|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Basically, if we all differ from Adam and Eve on just 1% of our coding genes, then take one gene, examine it in 100 people, they should mostly have the original 4 alleles, but we might expect 1 or 2 exceptions.
So, if we see something completely different, then, as serious YEC scientists, we need an explanation. For the HLA genes, very strong positive selection is the only one! This, I love. At first sight, it seems to pose serious theological problems. The new mutant alleles are taking over from the original designs. However, I can think of a way around that. It's actually diversity itself which is being selected for in the immune system. Is it plausible that the MHCs that we see in mammals could arise in a young earth scenario? Actually, no, but I'm giving it a good try. With other things, like the Y-chromosome, it's not worth bothering. Not only Noah, but Adam as well gets himself easily falsified. I'll try to bring some animals and their Ark bottleneck into the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
bg writes: Faith writes: I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference. See if Message 66 makes it any clearer to you. Particularly, concentrate on the point that we would only have mutations (new alleles) on ~1% of our coding genes as individuals. The rest would be identical to the four in Adam and Eve. So, take a random gene and examine it on 100 people, and you'd expect the original 4 alleles + perhaps 1 individual with a new one on average. But you think we NEED mutations to get new alleles and I don't, so how many there are on a gene doesn't tell me much; all I can say is the fewer the better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So where do you think new alleles come from if not mutations ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Basically, if we all differ from Adam and Eve on just 1% of our coding genes, then take one gene, examine it in 100 people, they should mostly have the original 4 alleles, but we might expect 1 or 2 exceptions. Meaning that many mutations, right? But here I am thinking two alleles per gene in Adam and Eve and that many normal functioning alleles in every genome since. Mutations are only an interference, not a source of beneficial alleles. If only two genes with two alleles each can produce all the skin colors in the genetic square I tried to reproduce a few posts ago, and three genes would increase that variation enormously, there is simply no need for mutations/more alleles, and since mutations are known to be accidents of replication that mostly produce nothing at all new, often produce disease and only very very rarely anything useful or beneficial at all, I reject mutations altogether.
So, if we see something completely different, then, as serious YEC scientists, we need an explanation. For the HLA genes, very strong positive selection is the only one! All I can say is we don't need it, we don't need to select mutations that would do more harm than good in most cases.
At first sight, it seems to pose serious theological problems. The new mutant alleles are taking over from the original designs. Well, since I attribute mutations to the death/disease legacy of the Fall what that would mean is that the Fall is more potent in living systems now than the original Creation was. Something to lament as a sign of the increasing genetic deterioration of life.
However, I can think of a way around that. It's actually diversity itself which is being selected for in the immune system. Not if most or all of those alleles are really neutral mutations that do not change the function of the allele. And you haven't addressed this possibility yet.
Is it plausible that the MHCs that we see in mammals could arise in a young earth scenario? Actually, no, but I'm giving it a good try. But we wouldn't WANT them to arise if they are bad for the organism, as in the end they must be.
With other things, like the Y-chromosome, it's not worth bothering. Not only Noah, but Adam as well gets himself easily falsified. By imputing genetic processes to YEC thinking that are not our thinking but a straw man, perhaps so. But if all the diversity we see is easily attributed to genes with two alleles each there is no problem for Adam OR Noah.
I'll try to bring some animals and their Ark bottleneck into the discussion. I've already answered the bottleneck objection a million times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But you think we NEED mutations to get new alleles and I don't,. . . You are saying that you can't change DNA sequences hardly at all without getting deleterious results, mutations or not. This means that there can't be any other species, but there are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We don't need new alleles. All new phenotypes are the product of new combinations of the existing alleles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Nonsense. If the human genome can't be altered hardly at all without causing deleterious effects, and if it can't have any other function than what is found in the human genome, then how can there be any other species but humans in your model?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: We don't need new alleles. All new phenotypes are the product of new combinations of the existing alleles. Cats, giraffes, and chimps are all just the result of a different mixture of human alleles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You haven't grasped the fact that a gene with two alleles in combination with others genes with two alleles is all it takes to produce all the diversity of life we see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Faith writes: But you think we NEED mutations to get new alleles and I don't, so how many there are on a gene doesn't tell me much; all I can say is the fewer the better. ???What PaulK asked above. And as for the fewer the better, didn't you understand that paper on the MHC i showed you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's so nonsensical I can't understand it well enough to answer it. They have their own genes and two alleles each to bring about all the variations among them, why would they need human ones? Besides, they no doubt all have the same genes we do for many functions. What ARE you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: You haven't grasped the fact that a gene with two alleles in combination with others genes with two alleles is all it takes to produce all the diversity of life we see. So you are saying that humans could give birth to cats, giraffes, or chimps with just the right combination of human alleles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gave an answer to that paper, that's all I know.
ABE: You claim different functions for all those alleles, but haven't shown it. As I suggested they could all be neutral mutations that don't change the function but continue to do what the original allele did. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Absolute screaming nonsense. Nothing I've said implies such nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: They have their own genes . . . What makes it "their own genes"?
why would they need human ones? How can they survive without human genes? You have said that almost any small change in human genes will be deleterious, so according to your model all other species need to have genes nearly identical to human genes or they will die of disease.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024