegenes, : mutation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 1:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 05-16-2017 10:39 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 205 of 425 (809082)
05-16-2017 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 7:49 AM


Re: Number of Genes for Eye Color and Skin Color
I'd like to get back to some of the earlier issues on this thread if possible. So I've been rereading some old posts:

BG writes:

Percy writes:

Percy writes:
It is worth mentioning again that eye color is determined by at least 6 genes, and skin color by at least 10

And it's also worth mentioning that the human MC1R gene (one of the above) has more than 30 known alleles. Adam and Eve? Maximum 4.

this is the problem that keeps coming up. 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.

Which I find absurd for many reasons:
1) These are mutations, changes in the sequence of an allele.
2) If they are neutral they will not change the function of the allele, will do whatever the allele already did, and will therefore be passed on to the next generations as if it were the same allele.
3) But to be bona fide alleles they have to do something different. Why isn't it even discussed whether they do or not? I mean it's common knowledge that most mutations don't, how come it's so easy to assume these do?
4) 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. What could there possibly be about an eye color that would be selected for or against? But isn't this whole subject about how all these extra alleles imply positive selection and that's what the YEC model has to take into account? Eye color?
5)Obviously these are assumed to be alleles that do something something different, as per the ToE, not because it's actually been observed.

Also, as most board members are of European ancestry, many will have visible phenotype features that owe their existence to mutants of this gene.

Well, here's the ToE assumption stated outright: all characteristics are the result of mutations; all alleles were originally mutations. (how original genes and their alleles got created by mutations when there was no DNA for them to alter is a puzzle but anyway...)

As per my posts on how we get blue and brown eyes from a parental pair that both possess a Bb gene, that is, a gene with the alleles B and b, plus how we get sixteen different combinations of skin color from two genes with two alleles each, Aa and Bb, the YEC position is that these were originally built into the human genome and produce quite a few variations all by themselves, but if you add more genes, such as those mentioned by Percy for eye color, and many more for skin color, the number of variations increases enormously. There is really absolutely no need for extra alleles. This YEC understanding of how the system works covers all the observable differences between people.

We Europeans as a group, those descended from Noah's son Japheth, have ancestors who had a lot of bb's for blue eyes in their group and a lot of the lighter color skin shades. Mostly by random migration would be my guess. not by selection, not by evolution as understood by the ToE, but merely by microevolution by random events. These combined with whatever else in the greater human gene pool was similarly randomly selected are what make us the type we are.

This is how the YEC model I've been using works; it is really quite different from the ToE model, and the claim that YEC needs to accept all those alleles as alleles rather than mere accidents of replication is false, and also the idea is false that they were "selected" which is an illusion if they do not change the function of the allele. These "alleles" are a disease process in the YEC model I'm following, latent in most cases but still not a source of anything beneficial.

We can continue to consider the claims that the "alleles" do produce something new, but so far the information has not been clear enough to be convincing, and seems to me to be based mostly on assumptions anyway. In any case this is where I think the thread should stay focused.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 7:49 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2017 11:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 05-16-2017 1:16 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 206 of 425 (809103)
05-16-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by bluegenes
05-16-2017 8:35 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
BG writes:

Perhaps it would be easier to explain directly how the new alleles are advantageous, and how they are necessarily different in how they function.

Faith writes:

The main problem for me, I think, is that you are assuming there is such a thing as "new alleles" that perform necessary functions for the immune system. This is really the same problem I've been having all along on this subject.

Not "assuming". Observing.

Well nothing yet has shown anything actually observed, that I have seen. It's all assumed. These are assumed to be "alleles" for starters, and since alleles are alternative forms of a gene it is assumed that they do something to alter the gene's product in a beneficial way. There isn't even a discussion of the fact that they are mutations, which are known to be predominantly neutral, they're just called "alleles." I've had to keep bringing that up. It's a major problem for this whole idea.

Faith writes:

I don't have a problem with these genes being polymorphous or with the idea that the alleles differ very slightly and that "they are necessarily different in how they function" as long as I assume that they are built in and not mutations.

They have to be mutations, except for an original maximum of 4 alleles per gene.

Yes they do have to be mutations, meaning they are not alleles according to my YEC model, and it still has to be shown that they ARE alleles as claimed. And please start noting that I'm using the idea of two alleles per gene for Adam and Eve, considering them to have had identical genomes -- not the presumed maximum of 4.

BG writes:

Faith writes:

(quoting paper)

...two possible ways of evading detection. One is through mutations that eliminate from its proteins all peptides able to bind MHC molecules. The Epstein-Barr virus provides an example of this strategy. In regions of south-east China and in Papua New Guinea there are small isolated populations in which about 60% of individuals carry the HLA-All allele. Many isolates of the Epstein-Barr virus obtained from these populations have mutations in a dominant peptide epitope normally presented by HLA-All; the mutant peptides no longer bind to HLA-All and cannot be recognized by HLA-All-restricted T cells. This strategy is plainly much more difficult to follow if there are many different MHC molecules, and the presence of different loci encoding functionally related proteins may have been an evolutionary adaptation by hosts to this strategy by pathogens.

Understanding this by my YEC model the idea would be that the necessary alleles were already present and then selected.

By your model, Adam and Eve would have had all the genes (the "different loci" referred to in the article) but can only have two alleles each on them,

That is correct. But my model has them having the same genes each with the same two alleles.

which, if they are all different, gives us only four alleles per.gene,

But they aren't different, they each have the same gene with the same two alleles.

whereas now there are many alleles at high frequency in the population (easily found in a small sample). That can only be explained by mutation and positive selection.

I keep suggesting that the "high frequency" is an illusion if the alleles are neutral mutations that don't change the function of the original allele. In that case they would be passed on to the next generations, and if you are counting them separately from other forms of the same allele they may look like they have high frequency when it's nothing but their continued existence in the population because there's no reason for them to be selected out. You assume selection because they persist at all, and count any degree of persistence as increase in frequency when they are not increasing at any greater rate than all the other forms of the same allele, because they are essentially the same allele. This argument I keep making needs to be addressed.

Faith writes:

This article actually sounds like it assumes that beneficial mutations practically appear as needed, such as here:

The extensive polymorphism of the MHC proteins has almost certainly evolved to outflank the evasive strategies of pathogens.*
[and this is footnoted] "The extensive polymorphism of the MHC proteins has almost certainly evolved to outflank the evasive strategies of pathogens. That should make sense to you (post Fall).

I would expect that somehow the solution to the problem has to be already present in the system and then it's selected. That is, it was created to function as it does, it didn't evolve for that purpose.
Mutations don't just occur as needed but that's how this sounds.

BG writes:

No they don't. But relatively rare advantageous mutations can occur, then their frequency (the percentage of the population which has them) can increase via positive selection. Your model requires this, as only four alleles per. gene can be there 300 generations ago.

No, let's get this much sorted out please.
1) There are TWO alleles and two only, per gene, in my YEC model.
2) YOU are calling these mutations "alleles," and I am denying that they are alleles, at least saying that you have not shown that they do anything different than the original allele did.
3) YOU are saying that they are positively selected, and I am saying that is an illusion as explained above.
4) Therefore the YEC model I'm using does not have to accept any of this. They aren't alleles, they aren't positively selected.

bluegenes writes:

Bear in mind that there are several of these very polymorphous genes, and that if the Adam & Eve maximum of 4 alleles was all that was available to us, then homozygosity would be common (1/4 of the population on each gene, and most people on at least one).

Homozygosity in individuals at particular loci occurs at that rate, but not in the whole population unless those individuals get reproductively isolated among themselves. I'm a bb, my father was a bb, my mother and siblings are all Bb. This is a pretty common situation. The original Scandinavians may have been so predominantly bb that even a Bb was rare, but that's the result of migration and reproductive isolation.

In any case I'm not sure I'm getting your point about the immune system. If the genes are codominant you aren't going to get homozygosity anyway, are you?

BG writes:

Faith writes:

Homozygosity occurs after many generations of selection as I thinki of it, or by founder effect. But if a gene's function can be illustrated by a Mendel square there's no need for homozygosity to develop rapidly. This shouldn't occur with the skin color or eye color genes that function according to the Mendel square. If these genes you are talking about can be expressed in a Mendel square I'd like to see it.

They can't be shown in a two allele square. They have multiple codominant alleles. There are a massive amount of phenotypes.

It is possible to construct a Mendel square for codominance using two genes. I can go find the article on that. Not that I completely grasp how it's done but I've seen it. Only for two genes though. Similar to the skin color square I've posted a few times.

BG writes:

Faith writes:

But it's probably that you've chosen a case that is too difficult for me to think through, and since it involves only a few genes I don't think it's very useful for a debate about the YEC model, which seems to me to be able to account for the vast majority of genes, and probably these too but if I'm unable to think it through it isn't a good example for this debate.

The YEC model has to account for it.

In that case I believe I've accounted for it, as above.

BG writes:

The thing about the MHC is that your model can only attempt to explain it if you accept that mutation and positive selection can happen.

Well I certainly accept that mutations happen, far too often than could be a good thing, but I don't accept that mutations are the source of functioning alleles, only that at best they usually don't change the function of the original allele, as explained above. And I think positive selection is an illusion, as explained above.

When you hear other creationists claim that one or the other doesn't happen, or that both don't happen, you are now in a position to explain to them that they are inadvertantly describing the YEC model as false through their ignorance.

I hate the fact that creationists are often at odds about these things or about anything, so I don't want to encourage it. Since the ToE has possession of the field we are usually in the position of following whatever idea we personally understand best. CRR has a much broader understanding of the whole range of creationist arguments than I do, and some of them I disagree with, but I'd rather see him pursue them and work them out than keep disagreeing about them.

Meanwhile this thread has been an opportunity for me to refine my own YEC model. Getting it down to two alleles per gene is a big step.

BG writes:

Faith writes:

And again, I'm going with two, not four, alleles, per Adam and Eve's genes.

That's fine, but it makes it even harder for the model to explain what's actually there...

Not if what's "actually there" is just mutations that don't contribute anything beneificial to the genome.

, and, so far as the following generations and their MHC genes are concerned, it would make many immune systems weaker than now, because 50% would be homozygous on any given locus.

But they are codominant, right? You can't get homozygosity with codominance. In fact shouldn't everybody have exactly the same two alleles per gene? If not, please explain.

The population would need a lot of mutation and positive selection to give it the defences we see now.

I don't think so but I also admit I don't fully understand the situation of the immune system as you are describing it. But codominance should make a big difference in its basic function as compared to say eye color or skin color.

You also need strong, rapid selection for your niche filling after the Ark.

All you need is a lot of migration of separate populations, just random "selection" not "strong positive selection." The genetic diversity -- basically the amount of heterozygosity -- was great enough on the Ark to allow for an enormous range of variation as the animals -- and humans -- dispersed around the world.

And "niche filling" is a ToE concept that I don't think has much reality to it, and doesn't have much of a place in YEC.

You could view all polar bear characteristics as coming from Ark bears with a kind of super genome, but only environmental selection on that genome would explain how their characteristics match the niche.

I know I'm a maverick on this point but here's how I look at this: the polar bear type is going to show up just through random recombination, and it will gravitate to where it is best adapted by its color and other characteristics. There is no need for a super genome, all the material for variation exists in the two-alleles-per-gene with many genes per trait. This I'm sure needs a lot more discussion but there it is.

The way I understand Darwin's finches is that the finch beaks appeared in the population just by random recombination, and the possessors of each beak type gravitated to the kind of food the beak is best suited for. This makes more sense than that the environment, the kind of food, selected the beak -- for one thing that would be enormously costly, especially if the requisite type for a particular food source was recessive and very rare in the population. The mot likely scenario it seems to me is that the whole range of food possibilities could be present in one environment but the beak will find the ones best suited to it.

Natural selection should be very popular with YECs, and they need to learn to stop inadvertently destroying their model by attacking the concept.

I have nothing against natural selection and wasn't aware that creationists do in general. But as I was thinking all this through over the years it just came to seem to me that environment-driven selection must be very rare, and what more often happens is random selection, the accidental isolation of small populations out of the larger gene pool -- THAT's where the most striking evolution happens, the ring species for instance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2017 8:35 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 11:00 AM Faith has responded
 Message 233 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2017 7:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 207 of 425 (809109)
05-16-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
05-14-2017 4:48 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 05-14-2017 4:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-16-2017 10:51 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 208 of 425 (809111)
05-16-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
05-15-2017 2:04 PM


Re: Multiple Alleles of OCA2 Produce a Wide Variety of Human Eye Colors
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 2:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 209 of 425 (809112)
05-16-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
05-15-2017 1:01 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 05-15-2017 1:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 210 of 425 (809113)
05-16-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Taq
05-16-2017 10:46 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Counting the number of individuals in a population with a specific DNA sequence has nothing to do with function.

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, and since a neutral mutation would be passed on at the same rate as all the other forms of the same allele, you are most likely counting as an increase in frequency what is nothing but this normal passing on. It's an illusion based on counting the sequences as separate alleles..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:46 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:55 AM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017