"Latent" in this context means "potential" (look it up!). The genome has the potential to adapt by mutation (in this case, duplication leading to amplification) causing a new phenotype. That is evolution.
Do you really think that is what they meant when they said "They already harbor latent reservoirs". The way you describe it, its as if the latent ability they referring to , is merely the ability to evolve one day. Which evolutionists claim about the whole genome. I believe they were referring to something more specific when they used the term "harbour latent reservoirs", the implication is that abilities are already in place, the design for potential change is already there.
You already know that point mutations can change the protein product of coding genes in ways that are advantageous or neutral.
You say "I already know" this. This is the subject of this thread, but I remain unconvinced. There have been one or two unconvincing examples of this essential evolutionary process, EVER observed. But never observed combined with an extra coding gene, ie DNA based novel functions are always a claimed CHANGED function, rather than new additional function. You are welcome to re-post any such evidence if I have missed it, remember I did not participate in the early part of this thread. And the E.Coli example of aerobic functionality, I refuted by comparing it to the aerobic qualities of the staphylococcus and pointing out the already existing aerobic promoter in the E.coli, which indicates a revitalization of an existing aerobic function, rather than a novel function per se.
Why would the advantageous potential (latent) ability of self-replicators to adapt being favoured by nature over the hypothetical lack of that ability be "funny"? Static self-replicators would perish in an ever changing environment, so the survival advantage of strains that replicate with variation would be better described as " obvious" rather than "funny".
Everything has the potential to adapt according to evolutionists, therefore I think you are understating the usage of the word "latent" in that article, by relating it to general evolutionary processes, rather than specific observances of latent already existing ability in that genome. Latent ability needs a process to get there, and yet theoretically there is nothing in variation and natural selection that would be able to select for latent ability, selection acts on blatant ability, actual fitness advantages, rather than latent/potential fitness advantages. Thus specific latent ability points more towards design than evolution.
You'd have noticed that there are about thirty amplifications of the new gene in the Antarctic fish paper which is mentioned in the subtitle above if you'd read it carefully. There are variations by point mutation between these, as well. They are, from memory, 97% to 99% identical. Read the paper carefully, and you will see that they have analyzed a historical sequence of events which happened entirely by common types of mutation that can be observed in the lab. There's a duplication, which enables one copy to mutate away from the primary function and form the anti-freeze protein, then further duplications of the new gene.
Kindly re-post the link, I haven't got the time to look for old links in this thread.
If you read and understand the various papers I've shown you, you should be able to see very clearly that novel protein coding genes can be produced by well established processes. Duplication, then point mutation on one or both of the copies.
No-one has EVER proved the process of duplication together with novel function. That is purely in the realm of speculation. If its shown to me that its possible in theory, there's still more processes to prove, ie does it ACTUALLY happen (I can tell you it has never been observed) and is it so prevalent that it actually explains the existence of modern organisms (well if it hasn't yet been observed, its difficult to prove its prevalent in history). Quite a difficult challenge for you.
It's not just a question of selection. Do you not understand that experiments like the adaption to warmth one and the Lenski experiment start from one original organism. The cultures derived from this are initially clones. The original genome is known, so that the researchers can identify what has arrived by mutation. So, novel features in the genotype and phenotype can be observed to arrive in the lab.
You missed my point. The original clone of the E.Coli experiment already had an aerobic promoter in the rnk gene, This means that the organism was not always anaerobic, if one section of it already had a latent aerobic function. Thus the ability of E.Coli to develop aerobic functionality is NOT NOVEL, it was latent, as proven by the existing aerobic promoter. Even under evolutionary assumptions, it would be obvious to an evolutionist that the aerobic ability had already evolved in the E.Coli, even if E.coli is known to be unsuitable to aerobic conditions at the moment. So the fact that a duplication event caused the promoter to start functioning again in aerobic conditions does not prove any novel function. Really do you think nature can just make a new function from nothing?? That is illogical , the function existed, it was revitalized through a unique set of circumstances.
Be careful. On the basis of known adaptations, you'll find yourself having to argue that a whole variety of modern pesticides were being used in the garden of Eden, and that Adam and Eve were wearing nylon and treating themselves with a range of antibiotics while also using modern anti-malarial drugs. I think you might have a few theological problems with all that, as well as the obvious historical ones.
Remember, the Lenski adaptation required enabling mutations + the creation of a new regulatory gene by a duplication as well as the amplifications.
Let's focus on one specific example at a time, then we can eliminate each one as your logic is disproven (hahaha). On this note, let's scrap the E.Coli as a novel function as discussed in this message, to show that we are able to head somewhere. (focus on nylon/antibiotics?)
Regarding your links, I do see the favorable duplications. It is therefore theoretically possible for one of the copies to mutate into a novel function. The loss of copy number shouldn't be a big problem, because a further duplication could replace it. Let's focus on novel functions then.
I think you'll find that the young earth Baramin view will require extremely high levels of mutation to account for the differences within elephants. Deceptively, Asian elephants and the mammoth are closer to each other than they are to African elephants. What'll happen if the genomes are fully sequenced, and you find that the quantity of difference between African and Asian elephants is far too great for them to have come from a bottleneck 4,500 years ago? It certainly will be.
Based on the genomes of two mammoths and some African elephants, the current estimates of the difference between the mammoths (+ Asian elephants) and the Africans is about half that of the differences between humans and chimps. Tens of millions.
Possibly. I thought the genetic overlap between mammoths and elephants was greater . But they could be two separate baramins.
Does it? Why? But forget the hyrax. What I'm saying is that you'll require lots of elephant and mammoth pairs on the Ark (plus all the food they need for a year) in order to account for their current diversity. Remember your claim that it's impossible to get 120 million differences on the genome between humans and chimps in 5 to 7 million years? Well, you certainly won't get the differences between African and Asian/mammoth elephants (~60 million) from a tiny bottleneck 4,500 years ago, will you? These are different species with generation times like ours.
Please post your evidence for the differences you are claiming. But they could easily be separate baramins.
Does it? Why? But forget the hyrax. What I'm saying is that you'll require lots of elephant and mammoth pairs on the Ark (plus all the food they need for a year) in order to account for their current diversity. Remember your claim that it's impossible to get 120 million differences on the genome between humans and chimps in 5 to 7 million years? Well, you certainly won't get the differences between African and Asian/mammoth elephants (~60 million) from a tiny bottleneck 4,500 years ago, will you? These are different species with generation times like ours.
For example, give the elephants 100 mutations per generation going to fixation along each lineage going back 180 generations back to your 4,500 yr old Ark. The fixed difference between any two groups separated by 360 generations should be about 36,000, not 60,000,000! The two mammoth I mentioned were from different groups, and they differ from each other by millions of point mutations as well. Then, in extant elephants, there are different breeds and sub-species within Africans and Asians, with some experts arguing for more that one species in Africa.
Are you beginning to understand how your young earth model is easily falsified by genetics alone, without even talking about archaeology, paleontology, geology and cosmology?
They could easily be separate baramins. I am not a YEC, I believe biological life was created ~6500 years ago, not the earth. There is nothing that "easily" falsifies the view, especially in this thread that we are actually dealing with. Your other points will be falsified in other threads.
How do you decide what's "too different" to be related? Surely the limit should be set by the quantity of genetic differences possible in your time scale. That's so little that you'll not only have to separate the common chimps from the bonobos and us from Neanderthal, you'll have to separate Africans from Australian aborigines and have them separately created in different Edens.
Really??? Back up your comments please. Neanderthals bred with humans, which indicates a very closely matching genome. And I have no problem with a bonobo and a chimp on the ark, but all humans, even Neanderthals, come from Adam.
wikipedia:
"At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"
Difference ? 0.3 % I'm sure most of those difference are merely large inactive duplications, which can often occur. In just ONE generation, you can have an entire chromosome duplication, a few percent of the genome (Down's syndrome). To have a 0.3% duplication, its possible to retain fitness (unlike down's syndrome which reduces fitness) This does not mean its a new species, or cannot occur in 6500 years. (since Adam, Neanderthal's are not my particular taste, but maybe one of Noah's son's took a Neanderthal-likeness wife? and they bred Neanderthals? )
Does it? How?
Are you seriously asking why features should be grouped. I frankly think that's a childish argument being put forward often in this thread, when even under evolutionary assumptions features do converge into suitable groupings depending on functionality. So whether designed, or evolved the very functionality determines the grouped features. This is common sense, and can be seen throughout nature. Birds have lungs, bone structure, and wing structure suitable for flight. Therefore they all have these features in common with eachother. Features are logically grouped, this can reflect design , or it can reflect evolution. Or even convergent evolution. The dominance of mammals reflects the feature grouping of temperature adaptability and emotional and intellectual intelligence. ie mammals are the best survivors of worldwide disasters and large hot and cold temperature ranges. We teach our young, we change our habits, our fur and warm bloodedness and ability to change habits helps with temperature change.
Fish have scales, fins, no limbs, the ability to breathe under water. When many different species have the same set of common features, this reflects that the grouping of features is suitable to the ecological niche of the group. Groupings are obvious, to argue against it is just silly.
Protein coding genes only comprise ~1% of the genome. So, you're out by two orders of magnitude. At your mutation rate and with your calculations, one in 70,000 of the population would mutate on a particular coding gene. Then, if you understand population genetics and assume all the mutations to be close to neutral, only a tiny minority of the modern population would have variants in point mutations from the original 4 alleles of Adam and Eve, although there would be lots of these variants (any neutral mutation that occurred would remain in one in 70,000 of the total population with average drift luck). So, we have a prediction from your model. What we should see in the present population is the overwhelming majority with the 4 original alleles. Take a random sample of 100 people from around the world, and there won't be much variation, if any at all, from the original 4.
Would you like that prediction to be tested?
In addition, you have another prediction about the Y chromosome of Noah, which all men should have, without having much more than 60 point mutations difference from the original, and therefore not much more than 120 differences between any two individuals (from pedigree studies of Y-chromosome mutation rates like the one I showed you).
Would you like that prediction to be tested?
Even out by two orders of magnitude, there should be millions of alleles in each locus. Not just 2000. So still your figures agree that the number of alleles should be numerous. But how do you define an allele? Any difference in a gene is a new allele surely? Correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be trying to differentiate between neutral mutations, but I'm not sure if they made that distinction when counting 2000 alleles in humans, they probably looked for any difference in the sequence to define a new allele.
Yes. Please test that prediction. The overwhelming majority would have most of their base pairs matching the original four genes, even if demonstrating new alleles with minor mutations. ie Four of those genes, give or take a few point mutations in each gene. but you also have to take into account the Nephilim, beings came to earth disobediently and bred with women, their offspring would have additional genes.
You're welcome. And thanks for the image of the Ark with a sizeable herd of genetically variable elephants on it, a big enough job for 8 zookeepers on its own!
It's actually the research papers that are challenging to your beliefs, not my posts.
You misunderstand me, your posts do not challenge my beliefs even slightly. They are a sufficient challenge to force me to do research, rather than see immediate blatant logic flaws as per others posts on this thread. So I appreciate the challenge that forces me to think, but in no ways are you coming close to challenging my beliefs. There needs to be more substance to your figures, rates etc for that.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2