Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

Why do the genetic samples from the time that Adam would have been alive correspond to genetic samples after the supposed flood?

Why has some super genome never been found?

Faith writes: I've many times suggested that "junk DNA" is a record of formerly functioning genes that have lost their function due to the Fall, most of it probably through destructive mutations.

But there is no "Fall" in the Bible. That is another concept made up by the Apologists.

In addition, all the genetic evidence from before the supposed "Fall" shows pretty much the same genetic types and after the supposed "Fall".

Again, we see the same pattern of genetic evidence in critters from before and after the imaginary "Flood".

bluegenes writes: Well, there's a twist to that so far as the HLA alleles are concerned. Adam and Eve, like everyone else, would have had two copies at each locus, and if they had two different complimentary variants on each HLA gene, then they are as perfect as possible.

But Eve was a clone of Adam so would that be possible?

Percy writes: She *is* making the claim that a species current set of genes and alleles are the only ones that will work and that any changes are deleterious.

Yet we know for a fact that everyone has a different set of genes which is why DNA testing can identify a specific individual.

It seems then that there is not just one set that works.

Faith writes: Such an "increase in frequency" is absolutely meaningless if it does the same thing the original allele did. It simply won't be lost, it will be passed on, and it should be passed on at the same rate the original and the other versions of it are passed on, which would look like an increase according to your reckoning but that's an illusion.

Imagine a pile of US coins that add up to $100.00.

Now imagine that some of those coins are converted to French Francs, British Pounds and Japanese Yen.

The value is still the same but the diversity has increased.

Faith writes: there is no increase in frequency if the mutation does the same thing as the original allele.

That is simply not true Faith.

As I pointed out back in Message 169:

quote:

---

Imagine a pile of US coins that add up to $100.00.

Now imagine that some of those coins are converted to French Francs, British Pounds and Japanese Yen.

The value is still the same but the diversity has increased.

---

They do the same thing. But diversity, frequency, has increased.

When I buy something I can pay for it in Pounds, Dollars, Francs, Yen. They all serve the same purpose but a Dollar is not a Yen is not a Pound is not a Franc.

You can continue to deny reality all you want but the frequency is still observed.

Maybe what would help would be if instead of denying reality you presented some evidence that supports a Young Earth or Creationism, something no Creationist seems to have ever tried to do.

Edited by jar, : fix quotebox

Faith writes: I can't call a mutation a mutation, I have to call it an allele, so I can't point out that mutations are usually neutral, second deleterious, so I can't dispute the argument that I have to account for alleles that Adam and Eve didn't have on the ground that they are just neutral mutations; and I can't suggest that what is being called an increase in frequency due to positive selection isn't that if these are really neutral mutations, it's an illusion caused by counting new sequences, which are really mutations, as alleles.

Actually Faith, you are free to call mutations mutations but not to call an allele a mutation. Alleles are called alleles.

You are free to suggest whatever you want; just understand it is silly to expect folk to agree with the stuff you suggest that is patently false.

Remember that Adam and Eve would have had exactly the same alleles, not two sets of alleles. After all Eve was just a clone of Adam.

quote:

---

Oh, give me a clone

Of my own flesh and bone

With its Y chromosome changed to X.

And after it's grown,

Then my own little clone

Will be of the opposite sex.

.

.

.

Clone, clone of my own,

With its Y chromosome changed to X.

And when I'm alone

With my own little clone

We will both think of nothing but sex.

---

Source: Isaac Asimov

Edited by jar, : fix song spacing

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Taq writes: Using our car manufacturing analogy from before, the MHC region is analogous to a single car manufacturer. Each gene in the region is a single vehicle model. Each vehicle model can have different trim packages, paint color, and so on. Each variant of the single type of vehicle is an allele in the analogy. There are 224 car models in the MHC region. Each car model can possibly have just a few different variants, but some are known for having hundreds to thousands of variants. Does this make sense?

Following along with that analogy, some car models were sold fully equipped and with very few options. Other models from the same maker were marketed at the basic functionality level with a very long list of additional options that could be selected. In the latter case it was almost possible for each car sold to be unique.

Gotta ask one more time since so far I don't think anyone has answered.

If the Bible story was true and Eve really was cloned from Adam's rib bone would "Adam and Eve: maximum possible 4" be correct or "Adam and Eve: maximum possible 2"?

Faith writes: I arrived at two based partly on the fact that all we can inherit from our parents is one from each, and DNA and therefore a gene is after all two strands wound together.

But each strand is a mirror image of the other strand and so identical. There is no differences between the two strands that make up DNA.

Faith writes: they don't look identical to me:

I don't doubt that however that is simply that you do not understand the subject.

The important thing about DNA being a helical spiral is that when it splits you end up with two identical strands. This is really very basic stuff Faith.

quote:

---

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

---

source

It is the fact that each strand of DNA consists of two identical copies that allows replication.

What is interesting is that almost all of Faith's objections are actually things that support both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution and also refute both the Young Earth fantasy as well as any Creation or Designer fantasy.

Yes, what is seen in reality is haphazard.

Yes, what is seen in reality is inefficient.

Yes, what is seen in reality is far less than ideal.

Yes, what is seen in reality is variety.

Yes, what is seen in reality is inconsistent critter to critter.

These are all exactly what you would expect if life evolved over long periods where only the most negative characteristics are weeded out; if the process is mutations that are only culled when they are so serious that the critter does not reproduce.

We know what you believe Faith.

Unfortunately for you reality shows that what you believe is simply nonsense.

I have no intention or desire to convert you or anyone else Mike as you well know. You are free to continue to believe whatever nonsense you wish.

Mike writes: But lightning zapped sludge bringing us ATP synthase, DNA code, epigenetics and millions of viable anatomies, I suppose, is, "fact" in Jar's world.

If I ever post that then we can discuss it but until then it just gets tossed into the trashcan with the rest of the nonsense creationists post.

Mike writes: Fair enough Jar, if you are saying you have no intellectual integrity and are incapable of being wrong then at least I know there is no point in conversing with you about anything whatsoever, since I just represent a target for you, one who is guilty-as-charged, with the crime of creationism, and one who will get the Jar-epithets fired at him because he represents that position. No hatred or prejudice there then. Lol.

Okay Mike. As I have said you are free to believe whatever you want.

Creationism though is not a crime; it is simply silly and wrong. No hatred of either you or creationism, neither rises to a level much higher than mild humor.

Young Earth and Special Creation are both refuted even by the Bible itself since there are two mutually exclusive creation myths just as there are two mutually exclusive flood myths in the very stories.

Creationism and Young Earth are as dead and worthless as flat earth or trolls under the bridges but fortunately you can still believe in such things. Just don't get surprised when other kinda chuckle.