Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity)

In the forum Does the Flood Add Up?, PaulK provided a brilliantly simple falsification of his opponent's points: Unfortunately this important (and to Faith's position, devastating) point appears to have been quickly lost amongst the usual mish-mash of Flood-related hand-waving, so I bring it up separately here:If the current species within a kind all derive from two ancestors and mutation does not contribute to genetic diversity, then the most alleles that would be found for a given gene across all of those species would be four.We know that four-alleles-or-less-per-gene is definitely not the case. Below is a table taken from the 2004 paper Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution by Fondon & Garner. (I reproduce it directly from their work since the paper is freely available to the public in PubMed Central here.) As is easily seen, there are genes with many more than four alleles - the coyote Twist-1 gene alone has seventeen alleles. It is important to note that these are NOT detrimental mutations - they occur in coding sequence of genes that still produce functional proteins - so arguments of mutation producing deleterious alleles as a result of the Fall are not applicable. Thus, either modern coyotes did not all descend from two individuals of their ancestral kind, or mutation has contributed extensively to their genetic diversity. This is just the beginning of the problem with the ancestral kind pair position, since all varying alleles from all species within a kind would be added to get the total that would need to be present in the ancestral pair.Polyploidy of the ancestral kind pair was briefly mentioned as a way of providing more than four alleles. A few points refute this possibility:- Polyploidy is extremely rare in mammals; in fact, only one non-diploid mammal is known, the tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes) red viscacha rat, Tympanoctomys barrerae. Additionally, current understanding of the tetraploidy of the rat is that it resulted from a genome duplication, that is, its ancestors were diploid.- In order to provide for the coyote's alleles alone, their ancestral kind pair would have to be at least nonaploid (nine sets of chromosomes), which is beyond unheard-of for mammals. Sperm size is directly correlated to genome size, so that the tetraploid rat has sperm over three times the size of diploid mammals. Nonaploid sperm would be so enormous that the reproductive biology of a nonaploid mammal would be quite unlike that of any real mammal.- Comparative genomic analysis has been used to infer the ancestral vertebrate karyotype - diploid with twelve chromosomes. I feel Faith's position, which others hold as well, is refuted in a straightforward manner simply by counting alleles in existing populations. Either mutation has contributed significantly to evolution and genetic diversity, or there was no severe bottleneck resulting from pairs of animals rescued from the Flood. Alone these points could be argued, but in light of simple and obvious evidence - current allelic numbers within kinds - the two points directly contradict each other.If one accepts a literal reading of the Flood story, it follows that genetic diversity must be increasing to explain the allelic variants we can easily count today.
_____* While I repeatedly attack Faith's position in this post, I feel it is representative of a position held by others who have frequented EvC. The post is not meant as an attack on Faith, and I would happily engage in (hopefully constructive) one-on-one debate on the subject if Faith is interested.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I get very tired of being told that my reasoning doesn't belong on a science thread, so if I'm to participate in this I either have to suppress my normal reasoning or you have to move this thread where I can be free to say what I think without constantly being hassled about having different assumptions from evolutionists. I would be interested in thinking about all of this if I have that freedom.However, I have to leave for a while now anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand that you get jumped on quite a bit - which is why I suggested this might be better as a one-on-one debate on our terms. You talk of reasoning and assumptions - and I don't mind giving you a bit of leeway for discussion purposed - but to some extent my purpose in starting this thread was to discuss things at a simple evidenciary level.For starters, I would be interested in how you reconcile the fact that many more alleles exist now in current species than could ever have been present in a single ancestral pair from the Flood (if not for mutations). If you are simply going to argue unknown supernatural genetics, or refuse to consider evidence, perhaps a discussion is not worthwhile. If you really want to hear and consider my responses to your attempts to reconcile the literal Bible and science, then let's go for it.At times you argue from scientific evidence, and at others you dismiss it entirely - depending on how the science meshes with your "assumptions". Though you often mention your hypothesis regarding genetic diversity, I have yet to see you really explore it - I was hoping to accomplish that here in an honest way. (And perhaps until you do so, you should stop making those claims...)

I make those claims because they are what I think. There is never an opportunity to develop them because I'm constantly confronted with straw man misrepresentations of what I'm trying to say and endless endless objections out of who knows where. I have no idea where this thread would go since it's never happened that a REAL opportunity to think it through has occurred and who knows if that is what this will be either. But don't start out telling me what I should and shouldn't claim or we'll get nowhere. I just spent hours in the usual frustrating nonsense and I'm not in a mood for more. Maybe tomorrow I'll have calmed down.

Sorry if it came off harshly - I meant it to be constructive. Hopefully you realize that every time you make claims regarding genetic diversity (that appear to go completely against available evidence) it is very frustrating to a geneticist.You can claim whatever you want in the discussion, as long as you can also consider my critique of your claims. If I've misrepresented your argument or made objections without evidence in my above post please point them out. Otherwise I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion.Whenever you're feeling less frustrated, please reconsider the OP - I'm really interested in having an open, educational discussion. (And let me know what you think about the origin of those thirteen Twist-1 alleles that weren't present in the coyotes' ancestral kind pair...)Thanks.

Would you be willing to....http://EvC Forum: The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum -->EvC Forum: The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum

Others have suggested that this thread would be suitable for the Theological Creationism & ID thread - I have no problem with moving it there, since the OP does argue science within a Biblical context, and such a move would probably make Faith more comfortable given the extra latitude...Feel free to move it if you see fit.

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.

Not too eager to start out a thread being told that my argument has been definitively defeated. What's the point?I also don't appreciate the usual hand-waving away of a creationist's argument as mere hand-waving.I suspect there are too many topics bound up in this OP. Maybe you should pick one you want to focus on first.The multiple alleles in the chart are alleles for a given genetic locus in the POPULATION, correct? That is, supposedly only four are possible at a given locus for any individual but there are many to select from?You seem to be saying that there can only be one locus per trait, but as I understand it that is not the case.What did PaulK mean by saying that it is "theoretically" the case that there are only four alleles per locus?As you must know, whatever the situation is NOW is not going to be assumed by a creationist to have always been the situation. So when you say that polyploidy is extremely rare among mammals now, that's not an argument against the idea that the original Kinds contained much more genetic potential.I don't get what you are saying about coyotes.In fact I don't get your whole point: If I can't follow you, I can't respond. Maybe you should try to reduce the topic to something manageable, or arrange it in order of points you'd like to take up one at a time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually. Never mind, I do get your point and concede defeat. I have to think about this further.

quote:

---

The multiple alleles in the chart are alleles for a given genetic locus in the POPULATION, correct? That is, supposedly only four are possible at a given locus for any individual but there are ma ny to select from.

---

No, the maximum is TWO per individual. That is why 2 individuals have a maximum of 4.

quote:

---

What did PaulK mean by saying that it is "theoretically" the case that there are only four alleles per locus?

---

I didn't say that. I said that the theoretical MAXIMUM for TWO individuals is FOUR. That is two per individual. Just as in your example with the genetic basis for blue eyes. Each indiviudal has 2 alleles at the locus for eye colour, each of which could (in your example) be the allele labelled 'b' or the allele labelled 'B'.So where's the theological content ? Perhaps you can show us where the Bible says that genetic diversity is decreasing.

I concede the whole shebang Paul. End of topic.I believe the general trend I'm talking about has to be the case but I can't argue it at this point and there's no point in trying to battle it out on such a specific level since I can't.

Good. I'm glad you figured out what I was trying to get across. (Let me know if there is still anything you're not sure of...)But I have a follow-up question: My criticism was that your two points contradicted each other in light of allelic variants, but one may be true. The two points:1. Modern species are descended from an ancestral kind pair from the ark.
2. Genetic diversity is decreasing. On which point do you admit defeat?__________But I have an even more important question - an answer to this would perhaps help me understand where you are coming from.- You have made various speculation on what would seem (based on current scientific data) to be outrageous genetic models, involving highly polyploid ancestral kinds that have left no genetic signature, and hyper-rapid evolution by simple reproductive isolation.- You deny outright (and at least in discussions with me, without anything but bare assertion) that simple mutation can increase genetic diversity.Both of these describe evolution!
We have evidence for the latter, none for the former.Here's my all-important question: Why would God use (or permit) the first mode of evolution, but not the second mode of evolution, to produce the variety of species we see today?!?!?Thanks in advance - I'm sincerely interested in an answer.

Hi Faith,I was interested in getting a response to my message 14, and it seemed like the thread was getting lost due to inactivity...Thanks.