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:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 106 of 518 (808613)
05-11-2017 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
05-11-2017 3:57 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
Faith writes:
I mean a NONmutated allele.
As soon as you have two alleles you have a mutated allele. I really don't see how it would make a functional difference if the sequence differences were produced purposefully or through random mutations. How would an allele be any less damaged if a deity changed the sequence than if a DNA replication error changed the sequence? If naturally occurring mutations were almost always either neutral or detrimental, then that would apply to changes that any deity would make.
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.
In the context of biology, "not viable" usually means it causes disease or is a lethal mutation. The first words that come to my mind are "functionally redundant sequences", but that's a bit of a mouthful. "Selectively neutral" would be another way to phrase it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 3:57 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

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


Message 109 of 518 (808617)
05-11-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
05-11-2017 4:21 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
Faith writes:
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.
We don't need Mercury in our Solar System, yet there it is.
You seem to be under the impression that if you decide something doesn't need to be in nature that it will suddenly disappear. That just isn't the case.
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.
When we add up all of the alleles across all species we will have millions and millions of functioning alleles and millions and millions of different functions, all for each homologous gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:36 PM Taq 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

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


Message 111 of 518 (808621)
05-11-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
05-11-2017 4:36 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
Faith writes:
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.
I sense that we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I am looking at this problem from a global scale where all species are considered. You seem to be focusing on the problem using a singular scale, at the scale of a single species.
From my perspective, what is true within a species must also be true between species. Afterall, each species has to have a functional genome.
To use an example, if you say that "AAGGAGCCGAAAA" is the only functional sequence that a gene can have, yet I find a whole bunch of other species that have a different sequence for that gene and that sequence is functional, beneficial, and that function is slightly different from the human gene. Obviously, I was wrong about that specific sequence being the only possible sequence.
If alterations of the DNA sequence can produce different and beneficial functions in different species, then I don't see why mutations can't do the same within a species. Your model seems to be short sighted because it fails to include the sequence diversity seen between species and apply it to changes within a species.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 518 (808622)
05-11-2017 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
05-11-2017 4:21 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
quote:
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. Saying that we don't "need" them just looks like making an excuse to stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts. It certainly isn't relevant, nor does it address any point in the post you were replying to.
quote:
There is no problem explaining a bazillion mutations if they are damaged/changed/mutated alleles
I certainly didn't expect you too give up on your YEC beliefs that easily!
Because if YEC is true there shouldn't be that many that are common enough to get noticed. As I pointed out a little while back neutral and deleterious mutations won't spread quickly.
quote:
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.
quote:
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)
quote:
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, not least because there would be no advantage in having such variety (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)
Also see Message 26 in this thread. And since heterozygosity is a distinct advantage having more distinct alleles helps there, too.
Edited by PaulK, : Added reference to earlier and very relevant post
Edited by PaulK, : ...And an important implication of the information there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 8:38 PM PaulK has 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 115 of 518 (808654)
05-12-2017 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-11-2017 8:38 PM


Re: What DO all those alleles actually do?
quote:
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.
The fact that they are there means that they have had sufficient time to occur and to spread. Spreading takes a long time by drift. So the observed numbers are extremely surprising assuming YEC timescales. I am sorry that you find it "incomprehensible" that YEC typically allows only 6000 years since Adam and Eve, or 10,000 at most but it is a fact.
quote:
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
How is this relevant to explaining why we find additional alleles at appreciable frequencies ?
quote:
Then please repeat the unaddressed points.
If you say something completely irrelevant we are supposed to repeat the entire post ? Why ?
quote:
Why not? That's a lot of mutations.
Because - to repeat the point again - there isn't time for them to spread.
quote:
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.
So, if an allele is found in 5% of the population it will not be a neutral (let alone deleterious) mutation ?
quote:
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
Odd then that you would ask what they do since you claim to have already known. And doubly odd since that message mentions that some of those genes have more than 200 known alleles
quote:
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?
So you don't really understand. Yes, they make different proteins. But there are a number of these genes. Let's repeat part of the quote from the earlier message you cited.
The term polymorphism comes from the Greek poly, meaning many, and morphe, meaning shape or structure. As used here, it means within-species variation at a gene locus, and thus in its protein product; the variant genes that can occupy the locus are termed alleles. There are more than 200 alleles of some human MHC class I and class II genes, each allele being present at a relatively high frequency in the population.
quote:
But the sequence can be different but the protein product identical, so what would that prove?
If you only look at the protein you are only going to find differences in the protein.
And of course if you know the gene sequence you can work out the protein sequence.
quote:
Apparently so is the author of that article bluegenes posted, but it needs to be known not assumed.
Looks like the author knew it.
quote:
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.
It isn't simply assumed. I have given reasons to think that. And the quote explicitly says that the protein sequences differ.
quote:
First it has to be shown that your scenario is more than just an assumption.
That was done back in Message 26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2017 9:54 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 116 of 518 (808666)
05-12-2017 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
05-11-2017 3:13 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:
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?
Faith never meant to imply anything beyond the human species. Humans have their genes and alleles, other species have theirs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 10:44 AM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 117 of 518 (808704)
05-12-2017 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by PaulK
05-12-2017 12:33 AM


Keep it a bit slower and simpler
I have been following the back and forth for a few days.
I think you are too wrapped up in what you know. From what Faith replies it isn't clear that she even knows what allele means. At least, it doesn't instantly conjure up all that it does for you. You've jumped ahead much too fast.
Go waaaay slower and see if you can get a bit of this across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2017 12:33 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 118 of 518 (808710)
05-12-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
05-12-2017 7:44 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Percy writes:
Faith never meant to imply anything beyond the human species. Humans have their genes and alleles, other species have theirs.
What Faith said about the human genome has implications for other species and their genomes, genes, and alleles.
Let's use an analogy. I focus on the design of just one car model. I observe that the car burns gasoline (petrol), has 4 cylinders, and is front wheel drive. I declare that there is no way that you can change any of those features or it will be deleterious.
I then find another car that runs on electricity and is rear wheel drive. I also declare that there is no way you can change a car to make it run on anything but electricity and it can only be powered by the rear wheels.
See the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 05-12-2017 7:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 8:56 AM Taq has not replied

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


(1)
Message 119 of 518 (808711)
05-12-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-11-2017 10:09 PM


Re: The Two-Allele Gene Is All It Takes
Faith writes:
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.
The problem is that human genetic diversity can not be explained by just two alleles per gene. Your perspective is inconsistent with reality.
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.
You can't make a bird with human genes, so that is false. In order to have different species you need different DNA sequences. We have millions of species, each with their own genomes that have altered DNA sequences that differ in function. This demonstrates that there is way more functional sequence than you admit to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 10:09 PM 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024