Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8778 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 12:15 PM
366 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, JonF, New Cat's Eye, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Taq (10 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,327 Year: 20,933/21,208 Month: 1,366/2,326 Week: 702/345 Day: 64/161 Hour: 5/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 376 of 425 (810800)
06-01-2017 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by jar
06-01-2017 4:31 PM


Re: falling into place
And Mike posts all he has ever posted, word salad and mental masturbation.

Reality wins Mike and Creationists NEVER post anything related to reality.

Perhaps if a there is ever a Creationist who post anything even remotely related to evidence then there will be something reasonable to debate

Oh my goodness.....I must be seeing things.......you added MORE assertions about me and creationists?

There was me thinking in "reality" an argument consisted of premises and a conclusion inferred from them? Apparently that's, "word salad", and there is no such thing as a syllogism, which is a figment of my imagination your honour.

I guess I was only dreaming when Jar posted about thirty assertions about mike and creationists, and there is no such thing as a bare assertion fallacy, or question begging epithets. Clearly these are things mikey conjured up so don't google them whatever you do, because why would mikey's imagination be googlable?

Jar writes:

Reality wins

of course, "reality" can't win anything, as that's an anthropomorphism. People win things and reality isn't a person.

I digress into word salad, which means I am speaking fantasy again, I guess that means that "reality" is a person after all. And His name is Jesus Christ!

GET OVER IT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 4:31 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 6:13 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 377 of 425 (810804)
06-01-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 4:41 PM


Re: falling into place
Mike writes:

I digress into word salad, which means I am speaking fantasy again, I guess that means that "reality" is a person after all. And His name is Jesus Christ!

Yup. just more mental masturbation and word salad. Nothing relevant to the topic as always from you Mike.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 4:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 378 of 425 (810807)
06-01-2017 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 3:03 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
It does not make any sense to have BOTH systems. For one thing the original can no longer function well if at all because of the miserable mess of extra alleles that replace the originals in a great many individuals. The one system would be completely adequate if not garbled by mutations, and the other system has negative effects in the scattering of protections and traits. And the redundancy of many of the sequences is just the usual indication that we're talking about mistakes, not a normal process.

The problem with your argument is that the multiple allele portions of reality are incompatible with an Adam and Eve scenario and in some cases even the post-Noah scenario unless beneficial mutations are allowed.

It wouldn't be hard to argue that the genome started out with two alleles per gene and then acquired the extra alleles, but as this discussion has progressed I've become convinced that the extra alleles are ALL interfering mutations even where they appear to do something beneficial. I'm sure those positive effects are adequately covered in what I now believe to be the original system, and as mutant alleles are just redundant. Sorry to be so inconsistent. When I get new information or see things from a new angle I do change my mind, and usually not in a pro-evolution direction.

Now that you have conceded that point, you have weakened one of your arguments against evolution. Namely that there are no such things as beneficial mutations.

Well, I have taken back that concession. In fact I've taken it back at least twice in this thread. I've concluded that the two-allele gene is a perfect design for variation under all circumstances. It is a very satisfying conclusion because it shows simplicity and elegance and efficiency in the DNA system which is what I would expect of God's design. I certainly went through phases of considering the multiple alleles as genuine and pondering how to make use of the idea, but in the end they appear to be the usual hit or miss sloppy mistake-ridden system the ToE accepts as how life evolves, with unnecessary repetitions, random scattered beneficial functions, gaps in immune protection and enough big gaps in all other traits to make selection highly problematic.

So I now see the suppsed beneficial mutations as the usual illusion that is so prevalent in the ToE.

So you are wrong. Adding alleles to the multiple gene situation increases diversity.

It actually destroys it. In fact there is only one case so far "proved" of increased diversity and that is the rabbit fur color change, but I suspect that further research will show that's the usual case of either a repeat of an original allele for one of the many genes that govern fur color, or a fluke sequence that does code for a functional protein.

Meanwhile the original system IS destroyed by all these extra alleles since they displace the originals. If some of them manage to simply repeat the original at least that isn't doing direct harm, but it IS scattering the effects in the population which is not a good thing. The original immune system would give equal protection to all possessors for all diseases, especially with its codominance which gives equal expression to all its alleles, making particular protections available wherever they are needed instead of all over the map where they may or may not be needed. Obviously the original system as I'm now seeing it is far and away superior to the multiple alleles, and again, no there is no way both systems can peacefully coexist.

Even if there were an exact duplication of a multi-gene phenotype, and generally there is not, there become multiple pathways to reach advantageous phenotypes.

What you are failing to grasp is that the original system has all the pathways needed for whatever phenotype is needed, and it has them in far more reliable form rather than scattered where there is no certainty they will be available when needed. EVERY individual possesses EVERY protection in the immune system in the original. They are not scattered among individuals, they are available to all when needed.

And that two counts as diversity and more rigor. And of course. in at least some cases, new advantages are realized.

This is utterly false. All the diversity is present and more available in the system I'm now considering original. Rigor is compromised by mutation, it can't be a product of it. There are no new advantages in the system that shotguns its effects through the population.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 3:03 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 8:49 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 379 of 425 (810810)
06-01-2017 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
06-01-2017 7:23 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
t does not make any sense to have BOTH systems. For one thing the original can no longer function well if at all because of the miserable mess of extra alleles that replace the originals in a great many individuals.

Faith, we already have both systems. That's been demonstrated with examples. It does not make sense to complain that what we have does not make sense. It works to add diversity to a system that does not have multiple (more than two) alleles for single genes. Thanks for playing.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 7:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:11 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 380 of 425 (810820)
06-01-2017 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 8:49 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
OK I'll say it again. 1) The systems are in conflict, the multiple alleles interfere with the original system. And 2) It does not add diversity if all the "new" sequences are just repetitions of existing sequences, which on top of that interfere with those existing sequences and scatter their effects. I'm glad the situation isn't yet as bad as it could be, but it will get there as long as the reality that these extra alleles are just a disease process is ignored.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 8:49 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 10:57 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 381 of 425 (810826)
06-01-2017 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:11 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
OK I'll say it again. 1) The systems are in conflict, the multiple alleles interfere with the original system.

That is your claim at least. There is no conflict at all. Both structures can lead to increased diversity. In fact if a mutation disables one mode, the other can produce a similar phenotype in at least some situations. They are complementary.

You have not shown any way that having two systems causes problems.

And 2) It does not add diversity if all the "new" sequences are just repetitions of existing sequences,

But this is not just assertion. It is noise. The sequence with multiple genes that can occupy a single location is different from entirely different genes at multiple locations on a chromosome. What can be similar is the phenotype that results.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 5:10 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 382 of 425 (810841)
06-02-2017 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 11:37 AM


Generations and mutation rates
mike the wiz writes:

A number of factors are involved, beneficial mutations potentially, but not the type that creates new information in the genome,.

How would something new in the phenotype be formed without "new information"? (That might be best answered on an information thread I started recently Message 1).

I certainly think you would be wise to put beneficial mutations in your model for all of the niche filling that is required.

mike writes:

..but there is allopatric speciation to consider which may have been very rapid for the first few hundred years post-flood before it settled down, almost an explosion of variety I imagine.

Post-flood, there would be no more antediluvian world. Logically this represents a major change for all organisms. Pre-flood they would have lived in more gentle, more uniform climates, the bible says there was increased longevity. So the speciation post-flood, the pressure would have been superb immediately after the flood, different populations spreading out with new selection pressures on those animals.

Certainly. Their former niches no longer exist, the environment has changed dramatically, and that definitely means new and strong selection pressures.

mike writes:

As for the misconception that there was, "rapid evolution" after the flood, that is usually a sign people are indolent about the mathematics. If you do the basic mathematics you will see that natural selection, or even call it, "evolution" if you want, does not depend upon a passage of time, it depends upon the amount of generations you can get within a passage of time.

Of course it's generations. That's always taken into account when estimating the divergence time of two populations by looking at their genomes. The reason estimates are usually very approximate is because the exact mutation rate is rarely known, but the generation gap usually is.

If YECs want to put "kind" at the level of family, they will need to argue for much higher mutation rates in the past; frequently more than 100 times those currently estimated by biologists and sometimes 1000 times or more, in order to account for the neutral mutational differences of groups in the same family.

mike writes:

edit; I have written more about this issue here in message one of this thread;
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6330... (the numbers I give are only guesses of course, about the generation spans, just approximations, I have no great knowledge of how long it is for each generation of the various species, but basically it's just to show you that we would expect more speciation and diversity for organisms with fast generation spans.)

Of course shorter generation times give more potential for change in a given time span, but, unfortunately, the bigger the animal, the more space and food taken up on the ark; and the longer the generation gap tends to be. Elephant generations are like ours.

I'd advise at least 6 already diverged and distinct pairs on the Ark for the Elephant family, otherwise the observed difference on genomes would require lethal mutation rates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 11:37 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 383 of 425 (810843)
06-02-2017 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-31-2017 12:17 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
Faith writes:

The redundancy is shown on those, such as in Percy's Message 329 where "measles seropositivity" and "measles seronegativity" each show up on three different genes. "Dengue fever protection" shows up on three or four. Malaria/sickle cell more than once. Influenza twice. That's redundancy.

They all deal with a range of pathogens, and will overlap on many. Overlap isn't redundancy.

Faith writes:

Seems to me the two-allele/multiple gene system would be a lot more efficient, at least drastically limiting the number of people who DON'T have a particular protection, everybody getting at least one version of a gene. And if they are codominant they would offer even more protection to individuals.

Well, you're the one criticising the intelligent designer. Actually, there is a multi-gene/multi-allele system in Class I, because HLA*A and HLA*C do similar things and also have multiple alleles.

The problem with a fixed system (two unchanging alleles per gene) is that the pathogens are many and varied, and they mutate all the time. If a lethal mutant develops a strain that bypasses both fixed, immutable alleles on HLA-B and everything else in the immune system, that's potential species extinction. But it's very hard for a pathogen to get all of us if there are many alleles around.

HIV is a classic example of a new, well adapted strain of something lethal, and sure enough, a small percentage of the population are immune to it.

Faith writes:

But I want to end by emphasizing what I said above, that the multiple-allele system seems to me to be a hit-or-miss system, very inefficient if it's intended to be THE system for protection of the human race against all kinds of diseases, since each individual only gets protection for some diseases and not others.

"Intended" is for you folks.

Faith writes:

While a system of multiple genes of two alleles each could protect ALL individuals from ALL diseases since we'd all possess the gene for a particular protection and if the two alleles are codominant as I thought someone said is true for the immune system we all get complete protection from all the same diseases.

On each gene, half the population would be homozygous.

Do you mean the intelligent designer could just match the genes to all the parasites out there that he had also, presumably, designed?

But then the originally designed parasites mutate, and.....?

Variance is what has been selected for, and although the different genes could all be present in Adam and Eve, all the variant alleles can't be.

So, that gives us positive selection on new functional information within our YEC model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 12:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 6:01 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 384 of 425 (810844)
06-02-2017 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 10:57 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
The sequence with multiple genes that can occupy a single location

Do you mean "alleles" instead of genes? If genes what do you mean by "occupy a single location?" Do you mean a segment of the DNA that is one gene after another for a particular system perhaps? I really can't follow you here.

...is different from entirely different genes at multiple locations on a chromosome. What can be similar is the phenotype that results.

In this case you are talking about genes for the same system being separated on the DNA strand?

Again I'm not sure what you are talking about, and it becomes even more puzzling when you mention a comparison with the phenotype. Sorry, I'm completely lost.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 10:57 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 385 of 425 (810845)
06-02-2017 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by bluegenes
06-02-2017 5:05 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
bg writes:

Actually, there is a multi-gene/multi-allele system in Class I, because HLA*A and HLA*C do similar things and also have multiple alleles.

I don't know what these terms mean so all I can do is get a vague idea that there are different genes in something called a Class I that do similar things and have multiple alleles without having any idea what the class designation means or the different A and C categories mean. I also am not in a position to know whether their doing similar things is normal or a degenerated situation due to the Fall.

The problem with a fixed system (two unchanging alleles per gene) is that the pathogens are many and varied, and they mutate all the time. If a lethal mutant develops a strain that bypasses both fixed, immutable alleles on HLA-B and everything else in the immune system, that's potential species extinction. But it's very hard for a pathogen to get all of us if there are many alleles around.

It's a very logical idea, I grant, but it's also rather a Just-So story that one would expect to be incompatible with the processes of the ToE. Mutations are usually described as occurring rarely in the first place, and certainly beneficial ones far more rarely, and beyond that you are expecting that some will occur that manage to match up against a specific evolving pathogen? The odds strike me as astronomical -- no, impossible.

I'm not sure how my fixed system would work in this case either though. Either there is already a gene for the situation with an allele for the situation or there isn't I guess.

HIV is a classic example of a new, well adapted strain of something lethal, and sure enough, a small percentage of the population are immune to it.

OK but how that immunity has come about remains a question for me. You apparently impute it to the statistically impossible arrival of the appropriate mutation(s)?

Making a guess at how the fixed system would work in this case I have to imagine a gene that is already capable of protecting against HIV for whatever reason, that has been compromised by way too many mutations so that it is no longer reliably protective, but some "small percentage of the population" still has that immunity. It's no more improbable to my mind than the extremely improbable arrival of an appropriate mutation your system requires.

On each gene, half the population would be homozygous.

Homozygosity in the immune system would certainly be a disadvantage, but hardly answerable by the expectation of a mutation coming along just in time that's exactly matched to a pathogen that has just come along. Is it possible that the immune system has some kind of built-in solution to homozygosity?

Do you mean the intelligent designer could just match the genes to all the parasites out there that he had also, presumably, designed?

I have to imagine an original system design that is efficient enough to protect against all threats, yes, but on the other hand what exists now is not the original system but the damaged remains of the system due to the Fall. I don't expect any kind of perfection at this point. Both the damage to the original system and the evolution of new pathogens can be the consequence of the Fall. Reconstructing the original situation might be impossible by this point.

But then the originally designed parasites mutate, and.....?

Unfortunately it's all part of the degeneration due to the Fall, and coping with it is a monumental project, which biology ought to be focused on rather than accepting it all as just how things work normally through the processes of evolution.

Variance is what has been selected for, and although the different genes could all be present in Adam and Eve, all the variant alleles can't be.

True, but there is still the question in my mind just how variant these alleles are anyway. I expect major redundancy and nothing truly novel, the main upshot of their occurrence being to undermine rather than further the original functions of the immune system even if some of them do fortunately protect against some diseases.

So, that gives us positive selection on new functional information within our YEC model.

I think that "new functional information" is wishful and not real -- the idea that all these extra alleles are not only needed but actually formed to deal with constantly changing pathogens is logical and pretty but statistically impossible, the Just-So story I mentioned earlier. There seems to be some hit or miss positive function left, that's the best that can be said of it. (I also don't see selection playing anywhere near the big role the ToE gives it.)

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2017 5:05 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by herebedragons, posted 06-02-2017 8:42 AM Faith has responded
 Message 405 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2017 9:43 AM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15674
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 386 of 425 (810850)
06-02-2017 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
06-01-2017 11:25 AM


Re: falling into place
Faith writes:

As for "popping up," that doesn't have to imply the mutation is new, just that because the alleles are scattered throughout the population any particular allele would be relatively rare and its location not predictable.

But they are not relatively rare - the alleles have a high frequency. That indicates strong selection. Alleles without strong selection are, as you called it, "relatively rare."

Evolution decrees that the high frequency means strong selection based on beneficial function. I continue to believe this is illusory and that it's really an overall destructive pattern in the immune system brought about by mutations, which as always are destructive mistakes even when they don't immediately cause disease.

That makes no sense. Mutations that are destructive and deleterious would have a low frequency in the population.

The fact that there are thousands of known genetic diseases in human beings is evidence that something is seriously misunderstood about the nature of mutations.

The alleles associated with genetic diseases have a low frequency in the population, just as expected. Those that bring both benefits and deficits, such as sickle cell, have a higher frequency. Those that bring only benefits have a higher frequency yet.

As I've been recognizing in the last few posts, there can't be any advantage to multiple alleles for a gene because they scatter the protective effects in the population,...

This is the herd effect. The frequency of the alleles is high enough to provide a beneficial level of protection to the population as a whole. And of course there's still the protection to the individuals.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 8:33 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15674
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 387 of 425 (810851)
06-02-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Faith
06-01-2017 11:36 AM


Re: falling into place
Faith writes:

Yes, it is interesting that evolution allows for all that sloppiness so that it can't be easily used as evidence against it.

"Evolution" is just the term we apply to what we observe in nature. You can't argue that evolution must be wrong because so much sloppiness wouldn't work, because that is exactly what we observe working.

Probability alone suggests such inefficiency couldn't produce a single living cell let alone the complex living systems that exist, but aficionados will not be persuaded against their dear theory.

Now you're talking about the origin of life, not evolution.

I wonder how much more extinction and death it might take for the establishment to stop to consider maybe they are calling a disease process normal.

Mutations are both a blessing and a curse. They are what sustains variety and drives change, but they also cause disease and death.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 8:56 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15674
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 388 of 425 (810852)
06-02-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
06-01-2017 11:55 AM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
Faith writes:

2) We have examples of thriving multiple alleles genes.

Diseases may thrive just as well.

Diseases cannot thrive if they affect the afflicted organism's ability to thrive and reproduce. This prevents a disease allele from achieving a high frequency in the population.

It seems clear to me that the insistence on its normality and health is based only on belief in the ToE,...

It's based upon observation. Mutation (copying errors) take place in almost every reproductive event.

It obviously exists for pete's sake, I haven't said it doesn't or can't, but yes I am trying to discredit what I see as a gigantic illusion that imputes helpfulness and normality to something that will eventually have to show itself to be inevitably destructive.

Except that it's obviously not "inevitably destructive". Most DNA doesn't do anything, and most mutations occur in those DNA regions. Those mutations that occur in active regions can have a beneficial, neutral or deleterious effect. They will be selected for or against based on their position on the spectrum from very beneficial to very deleterious.

First, those examples aren't quite as clear as you are claiming, they are in fact a pretty motley collection of hits and misses.

They were pretty clear, and they disproved your assertion that there were an original two alleles per gene, and that mutations can't be beneficial.

When I saw, only a few posts ago, that multiple alleles means scattered effects, that clinched it for me.

The alleles are distributed at different frequencies amongst the individuals of the population, but the important overall effect is for the population as a whole, which is very beneficial.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25823
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 389 of 425 (810853)
06-02-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Percy
06-02-2017 7:58 AM


Re: falling into place
Percy writes:

Faith writes:

As for "popping up," that doesn't have to imply the mutation is new, just that because the alleles are scattered throughout the population any particular allele would be relatively rare and its location not predictable.

But they are not relatively rare - the alleles have a high frequency. That indicates strong selection. Alleles without strong selection are, as you called it, "relatively rare."

If there are many alleles per gene any given allele, even if "relatively" high frequency, is going to be relatively rare in the population as a whole because of sharing the field with so many others.

It isn't said what high frequency means in numbers or percentages either. In some contexts 5% could be high frequency.

Also, as I argued way back on the thread, the frequency would be an illusion if the alleles are neutral mutations that produce the same phenotype as the allele they displaced, since they will simply be passed on without impediment. Selection in this case can't be a factor.

Percy writes:

Faith writes:

Evolution decrees that the high frequency means strong selection based on beneficial function. I continue to believe this is illusory and that it's really an overall destructive pattern in the immune system brought about by mutations, which as always are destructive mistakes even when they don't immediately cause disease.

That makes no sense. Mutations that are destructive and deleterious would have a low frequency in the population.

But I said "even when they don't immediately cause disease" which means they aren't destructive and deleterious in themselves, they may even be beneficial in that they protect against some form of disease, though redundantly perhaps; what I said is that they are an "overall destructive pattern" in the immune system, meaning that the whole collection of mutant alleles is not a good thing for the function of the immune system because it scatters the protective effects in the population. Certainly if the allele is a neutral mutation which merely produces the same protection as the original, and it is now just one of many mutant alleles scattered in the population, the original no longer has the scope and influence it had originally when everybody possessed it. It is assumed under the ToE that the mutant alleles do something new and useful; this I'm doubting.

Percy writes:

Faith writes:

The fact that there are thousands of known genetic diseases in human beings is evidence that something is seriously misunderstood about the nature of mutations.

The alleles associated with genetic diseases have a low frequency in the population, just as expected.

My point was about mutations in general -- there is an enormous number of genetic diseases they've brought about that persist in the population even if selected out in certain contexts, and what's to stop new ones from continuing to show up and remain? Clearly selection is far from a guarantee of riddance.

Those that bring both benefits and deficits, such as sickle cell, have a higher frequency. Those that bring only benefits have a higher frequency yet.

And some of this is demonstrable I'm sure; but a lot of it is just an article of faith based on the ToE and not a known reality.

Percy writes:

Faith writes:

As I've been recognizing in the last few posts, there can't be any advantage to multiple alleles for a gene because they scatter the protective effects in the population,...

This is the herd effect. The frequency of the alleles is high enough to provide a beneficial level of protection to the population as a whole.

Is this demonstrable in relation to these mutant alleles or just a wishful statement in any given case?

Percy writes:

And of course there's still the protection to the individuals.

Who are that limited segment of the population to possess the particular mutant allele. But as I keep saying, if the original immune system had all the beneficial alleles that are now out there in the form of mutants, it would have had a much more reliable and concentrated protective effect because possessed by all individuals.

However, if the herd effect does apply I'll take that into account. Perhaps it is the answer to the problem of homozygosity that bluegenes brought up earlier.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 7:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 9:36 AM Faith has responded
 Message 396 by jar, posted 06-02-2017 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 390 of 425 (810854)
06-02-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
06-02-2017 6:01 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
I have not been following this discussion super close because I just have not had time to. But I want to see if I understand your scenario and can put it into a clear narrative.

God created Adam and Eve with all the necessary genes and alleles to allow their immune system to fight off any pathogen that may attempt to invade their bodies. But because of the fall, mutations began to be introduced into an otherwise perfectly functioning system. As pathogens mutated they began to overcome the human immune system (through loss of information, of course) and they were then able to cause disease. As the human immune system began to mutate, the distribution of alleles became diluted and so a smaller and smaller proportion of people had a fully functioning immune system. Occasionally, a mutation in an immune system component would allow it to defend against a newer form of a pathogen, but this is an extremely rare exception.

Is this a good summary?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 6:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2017 1:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 400 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 4:26 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017