Rapid speciation after the flood

quote:

---

My wild mustard claims come straight out of mainstream textbooks and it is a claim of recent breeding not simply long term relationship. The flower has been selected for in brocolli, the leaf has been selected for in cabbage.

---

Kale, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts are all the same species of plant, Brassica oleracea. They do not represent rapid speciation. Cabbage was developed from kale about 2000 years ago and is specifically mentioned by Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE). Kale was known in ancient Egypt. Cauliflower and broccoli were developed by about 4-500 years ago. Brussels sprouts were developed in the 18th century in Belgium of course.http://www.ag.usask.ca/...nts/hort/hortinfo/veg/cabbage.htmlIt just goes to show how much variation in phenotype you can get with small changes in genotype.Randy

^ It actually just goes to show how subjective taxonomics is at this end of the spectrum.EDIT: I agree with you too - it also shows that small changes in genotype can generate large changes in phenotype. The key C vs E point is that macroevolution involves non-allelic gains in addition to these rapid allelic and gene loss changes.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-14-2002]

TB:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: "The key C vs E point is that macroevolution involves non-allelic gains...". Could you clarify what "non-allelic" means? Non genetic? Behavioral? What?

It just goes to show how much variation in phenotype you can get with small changes in genotype.Randy
**********************Or even by phenocopyMoore RC, Xiang F, Monaghan J, Han D, Zhang Z, Edstrom L, Anvret M, Prusiner SB.Huntington disease phenocopy is a familial prion disease.
Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Dec;69(6):1385-8.Burgess JR, Nord B, David R, Greenaway TM, Parameswaran V, Larsson C, Shepherd JJ, Teh BT.Phenotype and phenocopy: the relationship between genotype and clinical phenotype in a single large family with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1).
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2000 Aug;53(2):205-11.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
But upon further examination it turns out to not be much a problem at all, because there essentially is no speed limit on the rate in which neutral and deleterious mutations can become fixed. Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.

---

​

From:

​

"Answering Evolutionist Attempts to Dismiss "Haldane's Dilemma"
Fred Williams
October 2000

​

"In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased."

​

How can there be no speed limit when, according to you, and apparently you alone, there is a greater cost associated with them?

​

Or have you flip-flopped on this within the last six months, too?

---

​

http://EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics -->EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

---

Mental masturbation is not an explanation.Please try harder.

QuetzalAlleles are variants on a gene. A/B/O blood. Blue/brown eyes. In the moderne genomics era it simply means one or two DNA changes in a gene (SNPs). These are allelic differnces. You can put down the differneces between man and chimnp hemoglobin to such allelic differnces. They both still code for hemolgobin, habve the same 3D strcuture, bind the heme group and oxygen in the same way.Banks of novel gene families, contributing completely new pathways, are not allelic differnces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Quetzal

​

Alleles are variants on a gene. A/B/O blood. Blue/brown eyes. In the moderne genomics era it simply means one or two DNA changes in a gene (SNPs). These are allelic differnces. You can put down the differneces between man and chimnp hemoglobin to such allelic differnces. They both still code for hemolgobin, habve the same 3D strcuture, bind the heme group and oxygen in the same way.

​

**************

​

So do you believe the difference between a chimp and human is micro or macro evolution TB? How about human and lemur? Human and rodent?

​

Banks of novel gene families, contributing completely new pathways, are not allelic differnces.

---

Thanks for the clarification TB. (I know what alleles are, but thanks anyway.) For some reason your statement put me in mind of an argument I witnessed on another board between a pop gen guy and a mol bio guy about matrilineal inheritance of non-genetic factors. Went on for eight pages before they realized they were talking past each other...

quote:

---

Banks of novel gene families, contributing completely new pathways, are not allelic differnces.

---

Since we're just back to this bit again, perhaps you're now ready to give specific examples of these "banks of novel gene families" that differentiate, say, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

quote:

---

Banks of novel gene families, contributing completely new pathways, are not allelic differnces.

---

​

Since we're just back to this bit again, perhaps you're now ready to give specific examples of these "banks of novel gene families" that differentiate, say, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes?

---

Unless TB has new information, last time this came up he referred to an estimate based on an extrapolation, which concluded that something like 30 genes or gene families (of unknown content) should exist between us.

Was it 30 genes, or 30 gene families?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Was it 30 genes, or 30 gene families?

---

I don't recall specifically, but I do thnk it was gene familiaes.Of course,a gene family is the result of duplication of some 'parent' gene, and 'parent' genes can arise from translocations and all that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Was it 30 genes, or 30 gene families?

---

​

I don't recall specifically, but I do thnk it was gene familiaes.

​

Of course,a gene family is the result of duplication of some 'parent' gene, and 'parent' genes can arise from translocations and all that.

​

---

***************And Fred brought up 30 original kinds...what is with these guys and the number 30?

Mammuthus: That 30 is a mainstream estimate (for my number)! I think it is distinct gene families . It's extrapolated from the prelimnary analyeses of the mouse genome given the suppsed relative divergence times.BTW Quetzal: I knew you knew about alleles - I expanded on it for the spectators.

In the other thread Quetzal posted
EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Debate Continues
including (amongst other things):

quote:

---

Let's see: there are approximately 1.4 million identified living species (i.e. that have received a scientific name, at least). Based on biodiversity studies, there may in reality be as few as 10 million (the low end, not including bacteria) or as many as 100 million (the high end, but including bacteria). Figures are from Wilson 1990 "Diversity of Life" and should be considered approximations - I personally feel that the low end is too low, and the high end is way too high. Creationists posit between 18,000 (Morris, "Genesis Flood") and 30,000 (Fred Williams from this site - I don't know where he got that figure) "Kreated Kinds" at the time of the Flood. According to you, random mutation, recombination, etc, produced this explosion of diversity that makes the "Cambrian Explosion" look like a wet firecracker.

​

Quetzal: Please provide evidence, of any kind, or even a decent explanation, of how the observed mechanism of random mutation etc caused 18,000 kinds to became 10 million in 4500 years (using the lower end of both, because the high end gets even more ridiculous). Please note you need to explain 2218 speciation events/year - every single year since the Flood. While you're at it, please explain where all the transitional fossils showing the steps in this extreme radiation are located? (Man, I loved saying that...) Also, please explain why this rapid speciation is no longer occurring - or failing that, when the rapid speciation ceased. Finally, please explain biogeography (in the sense of, for instance, living marsupials in Australia, extinct marsupials and living placentals in South America, etc, as well as distinctive island faunas - I'm looking for which created kind was the first to set foot in those areas after the flood - the Kreated Kind Ancestor of the existing fauna.)

​

That'll do for a start. If you can't at least come up with the answers to these simple questions, then you have even less evidence on your side than I believe you do.

---

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]

My basic answer is that the 2000 or so speciation events per year required are not happening in series but in parallel. This is evoltuion we're talking about! It is a branching thing. It is multiplicative. Naively, but logically, if we branch from 20,000 kinds every 100 years one would quickly get 10 million kinds by 1500 BC.And there are very good reasons for the branching rate to die down over time. Every system adjusts exponentially to a new environement. This is a mathematical law of equilibrium that would hold almost without exception. These exemplars of each kind, presumably hand picked by God, were suddenly flung into the world to their own devices. It makes a lot of sense for there to be a sudden adjustment to a new equlibrium based on the initial starting point and their new environments.We really should be looking at land based species since we are talking about post-flood ark-sourced diversifation. There are about 2000 land based families. Anyone know how many (non-insect) land-based species there are?Your Cambrian explosion analogy works only as far as the species number is concerned. In terms of informaiton content of the genomes there is no comparison. We are not proposing thre origin of a single new gene family after the flood. The Cambrian explosion generted the orgin of probably 50% of our curnet gene families in all of life! please note this oft ignored differnce in what you and what we claim.

quote:

---

While you're at it, please explain where all the transitional fossils showing the steps in this extreme radiation are located? (Man, I loved saying that...)

---

LOL!If some top fraction of the Cenezoic is catatrophic glacial melting then we actually see a lot of evidence of a multitude of variations of mammals. Think of any mammal and there was a bizaree assortment: e.g. elephant variations.Biogeography? We would explain that the current populaiton of marsupials are where they are becasue this is where they emmigrated after the flood, whether directed by God or not. Since then they have been isolated by geographical factors.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]