Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introduction to Genetics
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 148 of 236 (719797)
02-18-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:36 PM


But the problem is you aren't looking for reduction in genetic variability (not "viability"), which is why you have not "seen" it.
You are not looking for population specific mutations which cause the two subspecies to diverge over time, and increase variability.
We can use subspecies if you want. This would make chimps and humans subspecies of apes. Bears and humans would share a common ancestor and be subspecies of mammal. Trout and humans share a common ancestor and are both subspecies of vertebrate.
Using your definitions, all we need is the production of new subspecies and microevolution to produce the biodiversity we see today. If you don't want us to use macroevolution or species, we won't. Your terms as you define them are all that is needed for evolution to occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 149 of 236 (719798)
02-18-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
02-14-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Genetic variability on the Ark
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.
What you have to remember is that every person is born with about 50 mutations, some of which are going to be in genes. Everyone is going to have 2 or 3 new alleles at the DNA level. These may not cause new phenotypic traits, but they will be genetic variations.
Also, MHC stands for Major Histocompatibility Complex and it is a set of genes involved in immunity. When doctors search for organ donors they are looking to match some of these alleles between one donor and recepient. Some of these genes have great diversity:
"The most diverse loci, namely HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1, have roughly 1000, 1600, and 870 known alleles, respectively."
Major histocompatibility complex - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 150 of 236 (719799)
02-18-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
02-14-2014 3:28 PM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
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.
At the very least, we should all strive to understand the other person's position. You can understand how the theory of evolution is applied in genetics without having to accept that evolution is true.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 3:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 151 of 236 (719800)
02-18-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
02-15-2014 3:54 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
You can't prove that mutations do anything but damage DNA.
Chimps have about 40 million places where their DNA sequence differs from our own. If changes to the human genome can only produce damage, then how can chimps get along just fine, and even thrive, with 40 million pieces of damage in their genome? As we move elsewhere in the animal kingdom we see even more differences from the human genome, and once again those species are thriving.
Reality shows that genomes can be different without causing harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 3:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 02-18-2014 12:13 PM Taq has replied
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 2:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 153 of 236 (719815)
02-18-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by JonF
02-18-2014 12:13 PM


Re: Paradigm Clash
She doesn't think that chimps have 40 million places of damage relative to their "original ancestors".
Her argument is that changes to the human genome can only produce damage. The test for that is to see if genomes different than ours result in viable species. As it turns out, there are millions of species with genomes different than ours, and they are completely viable.
Obviously, the human genome can mutate without resulting in non-viable individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 02-18-2014 12:13 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2014 1:55 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 156 of 236 (719845)
02-18-2014 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
02-18-2014 2:47 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
Odd you would think I or anyone thought otherwise.
"You can't prove that mutations do anything but damage DNA."--Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2014 5:18 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 7:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 159 of 236 (719866)
02-18-2014 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
02-18-2014 7:37 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
Genomes ARE different from kind to kind, and also through the processes that bring about subspecies.. Don't see what that has to do with mutations being destructive.
You are claiming that changing a genome is destructive. I am showing that genomes that are different from each other are just fine. Reality shows that you are wrong. Genomes can change in ways that are not destructive.
Also, until you have a way of objectively determining which species or subspecies belong to which kind it is a useless term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 7:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 10:13 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 161 of 236 (719873)
02-18-2014 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
02-18-2014 10:13 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
But I'm not claiming that changing a genome is even what happens when mutations change genes.
In reality, mutations change genomes. Are we talking about reality or not?
It's still the same genome, but with unhealthy elements, such as junk DNA which is probably mostly the result of mutations, just as human beings are human beings even if suffering from genetic disease.
Junk DNA is not unhealthy, first of all. If it was, it would be selected against. It isn't.
Mutations that cause genetic diseases are selected against. This is why genetic diseases like hemophilia are not spreading through the population at rates consistent with drift.
We also observe that each person is born with around 30 to 50 substitution mutations. Each person is not born with 30 to 50 genetic diseases.
Obviously, the vast bulk of mutations are not deleterious. That is what reality shows us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-18-2014 10:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 12:55 AM Taq has replied
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:04 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 163 of 236 (719886)
02-19-2014 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
02-19-2014 12:55 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
I don't mean that junk DNA is unhealthy in the sense that it causes disease, it is unhealthy in the sense that it represents a weakened genetic situation, being a lot of dead or half dead or nonfunctioning DNA that in former times was most likely protective of health in all kinds of ways.
I see a lot of claims, but zero evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 12:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:07 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 166 of 236 (719889)
02-19-2014 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
02-19-2014 1:04 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
Not in the absurd sense you were implying.
The "absurd" things I am talking about is how reality works.
However, there is an amazingly long list of genetic diseases and they do take their toll. The fact that such diseases are selected against is itself a toll on the human race for that matter, being the cause of death.
The appearance of genetic diseases due to new mutations is a tiny, tiny percentage of all mutations that occur. That is what you keep ignoring.
However, since I regard them as a disease process in themselves,
Again, we are talking about reality, not the fantasy world that only exists in your head.
Give us evidence, not beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:10 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 167 of 236 (719890)
02-19-2014 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
02-19-2014 1:07 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
The evidence is really mostly in what I hear from you all, about the LACK of evidence for beneficial mutations,
I am showing you that evidence. Among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are beneficial mutations that are responsible for the beneficial adaptations seen in both species. They are right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:10 AM Taq has replied
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:13 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 176 of 236 (719921)
02-19-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
02-19-2014 1:10 AM


Re: Paradigm clash
Shown me? Where?
I will repeat my last post.
Among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are beneficial mutations that are responsible for the beneficial adaptations seen in both species. They are right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 1:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 177 of 236 (719924)
02-19-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
02-19-2014 6:33 AM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Well I don't kid myself that anybody is going to accept my view of things to the point that there would be any need to rewrite anything. That would only happen if this creationist view were recognized as true. How soon you think that's going to come about?
The sooner you start pointing to facts instead of beliefs, the sooner your ideas have a chance of being accepted.
Im trying to make the point that the overall trend will always be to decreased genetic variability,
The problem is that a population that is increasing in number will also be increasing in genetic variability due to the accumulation of mutations in each generation. The chances of a neutral mutation reaching fixation is 1/n where n is the number of individuals in the population. The larger the population the lower the chances are that a neutral mutation will reach fixation meaning that a larger population will have a large number of neutral mutations that have not reached fixation.
The only time we see a drastic reduction in genetic variation within a population is if the population size is drastically reduced.
My point was that you CAN'T have an increase in genetic variability from a population split,
The accumulation of mutations after the population split does increase genetic variability over time. That is what happens in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 6:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 2:34 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 178 of 236 (719930)
02-19-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by snapdragon
02-19-2014 9:56 AM


Re: Intro to genetics...
As a terminal lurker, I wish this discussion had taken a different direction. It's an interesting discussion and everyone has brought up (mostly) good points, but for someone coming to the site for the first time and seeing "Introduction to Genetics", this ain't it. The actual frustration stems from, well, go back and reread the first post.
It is a rather large field to cover in a thread. It is much easier to answer specific questions, and we can't answer those questions until they are asked.
Feel free to pose some questions that may fill in the gaps in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by snapdragon, posted 02-19-2014 9:56 AM snapdragon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 181 of 236 (719993)
02-19-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
02-19-2014 2:34 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Not many of which occur in the germ cells, though, isn't that correct?
30 to 50 mutations total in germ line cells for each child born. For a human population of 6 billion, this guarantees that every possible non-lethal substitution mutation is present in the current population.
Can you explain what the benefit is of "a large number of neutral mutations that have not reached fixation" ?
I am explaining how reality differs from your fantasy world.
I do realize from this, however, that the tests I've proposed that involve examining the DNA for variability from population to population would be skewed by the counting of mutations that don't do anything toward the development of the phenotypes that define the subspecies. Is there any way to avoid this?
The same way that the HapMap project is doing it. Sequence the genomes.
But this is a completely artificial idea if the mutations don't actually DO anything to further the development of the character of the subspecies, and what interests me most about this now is if there is any way to differentiate between the mutations and alleles that are determining the new traits. I mean, can you tell for sure what IS a recent mutation, or is this the usual case of just assuming everything is as you assume it to be, such as that all those 40 million mutations are really alleles? That would certainly throw a wrench into the tests I have in mind.
The only artificiality is dividing DNA into DNA you care about and DNA you don't care about.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 2:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 2:58 PM Taq has replied
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 02-19-2014 3:01 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024