Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity)
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 1 of 9 (328622)
07-03-2006 5:00 PM


In the forum Does the Flood Add Up?, PaulK provided a brilliantly simple falsification of his opponent's points:
Faith* (who does not accept that mutation contributes to evolution or genetic diversity): I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination.
PaulK: Then your idea can't work. The theoretical limit on the genetic diversity of two individuals (4 alleles per locus) is still too low.
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.
Faith writes:
The Bible does NOT say they were on the ark. It says two representatives of each Kind were on the ark. That would mean that many species/varieties of the Kind were not on the ark and died in the flood.
What an evolutionist always has to explain and can't, however, is how you can EVER get MORE genetic diversity when populations are constantly splitting into reproductively isolated groups. Mutation is pretty much IT, and that is full of holes.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:26 PM pink sasquatch has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 9 (328626)
07-03-2006 5:09 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-04-2006 9:40 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 9 (328648)
07-03-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
07-03-2006 5:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 5:00 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 6:56 PM Faith has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 4 of 9 (328654)
07-03-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
07-03-2006 6:26 PM


hmmmm...
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...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:03 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 9 (328658)
07-03-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch
07-03-2006 6:56 PM


Re: hmmmm...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 6:56 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 7:16 PM Faith has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 6 of 9 (328663)
07-03-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:03 PM


Re: hmmmm...
But don't start out telling me what I should and shouldn't claim or we'll get nowhere.
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.
I'm constantly confronted with straw man misrepresentations of what I'm trying to say and endless endless objections out of who knows where.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:03 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 7:37 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 9 (328670)
07-03-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by pink sasquatch
07-03-2006 7:16 PM


Re: hmmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-03-2006 7:16 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 8 of 9 (328715)
07-04-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
07-03-2006 5:09 PM


admin: move to TheoCreo&ID?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 07-03-2006 5:09 PM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 9 (328721)
07-04-2006 10:28 AM


Thread copied to the Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity) thread in the Theological Creationism and ID forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024