Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 518 (808601)
05-11-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Taq
05-11-2017 3:21 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Oh good grief.
All "the diversity of life?" Aaaaargh. I mean that all creatures would vary within their own Species due to all the possible combinations of one or more genes with two alleles per gene in their own genomes, just as humans do. Is that clearer? What is still confusing in this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 518 (808604)
05-11-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
05-11-2017 3:20 PM


What DO all those alleles actually do?
PK writes:
Faith, the alleles exist. Whether they are "needed" or not. The question is how do you explain where the additional alleles come from. You say that is is not mutation. Then what is it ?
Where did I said it's not mutations?: Of course it's mutations. Is the problem that I don't regard mutations as viable alleles then?
The "additional alleles" are mutations which are not really viable alleles even though most of them may not change the function of the allele they displaced so the original function is not disturbed. For the time being.
(And I would suggest that simplistic Mendelian genetics without regard to what the genes really do is hardly a good way to judge what is "needed" - especially when we are talking about the immune system)
the problem is nobody has SAID what all those alleles DO. It's been assumed that they each do something just enough different and beneficial to add to the strenght of the immune system, according to that article Bluegenes posted but there was nothing in that article to show that this is anything but an inference from the theory that mutations produce viable alleles. If they are all "neutral" mutations the allele would continue to do what it always did in the cell -- that it does anything different is not shown, it is merely assumed, as far as I can tell from that article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 3:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 3:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 518 (808605)
05-11-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 3:28 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Variety itself makes the immune system stronger. But that's not the point. They cannot be there in such high percentages in a young earth scenario unless they are positively selected.
And they are there. So, what's your conclusion? Positive selection, or older earth, older life?
It has to be one or the other.
Mutations are random accidents of replication, yes? Most of them are neutral as to function, right:? That is, the mutated allele continues to do what the original allele did, right?: That being the case why should there be any selection involved at all? The immune system from what you've said appears to be particularly prone to mutations. Why should there be any other reason than its proneness to frequent random accidents of replication to explain the rate at which they occur?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 3:28 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 104 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 3:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 518 (808609)
05-11-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
05-11-2017 3:48 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
Yes I just realized that's a word that could cause problems. I mean something like "original" or "bona fide" but something clearer is still needed. I mean a NONmutated allele. A neutral mutation may function the same as the original allele did but being mutated it's --shall I say-- "damaged?" I could say "altered" perhaps. Any allele whose sequence has been altered by a mutation or mutations, even if its function is not altered, is what I mean by NOT viable. Not a good word though, I see. I'll try to find ways of saying it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 05-11-2017 4:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 4:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 518 (808614)
05-11-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
05-11-2017 3:47 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
Where did I said it's not mutations?: Of course it's mutations. Is the problem that I don't regard mutations as viable alleles then?
When you said:
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.
it certainly seemed to indicate that you felt that new alleles could appear without mutation. And in fact that is the sensible reading in context.
[/qs]
OK I'll try to be clearer: I don't think we need mutations OR new alleles. I think all the mutations we obviously DO get-- in all creatures including ourselves --are not a good thing, either at best managing not to change the function of the allele. or at worst producing some sort of disease process; or extremely rarely maybe doing something that seems beneficial. We don't need mutations, we don't need new alleles, for any genome, as originally created anyway, to function beautifully and produce all the possible varieties of any species whatever. All sexually reproducing creatures as I've been thinking of it lately have two alleles per gene and that's all that's needed for all their diversity.
:The "additional alleles" are mutations which are not really viable undamaged, original, alleles even though most of them may not change the function of the allele they displaced so the original function is not disturbed {added edit to "viable"}
That is just confused and almost certainly wrong - and makes it very difficult to explain why we actually find so many alleles if Adam and Eve are literally true and lived only 6000 years ago.
There is no problem explaining a bazillion mutations if they are accidents of replication that become damaged/changed/mutated alleles. Only two alleles per each gene is all there should be in the genome of any species. All the rest are mutations, mistakes, disease-process even if functionally neutral etc etc etc. I hope this is getting closer to what I'm trying to say.
the problem is nobody has SAID what all those alleles DO
The first thing to understand is that genes are not simple switches that turn traits on and off. They are a representation of a protein sequence.
Yes so when I ask if they actually DO anything I mean do they actually produce a protein that really does something NEW to protect the immune system?, This seems to be assumed in the article bluegenes posted, assumed but not proved to be the case. From the information given it could just as well produce the protein the unmutated allele produced, having the same effect on the cell as the original allele did. That is, all those "additional alleles" could be neutral mutations that don't interfere with function but also contribute nothing new to the function.
In the immune system they are going to code for proteins that can help us resist diseases.
Yes, that's the assumption, what is the actual known fact? What DO they actually code for? If they are neutral mutations they will code for the same protein the unmutated original allele coded for with the same effect on the immune system. That is, they contribute to resistance to diseases but not in any new way, simply doing what the original allele did. Which is a very good thing considering that a mutation COULD destroy its function instead.
By having a wide variety of defences it is less likely that a single disease could wipe us all out.
But the question is whether the extra alleles actually contribute variety to the immune system. What if they ARE "neutral" mutations that simply don't change the original function of the allele?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 3:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 4:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 4:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 518 (808616)
05-11-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 3:58 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
They can be functional simply by not doing anything different than the original allele did, which is what "neutral" mutations do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 3:58 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 2:00 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 518 (808619)
05-11-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
05-11-2017 4:28 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
I'm trying to describe what I think happens, not making myself the arbiter of any of it.
These discussions that are fundamentally semantic, problems of definition and clarity of expression, wear me out to the max. I need a break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 4:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 4:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 518 (808642)
05-11-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
05-11-2017 4:44 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
OK I'll try to be clearer: I don't think we need mutations OR new alleles.
Whether we need them or not they are there. And some of them are far more common than seems reasonable given YEC timescales - unless they are strongly advantageous. That is the fact that needs to be explained.
As I keep saying, mutations just arise spontaneously randomly, they don't need anything to encourage them. And if they are neutral, not changing the function of the allele there would be no advantage or disadvantage to them, so no selection factor at all.
So the fact that "they are there" doesn't mean much. They are just random mutations, they don't change anything, so they can occur in huge numbers with no problem and certainly without any effect on whatever incomprehensible idea of the YEC model is you all have.
Where do alleles come from? They are built in . The genetic code is designed down to every last codon; genes have two alleles each, each with a specific sequence that codes for a specific protein that has a specific function in the organism. There is no need for change, the system functions perfectly as designed. But we know there IS change, quite a lot of it, so that's what I'm suggesting is the result of mutations, which are accidental random changes to the DNA code, which fortunately in most cases don't change the function.
Saying that we don't "need" them just looks like making an excuse to stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts.
Hardly. It's a way of saying the original genetic code was perfect without any changes whatever, so that changes are an interference, not a benefit, at best not changing the function, at worst producing disease.
It certainly isn't relevant, nor does it address any point in the post you were replying to.
Then please repeat the unaddressed points.
Because if YEC is true there shouldn't be that many that are common enough to get noticed.
Why not? That's a lot of mutations.
As I pointed out a little while back neutral and deleterious mutations won't spread quickly.
My understanding of the situation is that the neutral mutations keep occurring, not that they spread. I'm not at the moment thinking of deleterious mutations.
Yes so when I ask if they actually DO anything I mean do they actually produce a protein that really does something NEW to protect the immune system?
Then you still don't understand what I said. The point is not that some are inherently better or worse. The point is that disease organisms vary. Some of them - like the influenza virus can vary very quickly. With vaccines doctors try to predict which flu strains will be dangerous in the coming winter and prepare for those. our bodies can't do that. But, if our immune systems are different some of us will (probably) be resistant to whatever nature throws at us.
I did understand that. It's clear in bluegenes' article in Message 26 as well. That article says it helps to have a lot of slightly different sequences to deal with all the different diseases and attributes that function to all the different sequences in all the additional allleles. An example is give of codominant alleles that are both expressed in the cell, assuming that they or one of them is one of those additional alleles. But that is an assumption, nothing is said to show that it is such an additional allele. And if it were it would suggest something far more teleological than I would think any evolutionist would want to suggest. My question remains whether these many alleles do anything other than the original allele did, make the same protein for the same function. We're talking about ONE gene are we not? For which there are supposedly hundreds or thousands of alleles? Each of which can be possessed by one invidual only? So it is assumed that each of them does something different, codes for a different protein that protects against a different kind of disease? This is WAY too teleological. Anyway, my guess is that most of them or all of them are "neutral" mutations that do whatever the original allele did, nothing new, no new protection against any disease other than whatever the original allele protects against. Since the whole scenario of different alleles for different diseases is an assumption and not demonstrated, that remains my guess.
Yes, that's the assumption, what is the actual known fact? What DO they actually code for? If they are neutral mutations they will code for the same protein the unmutated original allele coded for with the same effect on the immune system.
I very much doubt that synonymous mutations would be counted. Even if the alleles were identified by genetic analysis rather than the proteins themselves (which used to be the main method before gene sequencing took off)
But the sequence can be different but the protein product identical, so what would that prove?
But the question is whether the extra alleles actually contribute variety to the immune system. What if they ARE "neutral" mutations that simply don't change the original function of the allele?
I'm sure that they aren't,
Apparently so is the author of that article bluegenes posted, but it needs to be known not assumed.
...not least because there would be no advantage in having such variety
Mutations are spontaneous random mistakes in replication, they can occur freely. If they are neutral in function advantage is irrelevant.
...(and that they almost certainly wouldn't be counted - or even noticed - and it would be bizarre for it not to be mentioned if there were hundreds of synonymous variations of a gene - that weirdness deserves to be mentioned).
If it's variations in sequences that are being counted I would assume they would be counted. But I keep asking and nobody has said anything about this is actually known; it all appears to be assumed, and it's the same with your remarks.
Also see Message 26 in this thread. And since heterozygosity is a distinct advantage having more distinct alleles helps there, too.
First it has to be shown that your scenario is more than just an assumption.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2017 12:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 518 (808649)
05-11-2017 10:09 PM


The Two-Allele Gene Is All It Takes
Since my new perspective that genes are made up of only two alleles is a major part of my argument, I wish someone would address the evidence that there is a great deal of diversity to be had from just two genes with two alleles each, in Message 73. I also need someone to clean up the genetic square as I don't currently have any way to do it.
The point of course is that there is quite enough variability built into the genome of any Species/Kind to produce all the species we see today, without any mutations, which are redundant or worse. Adam and Eve would have had two alleles per gene according to this way of looking at it, not four, and so would every sexually reproducing animal, and so would each of the people on Noah's Ark, and all the animals there too. It's the combinations that are possible among these two-allele genes that produce all the diversity -- given a higher percentage of heterozygosity in the genomes than we see today (7% or so in the human genome), and possibly a lot more functioning genes that have since died and become part of Junk DNA Cemetery.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 518 (808745)
05-12-2017 1:30 PM


Getting from the super genome to two alleles per gene
I'm repeating most of my Message 73 here because it shows how I arrived at the conclusion that a gene made up of two alleles for every trait in every species is all it takes to create all the diversity in living things.
My thinking on this subject has changed recently due to appreciating how much variation is possible from a mere two alleles per gene with more than one gene.
When I first started arguing that evolution requires a loss of genetic diversity I've had the idea that therefore all Species/Kinds must have started out with a huge amount of genetic diversity in order to lose so much and still be able to produce new species. This is true but it turns out to be a lot simpler than I first thought. Some kind of "super genome" seemed necessary at first; a great deal of polymorphism perhaps.
Then I was reminded of what Gary Parker wrote in What Is Creation Science? where he points out that there would have been a lot more heterozygosity in the genomes of all creatures before the Flood, and I realized that it's heterozyosity that gets decreased down through the generations of microevolution, gene after gene becoming homozygous for particular traits in a population or population series that keeps evolving. I've argued along these lines for some time. It helps a lot in picturing what must have happened.
But I continued to think that there had to be more genetic diversity to start out with anyway, and it's often pointed out here that some genes have many alleles, which of course raises the question where did all those come from if our original two parents could have only four alleles for a gene between them? Since evolutionist genetics insists on mutations as the explanation for how genetic material arises, mutations creating new alleles, although I understand mutations to be accidents that couldn't possibly be the source of normal variation I started considering that maybe mutations used to be such a source in some cases, to account for all those alleles.
But recently I was thinking about how mutations mostly produce changes in the sequences of alleles that don't actually change their function, meaning they continue to produce the same protein for the same effect in the organism that the original allele did. Also that since the alternative to the super genome seemed to be the much simpler ordinary genetic explanation in the percentage of heterozygosity, it seemed the principle to keep in mind was MORE simplicity. The reasoning goes like this:
Why so many alleles? Aren't they just mutations? Mutations don't normally do anything good. Parker showed how the whole range of human skin colors can be produced in one generation by only two genes with two alleles each according to standard Mendelian principles. That's a LOT of variation in one generation. And if there are yet more genes for skin color there's a lot more than that and without any extra alleles.
Rereading the pages where he shows this convinces me he already had the answer years ago but I'm only now coming to appreciate it: Adam and Eve needed only two alleles per gene, with more than one gene for most traits, to produce all the human variety there is (and there would have been much more variety before the Flood too). Same for all the Species or Kinds: the original pair needed only two alleles per gene for all their variation too.
While eye color has more than one gene I think it helps to point out that all blue and brown-eyed offspring can come from the one gene with the two alleles B and b, meaning that both Adam and Eve would have had Bb, from which all their children got their blue or brown eyes. That is, BOTH of them had Bb. And ALL their genes would have been heterozygous for any trait in the same way, producing a middle range trait. For eye color the children would have mostly Bb's themselves but there would also be BB's and bb's among them. As the population grew both the BBs and bb's might have migrated and become isolated and become populations with all brown or blue eyes. With other genes for eye color also involved the possibilities of variation increase enormously.
Taq just said that I'm wrong, and that you can't get all the variation we see from these simple genetic beginnings, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate that you can. Since all the extra alleles aren't needed in this case they must all be the usual mutations or accidents of replication, mistakes rather than a normal process of variation, fundamentally a disease process even if they mercifully don't always produce an active disease.
So here again is Gary Parker's discussion of the great range of skin color possible from just two genes with two alleles each:
From What Is Creation Science?, 1982 paperback by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, pp 113-114 (this part written by Parker):
The amount of skin color we have depends on at least two pairs of genes. Let's call these genes A and B. People with the darkest skin color have genes AABB as their genotype (set of genes for a trait); those with very light skins have aabb. People with two "capital letter" genes would be "medium-skinned," and those with 1 or 3 such genes would be a shade lighter or darker.
Now, let's start with two medium-skinned parents, AaBb. [here is] a genetic square that shows the kind of children they could have. Less than half (only 6 of the 16 combinations) would be medium-skinned like their parents. Four each would be a shade darker or lighter. One in 16 of the children of medium-skinned parents (AaBb) would have the darkest possible skin color, while the chances are also 1/16 that a brother or sistr will have the very lightest skin color (See Parker, Reynolds and Reynolds, 18977b).
Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), how long would it take to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today? Merely one generation! In fct, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Afr4icans, and some -- perhaps a brothe or a sister in the family -- as light as the lightest Europeans.
And here's the Mendelian square from that book that I just found online:
/
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 1:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 518 (808748)
05-12-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Taq
05-12-2017 1:35 PM


Re: Getting from the super genome to two alleles per gene
The main problem with this very narrow argument is that you are extrapolating from one gene to all genes. Just because skin color may or may not be determined by two genes with two alleles each does not mean that other physical characteristics are governed the same way.
Could be, but the vast majority of traits probably follow the simple Mendelian system.
I LOVE that it's so "narrow." Simplicity is beautiful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 1:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 2:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 518 (808750)
05-12-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 11:14 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
I never answered this post, bluegenes, but that's largely because it's hard for me to get into your frame of reference. I was rereading the thread and see that in Message 74 you ask me to return to this post and think along these lines:
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.
So I think I understand that the list of numbers refers to allele/gene sequences possessed by the particular number of Cubans indicated?
You treat them all as beneficial alleles that each does something different to protect the immune system? You seem to be saying that these variations in the sequence must each do something specific in the immune system? But this appears to be an assumption simply from the fact of the many sequence differences rather than something you actually know about their function?
My contrary assumption would be, as usual, that all those difference in DNA sequences are probably mostly "neutral" mutations that don't change the original function of the allele. Is there evidence against this idea?
I don't really grasp what point you are trying to make about the numbers or percentages of these mutations within a population, except that it is based on assuming that they do something good for the population, which I'm doubting. So that where you see the numbers as indicating some percentage of good I see them as indicating some percentage of bad.
That's as far as I can get with this, and I'm responding now even though what you are saying remains unclear, because I felt I should respond with SOMETHING after all.
We inhabit two different frames of reference about these things. Mine is spelled out in more detail than usual in Message 120
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 11:14 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 2:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 518 (808754)
05-12-2017 2:53 PM


The model in more detail
Here's the Mendel square for skin color from Gary Parker again, showing the range of colors from darkest to lightest based only on two genes of two alleles each:
/
/
If you look up skin color online you'll find some cosmetics sites that show a much greater range of colors, which makes sense considering that there are more than two genes for skin color.
You'll also find the usual assumption that the colors evolved, which of course I'm arguing against. What evolves, meaning microevolves of course, is separate populations characterized by a particular skin color or range of colors, but these are not new creations based on mutations, they are merely selected and isolated shades from the great range of possibilities originally built into the human genome.
Adam and Eve had the genes to produce every skin color there is. Depending on how many children they had they could have produced the entire range in one generation, but certainly produced quite a large range of them in any case. The rest would have appeared in subsequent generations.
What makes a skin color or any other trait characteristic of a population or race is some form of selection of the color or few colors, and the selection as I've been arguing is in most cases random, a matter of migration of individuals that possess a particular portion of the gene pool ending up as an isolated population in some new place, where they develop a characteristic skin color through generations of inbreeding. That's all it takes for there to be hundreds of different populatios with different characteristics. It's all in the original genome, brought to visible expression by random seleciton and reproductive isolation.
I'm stating a basic principle here. I know that reality is a lot messier, that populations split and merge and cross in various ways, produce hybrids and all kinds of variations down the generations, but it's all based on the original set of possibilities from the combinations you can get from the original genome. This is true for human beings and it's also true for sexually reproducing animals.
And each new race or population develops its characteristic traits by LOSING all the genetic material for other traits, many of which become characteristic of other populations. The original genome for each Kind had tremendous genetic diversity that in various combinations produced all the separate populations or "species" of all Kinds, but each new species has its characteristic phenotypes as a result of losing the genetic material for all the others.
Evolution defeats Evolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 135 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 6:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 518 (808757)
05-12-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
05-12-2017 3:02 PM


Re: The model in more detail
Taq writes:
Faith writes:
Here's the Mendel square for skin color from Gary Parker again, showing the range of colors from darkest to lightest based only on two genes of two alleles each:
We already know that Parker's model is not correct. The Wiki page lists at least 7 genes involved in skin color:
Parker himself (in 1982) said there was at least one more gene for skin color than his chart shows and you should have noticed by now that I've allowed for many more than that. The point of this chart is to demonstrate that from a mere two genes with two alleles each the variations are enormous even in only one generation. That alone should make the case for the production of all the diversity of living things from the original genome for each Kind. But if you add many other genes for each trait you simply increase that enormous variation. Beyond my ability to create the appropriate Mendel square.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 3:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 518 (808823)
05-13-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by bluegenes
05-13-2017 2:00 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:
They can be functional simply by not doing anything different than the original allele did, which is what "neutral" mutations do.
Yes, but they (new human immune system alleles) wouldn't be present in the proportions that they are after 300 generations on neutral evolution alone. Only positive selection on new variants would give that effect.
It seems you are asking me to accept as evidence a mere statistic based on a system I reject to prove something you have no other evidence for anyway. That is, you don't know what all those alleles are actually doing, how many code for what protein, you don't point to a genuinely novel product to make your point; it's all statistical based on ...I don't know what. I'm not sure what "after 300 generations" has to do with how many mutations show up in the population since they are random occurrences and in the YEC way of thinking would be increasing over the years. So there should be more cropping up now than did right after the Flood. Is that reflected in your statistic?
That's why I'm saying that, to get a plausible 6,500yr YEC model, we have to accept positive selection on many of those extra HLA alleles.
Well, I'm just a creationist loony but I would guess there are many variables here you probably haven't taken into account, and if I can't derive your statistic myself I can't very well accept it anyway.
It will be the same for other animals after the Ark bottleneck, particularly those species (or kinds) that only had two members present. When we look at them now, lots of variants in the MHC will be present at proportions that are too high for neutral evolution (drift) to account for, as they could only have a maximum of 4 after the flood.
So, we have to put positive selection on MHC mutant alleles as part of any plausible YEC model.
All this is mystification to me I'm afraid. For starters I suspect you are thinking of the Ark bottleneck as causing such a severe reduction in genetic diversity that new alleles would be desperately needed, which isn't the case in my model; and again I've rejected that maximum of four idea now and am going with two per gene.
I don't know if there is any way for you to present your argument that would make more sense to me but I can't do much with it as is.
If, like the folk at Answers in Genesis, you see "kind" at somewhere around the level of family, you will need positive selection during post flood speciation and niche filling as well, even if you argue that the genes/alleles were all present on the original Ark pair genomes.
I gave up trying to estimate the boundaries of the Kind a long time ago -- but I think those boundaries can be functionally defined as the point at which genetic diversity is lost after many population splits each reducing the genetic diversity to some extent -- that is, due to the fact that evolution requires losing genetic diversity, the opposite of what the ToE says, which is what mutations are supposed to make up for.
In any case I don't think any new alleles are needed to get from the Ark to the present: (They could be useful now when many species are reaching that point of lost genetic diversity and are threatened with extinction). I really do think now that each reproducing pair on the Ark, both human (three pairs) and animal, with a number of genes for each trait made up of two alleles per gene, would be enough to produce everything living today. I think the Mendelian square I've posted shows that the possibilities are enormous, especially assuming many more genes per trait than that square represents. (I still think of junk DNA as genes that used to function but have since died, all part of the overall loss of genetic diversity that now makes a bottleneck a real threat).
The Ark would have had some amount of reduced genetic diversity, basically from increasing homozygosity due to evolution since the Creation, -- actually since the Fall -- but it would still have been very high compared to today. The bottleneck would have reduced the percentage of heterozygosity even more but it wouldn't have become a detriment to any species until recent time. Now is when we need those extra alleles, but I think it is wishful to claim we have them. Statistics aren't going to prove to me that we do. Taq has a post up that claims to show actual beneficial changes from mutations, which I doubt, or at least doubt occur to the extent the ToE wishfully assumes, but I haven't been able to read the article yet.
So: I don't think the YEC model NEEDS beneficial mutations to have produced all the diversity we see today, but the fact that some SEEM to exist is still on the table..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 2:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2017 1:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by bluegenes, posted 05-15-2017 4:47 AM Faith 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