Introduction to Genetics

There is WAY too much going on in this thread now. I'm still back trying to deal with Taq's earlier post, and though it seems you are trying to help with that you've mostly given me more problems to sort out.I don't think we've got to a point where mutations ought to be the topic. I'm still trying to understand some of the comparisons Taq's post described between humans and chimps, just descriptions of facts in the genome.Thanks to you and N.Ned at least for agreeing that it is not necessary to use evolutionist language in describing comparisons between species.=============
ABE: Aaaaagh! Could we please have a moratorium on bringing up anything new on this thread? I'm struggling through posts way back there already, there are unexpected miscommunications as usual to complicate things, and I'm afraid I've already lost track of some issues I'd really like to understand better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, thank you!. Not the same variability as a population, no, and I am aware that an explanation is needed for the many alleles in the population for some genes (ABE: though I have no idea what MHC refers to), which could not have existed on the ark.But on the ark there could have been four different alleles for each pair or couple for many more genes than would have that many alleles today, though I'd have to suppose some attrition since the Fall, AND I'm sure this won't sit well, but if what is now junk DNA or pseudogenes was functioning DNA in the people and creatures on the ark, which I think very likely, then there would have been as much as 95% more genetic variability through that source than exists today. Not likely of course, so some other explanation is needed. Perhaps some form of mutation then.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand. If the very basics are giving you more problems, then that is where you should start. The stuff I brought up in my two posts are the kind of things that would be covered in the first week of a genetics course. But that is exactly what you are trying to discuss with Taq. You are putting the horse before the cart. You need to know how mutations can accumulate in a gene and what effect they can have. Without that, it will continue to appear to you that Taq is just using evolutionary assumptions. Not exactly what I meant. There is hardly any way you can discuss chimp / human relationship without using "evolutionist" language. The reason is that human /chimp relatedness is a conclusion based on the evidence. What you need to learn is why we think those things ARE evidence. Whatever. This is Introduction to Genetics. If you have all the basics down that I put in my post, then fine, I have wasted your time. However, if those principals confuse you, then you should try to grasp them before you move on and try to understand why and how we use genetic similarity to infer relatedness.HBD

No no no no no no no. Not mutations yet, let's just stick to what had already been brought up. And I'm sorry you didn't mean what I thought you meant about evolutionist language.

And once again, the only one you deceive is yourself: scientists and scientifically literate know that this is the scientific definition for macroevolution.If you want to invent a new word, you can make up something for your fantasy version that you keep denying occurs.Curiously I find it amusing that the longer these debates go, the more creationists accept basic evolutionary processes, especially if they can call them something else ...It's like it's not evolution per se that is denied, just the words used by evolutionary scientists ...

Insisting on definitions does not belong on this thread. I'm a creationist and I have a different way of understanding the data than you do and your attempt to force it down my throat is unwelcome, especially on this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then stay out of the Science forums. No, you!

Again, Faith, this is beneath you.You yourself have given us nothing but interpretations of things and demonstrably false interpretations at that. You have no call to accuse anyone else of anything when you act in this way.

Curiously I am not insisting on definitions, just pointing out that when you use a word that is commonly understood to mean something else then you are not communicating clearly, and then you end up complaining later about how people don't understand your points.So you now concede that both microevolution and speciation occur as part of the natural world post flood ... wonderful.The theory of evolution can be stated as the theory that microevolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.You are well on your way -- here and on some of the other threads -- to demonstrating that you believe this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life since the flood.As I said, you are being forced by reality to either acknowledge basic evolution or deny reality. Funny. ANY change to DNA is a mutation, so you are well into mutations already. Baulking at words that describe what you have been describing is not argument but denial.Just look at your aversion to the word "divergence" in [msg=719395] ... most amusing the length you went to.But if you want to discuss Message 116 I'll be glad to leave you along here.

I did remove the militant "Get off this thread" at least."Macroevolution" in relation to speciation is an artificial definitional ploy. The actual FACT of speciation is merely that a subspecies has acquired the inability to interbreed with others of that species. That's the simple fact and to insist on it is NOT to give an alternative (creationist) interpretation, but merely to insist on correct factual description.I can't do the same with "speciation" because in that case it does describe something that actually happens so it would cause confusion to insist on the falseness of the definition, so I'm stuck with simply having to write out my view of it every time if I want to avoid the usual objections.

I know. Let's talk about human / chimp relatedness but don't bring up mutations and don't use evolutionary language. Talk about stacking the deck.HBD

Well of course, and she'll be happy to talk about change but not mutation ... or speciation but not macroevolution ...

It does highlight the importance of how we use words and the trouble that brings to these debates. While macroevolution means something specific to you and me, it has completely different implications for creationists. It is also why these debates often end up centering on semantics, because the implications of the words we use are often as important as the definitions themselves. I have been trying to bring it down to basics and try to leave out terminology that could be conflicting, but it is still not much help. People can usually sense when they are being backed into a corner.HBD

Speciation is not macroevolution and it isn't necessary to use that term. It's also not speciation either but I can't see a way to change that term, so I'll just have to keep writing out my view of it. There is no concession involved; I've viewed it this way for years and I'm sure I must have said so years ago already even here. Except that there is nothing new about my view of these things, and speciation is not speciation, and there are many subspecies that belong to that diversity that aren't the product of speciation. Sorry but you completely misunderstand my point of view.I will apologize for telling you to get off the thread though. Just the usual temper flare I have to curb. It is important that I use words that say what I mean and avoid sounding like I agree with evolutionist concepts I don't agree with. It is not an easy task to negotiate these differences between the models, ABE: especially in the teeth of the militant insistence on evolutionist terms as factual, which they are not /ABE. In the case of mutations, I do NOT agree that alleles are the product of mutations, they are built in variants of genes, built in from the Creation. Mutations hardly ever, and probably in actuality never, create viable alleles that perform the functions of normal alleles. Mutations may manage not to destroy their function, that is, they may be "neutral," or they may be many degrees of deleterious to the gene, or they might even bring about the death of a gene, which I think is how some of the junk DNA was formed (though I think most of it reflects the mass death of the Flood bottleneck), and the mere assumption that any allele was the product of mutation should be avoided on this thread. If there is some reason to assert it then it should be asserted and not assumed. But most of the time I don't see that there would be any reason to assert it at all. The idea that there is EVIDENCE that alleles are the product of mutation is false, but if someone wants to defend that then it should come up when we finally get to mutations.Although it is going to be necessary to discuss mutations on this thread eventually, it ought to be possible to describe allelic variants simply factually or descriptively without involving the interpretation that they were created by mutations. I'm not amused. "Divergence" is an evolution-specific word. Simple factual comparisons of differences between the genomes of different species are all that's needed on this thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would like to point out again, and insist on it, and hope you will give it some careful thought, that all I'm asking for is simple straightforward factual descriptive terminology. That is NOT stacking the deck from my side at all, it is a completely neutral way of discussing the material at hand.What IS stacking the deck is the evolutionists' use of INTERPRETIVE terminology. Please think about it: "Macroevolution" is an interpretation, it is not a simple factual description of what has actually occurred. "Speciation" is an interpretation, it is not a simple factual description of the fact that a subspecies has simply become unable to interbreed with its parent species. "Divergence" is an interpretation, not a simple factual description of the differences between chimp and human DNA. "Mutation" as used in many contexts is also an interpretation, an assumption, when it implies that it produced all the known functioning alleles.All these terms are tendentious and interpretive, and all I'm asking for is neutral descriptive factual terms. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.