Hi Faith,
... A great recent example is when she stated that she thought we'd been saying that mutations don't change the basic genomic structure of species. How basic a misunderstanding is that!
There were two or three such statements and I hope I can eventually find them to see if what you are saying applies or not, something to the effect that of course mutations are going to be compatible with the species, and I don't remember why it was said, apparently in answer to something I said.
Mutations don't have to change genes or cause sufficient difference to lead to incompatibility. The probability is that most small mutations will have small effects that accumulate to provide sufficient difference after many generation.
There are, however, some mutations that can cause significant change in the phenotype.
The point, however, is that you cannot have gene change without change - mutation - to the gene, and you need gene change for speciation.
You have a gene for hair production. Hair can be blond, brown, red and black, curly, wavy and straight. These are the effects of alleles on the gene for hair production. To turn hair into something else (spines? quills?) you need to change the gene that produces hair.
Message 498: Picture much greater genomic capacity, "packed" -- meaning the vast majority of the genes now gone to junk DNA were then functioning as originally intended. With that much built-in fertility you don't get rare alleles, you have an abundance of possible variations, hundreds of times more than we do today (reckoning from the percentage of our DNA that is junk.)
And which you would need a
mutation to move to the active part of the DNA or a mutation to shut down one area and active another area. All you have done is invoked mutations by another name.
Junk DNA could have some sections that would be historical genes\alleles, but you can't recover them without mutations.
Message 496: IF all the alleles WERE carried in a single breeding pair I have to suppose a much more "packed" genome, with thousands more functioning genes where now there is only junk DNA and the alleles all somehow contained in that format. I also have to assume many MORE alleles than we see today.
Which is essentially the problem PaulK et al have pointed out - you don't have enough carriers, so you are forced into making up other ways to carry genes and alleles that don't currently exist, and for which there is no evidence. Then to get from your
super-pac animals to normal ones you still need mutations to move these genes and alleles around into the places they currently reside (a totally unnecessary step for creation, especially as the magic
super-pac animals didn't need such arrangement), so that you can match the current evidence, and curiously end up mimicking evolution mutation and selection in the process.
But I don't know HOW, all I can do is guess at a few things.
Which is known as the
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Making up stuff after the evidence is provided that shows your hypothesis to be unable to provide the answers.
Of course, you're still going to claim that it happened. Without mutations.
... Someone had suggested polyploidy at one time so I consider that a possibility for how their genome was different from ours. ...
Which still does not produce new genes nor new alleles, it is a mutation that duplicates whole genes.
... OR I have to consider the possibility of some form of "mutation" that followed some sort of chemical law that it no longer follows, that reliably produced compatible alleles in gene duplication.
Which still does not produce new genes nor new alleles.
The point is that today's genetic situation is different by a long shot than that at Creation and in Noah and his family and all the animals on the ark. The Flood would have had to reduce it dramatically which would show up in the generations soon after them, but there also had to be enough genetic potential available to make ALL the species we see today.
The point is that you have to make stuff up to shoe-horn cram fit the evidence to the story. If the story is true it should be apparent in the evidence.
It starts from a packed original genetic set and runs out over time.
It starts from knowing nothing about how genetics actually works.
That's my view based on the Bible, but as far as my argument here goes, none of that has to enter into it.
Only except that it shows how incompatable your argument is with reality.
If reduced genetic diversity occurs with population splits, and population splits are how we get to speciation, and speciation is essential to macroevolution, all this can be discussed without reference to the ark or the Flood or Creation.
And curiously, you still have not provided a coherent concept that shows how speciation can occur. Assertion doesn't cut it.
Message 489: Thank you for the acknowledgment of a possibility that fits with what I'm saying and a good example.
Wounded King suggested that it was
theoretically possible, but that he knew of no examples.
Curiously this too would be an extremely rare occurrence, if indeed it ever occurs.
Every system you have tried to explain your hypothesis relies on a rare to non-existent mechanism occurring every time. Life don't work that way.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : mid#
™ Version 4.2
(1)