Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9035 total)
89 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,594 Year: 3,240/14,102 Month: 181/724 Week: 30/93 Day: 1/29 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?
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 136 of 518 (808783)
05-13-2017 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
05-13-2017 2:49 AM


Re: From Someone Less Knowlegable
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?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 2:49 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 7:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 518 (808784)
05-13-2017 7:03 AM


I assume on 'kind' would be marsupial?

Ignoring for the moment how a marsupial got from Australasia to the near East, then back to Australasia after the flood (including the problems of no food and an ocean to cross), it then has to split into multiple groupings of immensely diverse creatures.

How the hell is it supposed to achieve all that? In a few thousand years?

Sounds to me like a miracle was needed.

What do we know about genetic diversity of marsupials?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 8:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 138 of 518 (808790)
05-13-2017 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by jar
05-13-2017 7:03 AM


Re: From Someone Less Knowlegable
jar writes:

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?

Yes, they're diploid. They could be the same as each other and still have two different variants on each gene. However, if they were clones, that's not very good design from the point of view of their descendants.

I don't see why you can't make any genes out of a rib if you can from dirt, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 05-13-2017 7:03 AM jar has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 139 of 518 (808795)
05-13-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Tangle
05-13-2017 7:03 AM


Tangle writes:

I assume on 'kind' would be marsupial?

No. Some YECs go as far as family, but certainly not class or sub-class. So kangaroos and wallabies might be lumped, but not marsupials.

If someone's mentioned class on this thread, it'll be a typo!

It has partly to do with hybrids being possible, partly to do with limited space on the Ark, and partly a reaction to genetics and directly observable adaptations/evolution, I think.

Anyway, species immutability is out (unless you're in the Davidjay camp), but "kind" or family immutability is definitely still in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2017 7:03 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20101
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 140 of 518 (808805)
05-13-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
05-12-2017 10:44 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Taq writes:

See the problem?

Yes, I see the problem, but I didn't interpret what Faith said in that way, and she says she didn't mean it in that way. She meant that humans have genes and alleles that work for them, while other organisms have different genes and alleles that work for them. 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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 10:44 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 05-13-2017 9:16 AM Percy has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 141 of 518 (808809)
05-13-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
05-13-2017 8:56 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 8:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 9:43 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 9:43 AM jar has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 142 of 518 (808811)
05-13-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jar
05-13-2017 9:16 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
jar writes:

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

Coding genes (~1% of DNA) aren't any use for that. It's the "junk" that mutates quickly without restraint, like micro-satellites, that gets used because it's highly variant. It's also used for approximate dating, and shows that many "kinds" split into species a long, long time before the Ark.

The earliest splits in the giraffe kind, for example, come in at over 1 million years, and far more if we include the Okapi.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 05-13-2017 9:16 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20101
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 143 of 518 (808812)
05-13-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jar
05-13-2017 9:16 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
jar writes:

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

What Faith is saying is that everyone has the same genes but with potentially a variety of different alleles, and that the current alleles are the only ones that aren't deleterious. Any mutations in existing alleles would be deleterious.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 05-13-2017 9:16 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 05-13-2017 9:48 AM Percy has responded
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 05-13-2017 2:17 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 144 of 518 (808813)
05-13-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
05-13-2017 9:43 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Percy writes:

What Faith is saying is that everyone has the same genes but with potentially a variety of different alleles, and that the current alleles are the only ones that aren't deleterious. Any mutations in existing alleles would be deleterious.

I don't think so. Her posts here certainly seem to accept "neutral". But I'm sure she'll clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 9:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 2:50 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 336 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 146 of 518 (808825)
05-13-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
05-13-2017 1:34 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
The basic argument is simple.

There are many common alleles of these genes.

Under your views there are only four original alleles

Every one of these other alleles must have occurred as a mutation and spread significantly

You have only 6000 years for the mutations to occur and spread from their original occurrence

This is highly unlikely without strong positive selection.

Note that knowing what the different alleles do is not even relevant to the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-13-2017 1:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-13-2017 1:55 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 518 (808827)
05-13-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
05-13-2017 1:46 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
The basic argument is simple.

There are many common alleles of these genes.

Meaning there are many "alleles" with different DNA sequences (i.e. mutations) that so far remain in the population.

Under your views there are only four original alleles

Two

Every one of these other alleles must have occurred as a mutation and spread significantly

If they don't change the function of the original allele they would continue to occur in the population as the original allele would.

You have only 6000 years for the mutations to occur and spread from their original occurrence

See above. If they do what the original allele did this whole line of reasoning does not apply. They would "spread" according to the circumstances under which the original allele would spread.

This is highly unlikely without strong positive selection.
Note that knowing what the different alleles do is not even relevant to the argument.

I still don't get what is "highly unlikely" about this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2017 1:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2017 2:08 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 148 of 518 (808828)
05-13-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
05-13-2017 1:55 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
quote:

Two

Given that heterozygosity is an advantage in these genes I think you should go for four in this case.

quote:

If they don't change the function of the original allele they would continue to occur in the population as the original allele would.

You haven't even bothered to find out what these genes do, have you ?

quote:

See above. If they do what the original allele did this whole line of reasoning does not apply. They would "spread" according to the circumstances under which the original allele would spread.

If they don't offer any advantage then - on average - they won't increase in frequency at all. That is pretty basic.

quote:

I still don't get what is "highly unlikely" about this

How do the extra alleles spread so quickly ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-13-2017 1:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2017 2:12 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-13-2017 3:08 PM PaulK has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 149 of 518 (808829)
05-13-2017 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by PaulK
05-13-2017 2:08 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Paulk writes:


Given that heterozygosity is an advantage in these genes I think you should go for four in this case

She can't, Adam and Eve didn't have parents to donate the extra alleles :-)

(Insert miracle here)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2017 2:08 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-13-2017 2:18 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 518 (808831)
05-13-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
05-13-2017 9:43 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
What Faith is saying is that everyone has the same genes but with potentially a variety of different alleles, and that the current alleles are the only ones that aren't deleterious. Any mutations in existing alleles would be deleterious.
--Percy

No, what I'm saying is that everyone has the same genes but not originally with a variety of different alleles, originally with only two alleles per gene. This refers only to the original alleles. From what is being said here, the "current" alleles, insofar as they show a variety of different DNA sequences, are mostlymutations ("mostly" assuming some have the same sequence as the original allele) but not deleterious ones since they persist in the population.

As bluegenes said in response to this, I recognize that there may be a lot of neutral mutations -- mutations that don't change the function of the original allele -- its sequence is different but not its function -- it still makes the same protein and still produces the same trait as the original --ONLY the sequence was changed by the mutation. As long as they function just as the original allele did the changed sequence doesn't make any difference in the condition of the trait or the organism positive or negative.

(There may even be some cases where ALL the "alleles" for a particular gene in a population are mutations and none of the originals even continue to exist. That's occurred to me although it hasn't been brought up before. The only way we'd know they do what the original allele did is that the trait continues in the population as usual.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 05-13-2017 9:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021