Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
82 online now:
Aussie, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,622 Year: 3,268/14,102 Month: 209/724 Week: 58/93 Day: 15/3 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 518 (810304)
05-27-2017 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Percy
05-27-2017 7:35 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
But wouldn't God have had to change the alleles for Eve's genes, else Eve would have just been a clone of Adam?

Would God have had to change the alleles for blood type to accomplish that? What is the advantage of having multiple blood types in a Land of Perfection? In fact, would not something like multiple Rh factors among a closed population just create more problems than having diverse Rh factors would help?

Obviously, some changes were made, but making Eve a non-clone does not require new alleles for every single gene.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Percy, posted 05-27-2017 7:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 332 of 518 (810545)
05-30-2017 5:14 PM


rough ponderings
Just some rough impressions from the Creo point of view.

I'm sticking to my basic idea that there were originally two alleles per gene for the vast majority of traits.

I'm tentatively conceding that there might have been four alleles between Adam and Eve for SOME genes.

I still have the basic idea that the extra alleles are mutations and that mutations are not a normal process but a mistake that usually 1) does not change the phenotype, the "neutral" mutations, 2) often produces disease and 3) sometimes as more of a fluke than anything else produces something that appears to be positive for the phenotype.

What NN posted about the gene with three alleles for blood type, (plus a few other rarer alleles) suggests to me that A and B were the originals and that O is a mutation -- a "frameshift" -- that happens to have a positive enough effect to be considered a true variant, but it's one of those I'd consider to be likely a fluke. In NNs post he describes it as lacking functions that A and B have.

The extra alleles for rabbit fur color are obviously superfluous since the existing genes are certainly sufficient to vary the color in many different ways. So the extras are mutations that are sort of akin to neutral mutations but do produce some difference, just not anything that could be considered necessary.

When someone says that "for all we know such and such an allele might have protected our ancestors from sucn and such a disease" we're deep in evo territory. There are many alleles involved in the immune system some of whose function or phenotypic effect are known, but as Percy's charts point out a lot of them are redundant, doing the same thing. And a lot are unknown. I think this implies that the statement in the article back toward the beginning of the thread that all these alleles are a good thing because they imply the many differences in function needed to protect against the many differences in diseases, isn't really justified.

But as I said these are rough thoughts and I don't claim to be following the argument all that well.


Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 5:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 1:06 PM Faith has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 333 of 518 (810550)
05-30-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
05-30-2017 5:14 PM


Re: rough ponderings
Faith writes:

When someone says that "for all we know such and such an allele might have protected our ancestors from sucn and such a disease" we're deep in evo territory. There are many alleles involved in the immune system some of whose function or phenotypic effect are known, but as Percy's charts point out a lot of them are redundant, doing the same thing. And a lot are unknown. I think this implies that the statement in the article back toward the beginning of the thread that all these alleles are a good thing because they imply the many differences in function needed to protect against the many differences in diseases, isn't really justified.

They aren't redundant. There are many, many alleles that differ in function for the HLA genes. It is just a fact.

The idea that you can't make any changes to the human genome without causing harm, or no phenotypic changes at all, is also untenable. If we compare the human genome to any other primate species we can immediately see that the possible beneficial changes to the human genome are numerous because those beneficial changes are found in other primate species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 05-30-2017 5:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 12:17 AM Taq has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 334 of 518 (810592)
05-31-2017 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Taq
05-30-2017 5:34 PM


Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
There are many, many alleles that differ in function for the HLA genes. It is just a fact.

Well, the charts Percy put up show something a bit more ambiguous than that.

The redundancy is shown on those, such as in Percy's Message 329 where "measles seropositivity" and "measles seronegativity" each show up on three different genes. "Dengue fever protection" shows up on three or four. Malaria/sickle cell more than once. Influenza twice. That's redundancy.

And of course there are many entries on the chart simply designated "Immune system," showing that their function is not known.

It's been occurring to me that this isn't a very efficient system since the protections and functions are so scattered among individuals. If there are many, even hundreds? of different alleles for one gene an individual is only going to get one or two of those. When you have that many alleles the individual only gets one or another so if you have two for one function on different genes then that increases the chances of more individuals having it but still there are many who get some other kind of protection instead, or something called "immune system" and who knows what that is? A disease is even mentioned in the list, so some of those other "immune system" alleles could also be genetic diseases..

Seems to me the two-allele/multiple gene system would be a lot more efficient, at least drastically limiting the number of people who DON'T have a particular protection, everybody getting at least one version of a gene. And if they are codominant they would offer even more protection to individuals.

The idea that you can't make any changes to the human genome without causing harm, or no phenotypic changes at all, is also untenable. If we compare the human genome to any other primate species we can immediately see that the possible beneficial changes to the human genome are numerous because those beneficial changes are found in other primate species.

Not sure what "possible" implies. Do we share those "beneficial changes" with all primates or not?

But I want to end by emphasizing what I said above, that the multiple-allele system seems to me to be a hit-or-miss system, very inefficient if it's intended to be THE system for protection of the human race against all kinds of diseases, since each individual only gets protection for some diseases and not others. While a system of multiple genes of two alleles each could protect ALL individuals from ALL diseases since we'd all possess the gene for a particular protection and if the two alleles are codominant as I thought someone said is true for the immune system we all get complete protection from all the same diseases.

To my mind this adds to the case for the two-alleles-per gene as the standard and all the rest mutations or mistakes of one sort or another.

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 333 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 5:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 11:39 AM Faith has responded
 Message 383 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2017 5:05 AM Faith has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 335 of 518 (810635)
05-31-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-31-2017 12:17 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
Faith writes:

The redundancy is shown on those, such as in Percy's Message 329 where "measles seropositivity" and "measles seronegativity" each show up on three different genes.

First, it shows up on three different alleles for the same gene.

Second, measles seropositivity is just one function. There are also alleles that protect against influenza, HIV, and other diseases. These are found on different alleles than those for measles seropositivity. There is clearly more than two alleles for HLA-B.

Not sure what "possible" implies.

It is the implication you have been making all along, that you can't change the DNA sequence of the human genome without causing harm or no change in function at all.

Do we share those "beneficial changes" with all primates or not?

We don't share all of those changes. If we shared all the same changes then we would all look identical to one another. We don't.

The reason that we look different from other primates, and why each primate species looks different from all other primate species, is that each species has its own beneficial mutations. The very existence of hundreds of other primate species refutes your argument that beneficial mutations are so rare that one can ignore their very existence.

Obviously, changes can be made to the human genome and those changes can be beneficial. It doesn't matter if those changes are made by a deity or the observed processes of natural mutagenesis. Among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are the beneficial mutations that benefit both chimps and humans.

But I want to end by emphasizing what I said above, that the multiple-allele system seems to me to be a hit-or-miss system, very inefficient if it's intended to be THE system for protection of the human race against all kinds of diseases, since each individual only gets protection for some diseases and not others. While a system of multiple genes of two alleles each could protect ALL individuals from ALL diseases since we'd all possess the gene for a particular protection and if the two alleles are codominant as I thought someone said is true for the immune system we all get complete protection from all the same diseases.

But that's not how it works in reality. We are dealing with reality, not your fantasies of what reality should be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 12:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 1:33 PM Taq has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 336 of 518 (810655)
05-31-2017 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
05-30-2017 5:14 PM


Re: rough ponderings
What NN posted about the gene with three alleles for blood type, (plus a few other rarer alleles) suggests to me that A and B were the originals and that O is a mutation -- a "frameshift" -- that happens to have a positive enough effect to be considered a true variant, but it's one of those I'd consider to be likely a fluke. In NNs post he describes it as lacking functions that A and B have.

What if it were a fluke? Is anyone claiming that the blood type mutations are anything other than random with respect to fitness? In the basic theory of common descent, are mutations described as anything that happens with a purpose?

Yes. Mutations are relatively rare. But the mutations that separate humans from other primates are not even claimed to be all beneficial. Humans are no longer able to fit in the niches that other primates occupy. We are weak, nearly hairless, with limbs poorly suited for climbing. While we do have advantages, some of those advantages, like dexterity, have clearly come as trade-offs between suitability for our hands and feet to perform other tasks.

In short, I don't think your current line of argument places much of an impediment on the theory of evolution.

he extra alleles for rabbit fur color are obviously superfluous since the existing genes are certainly sufficient to vary the color in many different ways. So the extras are mutations that are sort of akin to neutral mutations but do produce some difference, just not anything that could be considered necessary.

This turns out to be complete double talk. The four alleles in combinations produced markedly different phenotypes by varying visible elements that are not controlled by other genes. Not redundant, and certainly not superfluous. But even if they were superfluous, they would still exist and require an explanation of how they got there.

I also notice here you've moved the goalposts from different functions to "necessary" functions. Fur color differences are functional, visible, and obvious and controlled by the c-gene alleles. But nice attempt to sweep them under the rug with BS.

There are many alleles involved in the immune system some of whose function or phenotypic effect are known, but as Percy's charts point out a lot of them are redundant, doing the same thing. And a lot are unknown.

Yes. But several things should be made quite clear.

1. There are substantially more than four alleles whose functions are known for at least a few gene locations. That is enough that you ought to be coming up with a new argument.

2. It is unlikely that all of the unknown ones are just neutral, but in any event, you don't know and therefore they don't represent any argument for your position, particularly given point 1.

3. Folks are participating in this line of argument are ceding a great deal of territory to you that need not be yielded. It is sufficient that an allele code a new protein for the allele to be distinct from the others. There are actually an enormous number of alleles that have arisen for some gene locations. Whether or not that new protein is neutral or beneficial is partly a function of the environment as well as the structure and activity of the new protein. Calling mutations neutral or even beneficial without stating the environment in which you made the evaluation is not possible.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 05-30-2017 5:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 2:22 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 337 of 518 (810659)
05-31-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Taq
05-31-2017 11:39 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
Taq writes:

Faith writes:

The redundancy is shown on those, such as in Percy's Message 329 where "measles seropositivity" and "measles seronegativity" each show up on three different genes.

First, it shows up on three different alleles for the same gene.

Sorry, yes, alleles not genes. Yes of course. That's certainly redundancy. And a question would be, what does the original allele do? The same thing perhaps?

Second, measles seropositivity is just one function. There are also alleles that protect against influenza, HIV, and other diseases. These are found on different alleles than those for measles seropositivity. There is clearly more than two alleles for HLA-B.

Yes, and a lot of redundancy as I said, which is shown on Percy's chart.

Not sure what "possible" implies.

It is the implication you have been making all along, that you can't change the DNA sequence of the human genome without causing harm or no change in function at all.

Well, but that apparently does happen a lot with mutations. What's the problem here? Many of the positive effects of changing the sequence are redundant, and although it's not clear from anything said so far, probably don't change the function of the original allele.

Do we share those "beneficial changes" with all primates or not?

We don't share all of those changes. If we shared all the same changes then we would all look identical to one another. We don't.

This is pure evo theory, not anything provable. We differ due to something basically different in the genome, not because of mistakes in replication.

The reason that we look different from other primates, and why each primate species looks different from all other primate species, is that each species has its own beneficial mutations. The very existence of hundreds of other primate species refutes your argument that beneficial mutations are so rare that one can ignore their very existence.

I'm not so sure about that yet. But again all you are doing is declaring the theory of evolution through mutation to explain different species. There is no evidence for this. No matter how many seemingly positive alleles/mutations you can point to, and from Percy's chart it looks like there aren't really all that many and that many of them are redundant and probably, though this is not indicated, many do just what the original allele did anyway, despite some apparent positive functions mutations are still mistakes in replication and in general are known to be 1) predominantly neutral, 2) frequently deleterious and 3) only very rarely beneficial. You can't just invoke the ToE without more evidence than you have even with all the alleles of the immune system.

But again, I've been realizing that this doesn't work as a system, and most especially doesn't work for the immune system. Where other traits may vary a great deal and create a desirable diversity, the immune system needs to be reliable for the sake of the species. It makes no sense for it to protect against an influenza here and a malaria there and another disease by another allele. That gives spotty protection throughout a population. The best system for the immune system would minimize the variability, and that would mean two alleles per gene, co-dominant. The great number of alleles is overal not a good thing because it scatters the benefits. The best I can say for the many alleles is that many DO protect against SOMETHING. Again, for all I know, the same something the original allele protects against, but I understand that the very concept of an original allele makes no sense in the ToE system of thinking.

Obviously, changes can be made to the human genome and those changes can be beneficial.

This would be a lot clearer if we knew what the original alleles for a particular gene do. I suspect the different protective functions of the many alleles don't add anything new to the basic design, just scatter its effects through the population.

It doesn't matter if those changes are made by a deity or the observed processes of natural mutagenesis. Among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are the beneficial mutations that benefit both chimps and humans.

I think it's turning out there is a big problem here which is obscured by adherence to the ToE: Can you tell the difference between the original alleles for a gene and the mutations?

Taq writes:

Faith writes:

But I want to end by emphasizing what I said above, that the multiple-allele system seems to me to be a hit-or-miss system, very inefficient if it's intended to be THE system for protection of the human race against all kinds of diseases, since each individual only gets protection for some diseases and not others. While a system of multiple genes of two alleles each could protect ALL individuals from ALL diseases since we'd all possess the gene for a particular protection and if the two alleles are codominant as I thought someone said is true for the immune system we all get complete protection from all the same diseases.

But that's not how it works in reality. We are dealing with reality, not your fantasies of what reality should be.

I suspect you are dealing with the assumptions of the ToE and not reality at all, and I'm observing a problem with that. Multiple alleles are less efficient than a two-allele-per-gene system would be, especially in the immune system where scattering the benefits throughout the population leaves big holes in immune protection. Unlike, say, fur color, where scattering the colors doesn't do harm to the animal.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 11:39 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 11:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 338 of 518 (810664)
05-31-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 1:06 PM


Re: rough ponderings
NN writes:

Faith writes:

What NN posted about the gene with three alleles for blood type, (plus a few other rarer alleles) suggests to me that A and B were the originals and that O is a mutation -- a "frameshift" -- that happens to have a positive enough effect to be considered a true variant, but it's one of those I'd consider to be likely a fluke. In NNs post he describes it as lacking functions that A and B have.

What if it were a fluke? Is anyone claiming that the blood type mutations are anything other than random with respect to fitness? In the basic theory of common descent, are mutations described as anything that happens with a purpose?

OK, so the ToE actually imputes all the attributes of all creatures to flukes. OK. Nonsensical but apparently true.

NN writes:

Yes. Mutations are relatively rare. But the mutations that separate humans from other primates are not even claimed to be all beneficial. Humans are no longer able to fit in the niches that other primates occupy. We are weak, nearly hairless, with limbs poorly suited for climbing. While we do have advantages, some of those advantages, like dexterity, have clearly come as trade-offs between suitability for our hands and feet to perform other tasks.
In short, I don't think your current line of argument places much of an impediment on the theory of evolution.

Not when it's accepted that all life could be the product of such hit-or-miss accidents. (Accepted, note, all theory, not evidenced) But it ought to show at least that the YEC system I'm putting together has a lot more coherence and reliability, and I believe explains a lot more than the ToE does, that you simply cannot get living things from such a sloppy system as is apparently accepted.

NN writes:

Faith writes:

The extra alleles for rabbit fur color are obviously superfluous since the existing genes are certainly sufficient to vary the color in many different ways. So the extras are mutations that are sort of akin to neutral mutations but do produce some difference, just not anything that could be considered necessary.

This turns out to be complete double talk. The four alleles in combinations produced markedly different phenotypes by varying visible elements that are not controlled by other genes. Not redundant, and certainly not superfluous. But even if they were superfluous, they would still exist and require an explanation of how they got there.

Their existence by YEC lights is just the fluke effect of mistakes in replication that happen to produce some kind of unharmful effect. Genes are, after all, just a sequence of chemical codes and under some circumstances even a mistake in replication will come up with a protein that does something unharmful to the phenotype beyond just the usual neutral non-change. But this is based on accepting your claim that they do something appreciably different and I do have to suspect that they probably really don't, that the original two-allele genes do it all, despite what your study says.

I also notice here you've moved the goalposts from different functions to "necessary" functions. Fur color differences are functional, visible, and obvious and controlled by the c-gene alleles. But nice attempt to sweep them under the rug with BS.

"Necessary" is simply a way of saying that the original genes are sufficient so the mutant alleles don't add anything. I'm willing to accept that the changes you claim are in fact true, but I still doubt it and suspect a redundancy of some sort. Since researchers do their research within the ToE, even if they are completely honest they are going to see everything in that light, and the result is always going to be some version of Evo In Evo Out. My Creo obligation is to keep this natural effect in sight.

NN writes:

Faith writes:

There are many alleles involved in the immune system some of whose function or phenotypic effect are known, but as Percy's charts point out a lot of them are redundant, doing the same thing. And a lot are unknown.

Yes. But several things should be made quite clear.
1. There are substantially more than four alleles whose functions are known for at least a few gene locations. That is enough that you ought to be coming up with a new argument.

But I have come up with a new argument: that the extra alleles are actually a detriment to a species because they scatter the effects among the population, which isn't a problem with something like fur color but is a big problem with the immune system. This is a brand new argument just over the last few posts. I think it supports the original two-allele gene that is also a new idea within the last few weeks. This acknowledges that there are extra functioning alleles for some traits and systems but maintains the overall idea that they are nevertheless mutations/mistakes that in the end don't contribute to the wellbeing of the organism and in fact detract from the efficiency of the system put in place at Creation. Seems to me I've shown this in relation to the immune system.

2. It is unlikely that all of the unknown ones are just neutral, but in any event, you don't know and therefore they don't represent any argument for your position, particularly given point 1.

But given my answer to point 1 they do represent an argument. Even if they have some positive effects they detract from the efficiency of the original created system.

3. Folks are participating in this line of argument are ceding a great deal of territory to you that need not be yielded. It is sufficient that an allele code a new protein for the allele to be distinct from the others.

What is needed is evidence that these are really NEW proteins and not just fluke reproductions of existing proteins produced by the original alleles. But even if the DNA sequence is so flexible that it can produce a brand new protein by a rearrangement of its chemicals, it remains a fluke that can't explain what the ToE expects it to explain. Mutations remain mostly neutral, frequently deleterious and only very very rarely beneficial.

There are actually an enormous number of alleles that have arisen for some gene locations. Whether or not that new protein is neutral or beneficial is partly a function of the environment as well as the structure and activity of the new protein. Calling mutations neutral or even beneficial without stating the environment in which you made the evaluation is not possible.

This is just another artifact of the ToE. Environment has an effect here and there, such as with the sickle cell/malaria exchange, but that sort of exchange is just a tradeoff and not exactly beneficial even in the context of the environment, and otherwise I just can't give environment anywhere near the importance given by the ToE. Most genetic variability is purely the result of random reproductive recombinations unaffected by environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 1:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 3:55 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 4:13 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 518 (810672)
05-31-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Faith
05-31-2017 2:22 PM


Re: rough ponderings
OK, so the ToE actually imputes all the attributes of all creatures to flukes. OK. Nonsensical but apparently true.

No, Faith. Mutation is not the only component of evolution. Selection is the non-random portion of what attributes are found on creatures in a population.

But it ought to show at least that the YEC system I'm putting together has a lot more coherence and reliability,

So what? Nobody is claiming that evolution is efficient. Only that it works and is supported by the evidence.

Their existence by YEC lights is just the fluke effect of mistakes in replication that happen to produce some kind of unharmful effect.

In short, YECs dismiss reality. Even on your terms your theory fails to explain what we actually see. Namely some helpful effects rather than simply unharmful ones. You have your examples.

"Necessary" is simply a way of saying that the original genes are sufficient so the mutant alleles don't add anything. I'm willing to accept that the changes you claim are in fact true, but I still doubt it and suspect a redundancy of some sort.

1) Redundancy does not disprove the fact that genes have multiple alleles.
2) If there is some kind of redundancy, why don't you describe it? I provided a reference for the rabbit color gene. You are welcome to use it as you see fit or to find another reference.

But I have come up with a new argument: that the extra alleles are actually a detriment to a species because they scatter the effects among the population, which isn't a problem with something like fur color but is a big problem with the immune system. This is a brand new argument just over the last few posts.

Yeah. I saw that. The problem with your argument is that the efficient system you prefer does not exist. We do not as a species all possess the same immunities to disease, ability to digest lactase, resistance to UV radiation, etc. It's silly to dismiss what we actually see on the basis that you've imagined something better.

Your new argument is about what you wish happened. But it is not demonstrated by any evidence. Of course, that will not stop you from believing whatever you want. But it does explain why you cannot convince anyone else.

What is needed is evidence that these are really NEW proteins and not just fluke reproductions of existing proteins produced by the original alleles. But even if the DNA sequence is so flexible that it can produce a brand new protein by a rearrangement of its chemicals, it remains a fluke that can't explain what the ToE expects it to explain. Mutations remain mostly neutral, frequently deleterious and only very very rarely beneficial.

If that turned out to be true, so what? Is that different from what the theory of evolution actually anticipates?

This is just another artifact of the ToE. Environment has an effect here and there, such as with the sickle cell/malaria exchange, but that sort of exchange is just a tradeoff and not exactly beneficial even in the context of the environment, and otherwise I just can't give environment anywhere near the importance given by the ToE. Most genetic variability is purely the result of random reproductive recombinations unaffected by environment.

I agree that you cannot do that. To acknowledge that reality would be to give up nearly the entire game.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 2:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 340 of 518 (810675)
05-31-2017 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Faith
05-31-2017 2:22 PM


Re: rough ponderings
But I have come up with a new argument: that the extra alleles are actually a detriment to a species because they scatter the effects among the population, which isn't a problem with something like fur color but is a big problem with the immune system.

This statement is nonsense. Fur color can be a survival trait for mice, butterflies, etc. The same problem exists. And even if there are multiple gene mutations that can produce the same coloring, that does not make one of such mutations neutral, particularly if the population had none of those genes prior. Total crap argument.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 2:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 7:01 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 341 of 518 (810690)
05-31-2017 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 4:13 PM


Re: rough ponderings
NN writes:

Faith writes:

But I have come up with a new argument: that the extra alleles are actually a detriment to a species because they scatter the effects among the population, which isn't a problem with something like fur color but is a big problem with the immune system.

This statement is nonsense. Fur color can be a survival trait for mice, butterflies, etc. The same problem exists. And even if there are multiple gene mutations that can produce the same coloring, that does not make one of such mutations neutral, particularly if the population had none of those genes prior. Total crap argument.

Yes, as you say this makes the multiple allele system disadvantageous for fur color as well as for the immune system, though in comparison with the immune system it seems a much less drastic problem, which is why I said what I said. But I agree that it can also be a problem. Turns out that it isn't just the immune system that would have big holes in protection in it but even rabbit fur color.

The big problem with multiple alleles, again, is that they get scattered in a population. If there is an enormous number of them for one gene, selecting a fur color for survival, for instance, is going to eliminate a whole lot of other colors, and if they die, because perhaps some predator picks them off, that's an enormous loss to the population. In fact getting a particular allele selected and passed through a population would be nearly impossible if there are hundreds of them scattered through it. At best it would be so costly it would amount to a kind of genocide, even threaten extinction, before the selected allele could spread.

This is far from "a total crap argument," it's very sensible and likely. Mutations aren't the cause of evolution, they are always some kind of detriment even when they manage not to be immediately destructive, and all this just reinforces my recognition that the original genetic system in Adam and Eve had to be the two-allele gene and that all the extra alleles are superfluous or destructive mutations that don't benefit any species.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 4:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 9:06 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 342 of 518 (810700)
05-31-2017 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
05-31-2017 7:01 PM


Re: rough ponderings
The big problem with multiple alleles, again, is that they get scattered in a population. If there is an enormous number of them for one gene, selecting a fur color for survival, for instance, is going to eliminate a whole lot of other colors, and if they die,

What we are talking about here is 4 or more. Not necessarily an enormous number. Further, listing disadvantages is fine. But given that multiple alleles are what is observed, that situation cannot be an argument in favor of some other situation that is not observed.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 7:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 9:17 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 343 of 518 (810701)
05-31-2017 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 9:06 PM


Re: rough ponderings
NN writes:

Faith writes:

The big problem with multiple alleles, again, is that they get scattered in a population. If there is an enormous number of them for one gene, selecting a fur color for survival, for instance, is going to eliminate a whole lot of other colors, and if they die,

What we are talking about here is 4 or more. Not necessarily an enormous number.

But such enormous numbers have been claimed. But the same problem exists for the lesser number too, just not as dramatically.

Further, listing disadvantages is fine. But given that multiple alleles are what is observed, that situation cannot be an argument in favor of some other situation that is not observed.

Surely there are plenty of two-allele genes? Isn't the brown-eye-blue-eye Bb gene an example of that? What about skin color? If there are extra alleles for these they haven't been pointed out yet, but both those examples function beautifully with only two alleles per gene with many genes instead of many alleles; and as I said the immune system would do a lot better for the species as a whole if that was its pattern too, especially with codominance.

Something that is observed CAN be abnormal you know, and that's what I think all these extra alleles are.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 9:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 9:57 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 344 of 518 (810704)
05-31-2017 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
05-31-2017 9:17 PM


Re: rough ponderings
But such enormous numbers have been claimed. But the same problem exists for the lesser number too, just not as dramatically.

Not just claimed. Demonstrated. But only five or more are needed to trash your idea.

Surely there are plenty of two-allele genes? Isn't the brown-eye-blue-eye Bb gene an example of that? What about skin color?

It does not matter how many two allele genes there are. Perhaps most genes have only two alleles. Just a few with five or more alleles (or three or more) ought to be enough to make you rethink.

You cited a notion of having a predator destroying scattered alleles as a disadvantage. But having populations spread across different ecological niches each exploiting different alleles is an advantage for the same mechanism.

But mainly, the point you are trying to overcome is the fact that multiple allele genes are actually observed in nature. Not just two and sometime more than four.

As for eye color and skin color, I would not pretend to be in position to sort those things out. Multiple genes, possibly they involve no more than a couple of alleles each. But where two alleles only exist, that only means that it is possible that the two alleles were present in the first humans. It may very well be that one or the other alleles is a mutant version of an original allele.

Something that is observed CAN be abnormal you know, and that's what I think all these extra alleles are.

You've already acknowledged that too many alleles for a gene (more than two or four) that are functional, distinct, and beneficial is inconsistent with your hypothesis. Whether or not such a thing is normal or abnormal isn't the issue.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 9:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 1:00 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 1:10 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 345 of 518 (810712)
06-01-2017 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 9:57 PM


Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
NN writes:

Faith writes:

But such enormous numbers have been claimed. But the same problem exists for the lesser number too, just not as dramatically.

Not just claimed. Demonstrated. But only five or more are needed to trash your idea.

How can their mere existence trash the idea that multiple alleles are detrimental?

NN writes:

Faith writes:

Surely there are plenty of two-allele genes? Isn't the brown-eye-blue-eye Bb gene an example of that? What about skin color?

It does not matter how many two allele genes there are. Perhaps most genes have only two alleles. Just a few with five or more alleles (or three or more) ought to be enough to make you rethink.

I'm WAY past that point. I've done all the rethinking and came to the conclusion that they are not normal, often superfluous, often redundant, and that by being scattered among the population work against the wellbeing of the species.

NN writes:

You cited a notion of having a predator destroying scattered alleles as a disadvantage. But having populations spread across different ecological niches each exploiting different alleles is an advantage for the same mechanism.

This is far more efficiently accomplished with the two-allele gene/ multiple gene system. There's plenty of variability to be exploited in that system.

But mainly, the point you are trying to overcome is the fact that multiple allele genes are actually observed in nature. Not just two and sometime more than four.

Believe it or not I am not "trying to overcome" this idea, I've been quite willing to adapt to it if necessary, but thinking about its ramifications led me to see its disadvantages and drove me back to my earlier thoughts about the two-allele gene, this time accepting that there are SOME functioning mutant alleles while recognizing that the whole system is flawed especially in relation to immune system protections, but as you pointed out, even rabbit fur color.

As for eye color and skin color, I would not pretend to be in position to sort those things out. Multiple genes, possibly they involve no more than a couple of alleles each. But where two alleles only exist, that only means that it is possible that the two alleles were present in the first humans. It may very well be that one or the other alleles is a mutant version of an original allele.

By now that is certainly possible, even both would be mutant in many individuals. The originals probably exist somewhere in the population nevertheless. It could be very rare by now for most genes that started out two-alleled to have that same original form, most now having extra mutant alleles, some neutral, superfluous, redundant, some deleterious etc. To my mind this speaks of the original flexibility of the created system that even the inevitable destructiveness of mutations isn't always immediately destructive, but because having multiple alleles does scatter the effects in a population it is overall destructive anyway. This would fit with the overall degeneration of life since the Fall.

I DID try, however, to see the extra alleles in a positive light, entertained that idea for quite a while, thinking there must be some kind of normal/healthy mutation that has since degenerated or something like that. But then (thanks to a few pages by Gary Parker in the book "What Is Creation Science") I arrived at the two-allele gene for Adam and Eve and that's what I keep coming back to on this thread.

Percy's chart made one of those undecipherable technical papers more accessible and brought me back to the topic, for which I am grateful.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 9:57 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 10:01 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021