Rapid speciation after the flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.

---

So why is it a problem for evolution?

quote:

---

From a design standpoint, I still believe there is a likelihood that non-random, adaptive mutations exist (Peter has provided evidence on this board; Cairns et al also support their existence, but the debate still rages).

---

What evidence did Borger supply for 'directed mutations'? And what is the evidence for your hyperbolic concluding statement? Your desire for it to be so is not, remember, evidence.

quote:

---

Why do we need your idea?

​

Because their existence refutes NDT. The evolutionists would have to redefine the current paradigm. No problem, they’ve done it many times before!

---

Indeed - shame that Williams the creationist cannot see the value of updating a theory based on new evidence. The creationist prefers to stick with the mythology laid down centuries ago by desert nomads, contrary evidence be damned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

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?

---

​

From a non-C/E POV I’m interested because it makes good design sense for God to have encoded adaptable changes that do not require selection alone to enforce them.

---

It sure does. Any evidence that this is the case?

quote:

---

From a C/E POV, here is why:

​

The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory D Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology, 1998, p 282

​

As Peter pointed out, it falsifies NDT by the evos own standards. But we know it won’t in the long run, they’ll just change the theory to accommodate them. Page has already hinted at this! It shows the malleability of their theory. I like how Walter Remine put it: evolutionary theory adapts to the data like fog on a landscape.

---

You misrepresent me. I hinted at nothing, except for the fact that real science must adapt to new information. If it does not, it is dogma. That is why YECism is not science, because its adherents will never change their minds regardless of the evidence.I also like how Walter ReMine wrote that his theory make s'risky' testable predictions, but has yet to actually lay them out.Of course, ReMine is an electrical engineer creationist, so why should anyone really care what he says anyway?

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?

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.

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.

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 Tranquility Base:
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.

---

That is all well and good as far as speculation goes, but wouldn't someone have noticed this going on?Wouldn't those hundreds of children per breeding couple have noticed the emrgence of a new bat kind every 11 years or so (being VERY genrous to the YEC position with that...)?It strains credulity...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
All the while the poor critters are trying to migrate across a barren, lifeless world and empty seas to the continent or island where they finally end up!

---

Clearly, Noah and his kine made little backpacks for all the pairs of Kinds, complete with canteens of fresh water and Power Bars for their long, lonely treks....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
All the while the poor critters are trying to migrate across a barren, lifeless world and empty seas to the continent or island where they finally end up!

---

​

Clearly, Noah and his kine made little backpacks for all the pairs of Kinds, complete with canteens of fresh water and Power Bars for their long, lonely treks....

---

​

Now its making sense. They must have also been packing little canoes, preferably with outboard motors and several hundred gallons of fuel.

​

Some of them would, of course, be carrying bags of seed to kick start the ecosystems at the various destinations.

---

Yes, "Its all in the bible, son. Its the prankster's bible."
- Homer Simpson to Bart, all the while patting a pocket edition of the Bible....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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. [quote] That is all well and good as far as speculation goes, but wouldn't someone have noticed this going on?

​

Wouldn't those hundreds of children per breeding couple have noticed the emrgence of a new bat kind every 11 years or so (being VERY genrous to the YEC position with that...)?

​

It strains credulity...

​

[/B]

---

​

Quetzel's question was flawed as shown here:
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

​

There simply is no problem. Most of the species were not required on the ark. It's a toothless argument.

---

Your reply is totally irrelevant - a strawman/red herring.
And utter nonsense from a population genetics POV.Please provide the model that could account for such diversification.With lab observations, please.Your ignorance on bats notwithstanding.