Rapid speciation after the flood

Some creationists here propose that evidence for non-random mutaitons could have led to rapid speciation after the flood. Even if this were true (actually there definitely is some non-random mutaiton), would it really be needed?What's wrong with there simply being rich gene pools and speciation via selective loss through natural selction/niche finding?Are you aware that brocolli, cabbage and cauliflower were selectively bred over the last few centuies from a wild mustard populaiton?Is it that the allelic mutaiton rates would be too high? What is it exactly? Why do we need your idea?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

Depending on which flood model we go for there may not be much post-flood sedimentation to find such a record. Mainstream science would have 4500 years as a geological split second and we mostly agree (minus ice ages). Diversity will coninue to be dynamically changing but it makes sense for a new equilibrium to need occur and then level off. My only guesses would be based on fitting with known diversity in ancient times. I just don't know enough about that to guess. The wild mustard example simply gives us a hint of what is possible.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

Thanks (again) Fred - I needed that refresher & thanks for the Ohno ref.I think the key issue is that NDT, with or without non-random mutations, is sufficent to generate the sorts of speciation that YECs require and that macroevolution (i) requires significantly different mechanisms and (ii) these mechanisms are primarily a faith position.Putting the Cambrian explosion down to a 10 million year event does have enormous repercussions. Macroevolution is effectively in the completely impossible category. It's God or Vulcans.PS - But why is non-random mutaitons still such a big deal? Who cares if it brings a Lamarkian element to evolution? Why are you still interested in it? Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in it - but not from a C vs E POV. Is it still the idea that this non-random effect might be designed in?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

RandyThe gene pool in a pair may be sufficiently rich due to being unspecialised. A wild type is more diverse than a bred or niche form. There may only be primarily four diffent alleles per gene but if all the gene types are in a pair of individuals that leaves a lot of options for cutting down on non-essential genes, in addition to diversity due to the handful of alleles per gene. What we know about population genetics is suggestive of these ideas - in detail it of course needs to be proven.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. The dog story is equally illuminating.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-14-2002]

FredI guess my comment is that both random and non-random effects come into microevoltuion. From a molecular point of view who cares about the pontificating of some big shot? Who cares about NDT - none of the artificial evoltuion guys running companies in Silicon Valley (generating novel enzyme sub-families) care one bit about the technical definition of NDT! If we find mechanisms of change then that is what evolution uses.I agree that historically science stamped out Lamarkism so it is unpleasant to have to let him back in again but I don't think it is any more than that. OK, evolutionists like to be able to say that it is random and undirected but if there is a naturalistic mechanism for non-random evolution that actually helps the phenotype I hardly see how this helps the creationist cause? Do you guys propose the non-randomness is coming directly from the hand of God?

^ 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]

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.

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]

Elsewhere in this forum I have agree that we probably require God to have directed animals to where he wanted them. There are good Scirputal reasons why. (1) God brought them to Noah amd (2) Acts 17 points out that what we think is random or mechanical is sometimes the hand of God:Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.So I would not be surprised if God has played a specific role in biogeogrpahy.And in our framework, there is very little fossilizaiton going post-flood, aprat from perhaps catastrphic glacial melting. AS you know yourself, ten thousand years is a blink of the eye geologically without catastrophic events.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]

^ The hyperspeciation either occurred in-between the flood and the iceages (you can call it creationist punctuated equlibrium if you like) or after these events (which would require the iceages to rapidly follow the flood).I'm really not a expert on this, I'm just letting you know what our expectations would be.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]

I'd prefer to have it post-cenozoic and post-iceage but we'll have to wait and see how the flood geologists go identifying the flood boundaries.

Thanks Fred. I've also seen creaitonist estimates of only 2500 kinds on the ark. Even that would not require too much speciation.