Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 replied

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

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


Message 346 of 518 (810713)
06-01-2017 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 9:57 PM


falling into place
This got left out of the last post:
NN writes:
Faith writes:
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.
It certainly is. "Functional, distinct and beneficial" is overthrown by the recognition that multiple alleles scatter in a population, which is a bad thing for the immune system and even for rabbit fur, even if supposedly beneficial in their immediate function. But let's not forget that a lot of them are redundant, superfluous and even deleterious, as mutations always are. If they were "healthy" or "normal" mutations, which I considered a possibility at one time, they would be inconsistent with my two-allele gene hypothesis, though I would simply incorporate them into my overall theory anyway, but once it is recognized that they are just mutations that overall interfere with the wellbeing of the organism I now have a more complete theory based on the two-allele gene as the original created and normal system of variation.
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 3:12 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 348 of 518 (810723)
06-01-2017 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 3:12 AM


Re: falling into place
Well I copmpletely disagree.
You haven't said anything that shows that multiple alleles are beneficial though you say they are, meaning their scattering effect. I see nothing good about it.
Selected protection in specific locales, of fur color or disease or whatever, is just as possible with the two-allele system and that system is a lot more efficient overall. If none of the original genes had an allele that protects against malaria I suppose the mutant would be beneficial but it seems unlikely it isn't protected by the original alleles, there being some 240 genes in the immune system complex, as Percy reports in Message 242. With that many genes of two alleles each every known disease should be covered, no extra alleles needed.
I also see in that post, in the article quoted, that ALL the genes of the MHC/HLA system are codominant, which I see as a very important check on variability, which is not desirable in the immune system at all and which is the big problem with the scattered variability of mutant alleles.
It's still not clear what the original alleles of the various immune system genes do, though apparently at least half of the genes have known functions, as Percy also reports in that post. That's how we could tell if some of the alleles are neutral mutations that do the same thing as the originals.
I still doubt that the fur color mutant allele does anything really new.
The best protection against diseases would have to be possessed by all human beings equally; having malaria protection scattered throughout the population is too hit or miss, and besides. whatever belongs to the original two-allele system possessed by all people is more available for selection than the mutant since who knows where that's going to pop up?
I expect to be fought on this but for my own purposes I'm quite happy with where this is going as far as a good model for YEC is concerned.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 3:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 4:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 06-01-2017 8:40 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 353 of 518 (810746)
06-01-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Percy
06-01-2017 8:40 AM


Re: falling into place
Percy writes:
This is saying that some genes of the MHC genes have more than 200 alleles. The book also explains that the frequency of occurrence for many alleles in the population is high enough to indicate strong selection, which means they're beneficial. This evidence proves false your ideas of an original two alleles for each gene and of mutations not being beneficial.
I doubt that their frequency indicates strong selection and therefore beneficial effect. Rather all it indicates is that the immune system is highly vulnerable to mutation, and that luckily most of the mutations aren't seriously deleterious. As long as we don't know what the original alleles did we don't know how many of the 200 mutant alleles are neutral, meaning they don't do anything different than the originals. The high frequency is not at all necessarily an indication of strong selection, just persistence and frequent occurrence of nondeleterious mutations.
As I've been recognizing in the last few posts, there can't be any advantage to multiple alleles for a gene because they scatter the protective effects in the population, effects that I would suspect are amply expressed by the original two alleles for one or another of the 240 genes of the immune system. That many genes indicates a powerful original immune system that can only be compromised by additional mutant alleles.
As for "popping up," that doesn't have to imply the mutation is new, just that because the alleles are scattered throughout the population any particular allele would be relatively rare and its location not predictable. UNLESS there is a great deal of redundancy of neutral mutations. In which case it's all just a big detraction from the most probable situation of a healthy original 240 genes with two alleles each.
Evolution decrees that the high frequency means strong selection based on beneficial function. I continue to believe this is illusory and that it's really an overall destructive pattern in the immune system brought about by mutations, which as always are destructive mistakes even when they don't immediately cause disease. The fact that there are thousands of known genetic diseases in human beings is evidence that something is seriously misunderstood about the nature of mutations.
I don't expect anyone here to agree with any of this, the evolutionary bias is too strong, so there may be no point in my continuing on this thread. I'll see when I get to the remaining unanswered posts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 06-01-2017 8:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 7:58 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 354 of 518 (810750)
06-01-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by jar
06-01-2017 8:54 AM


Re: falling into place
Yes, it is interesting that evolution allows for all that sloppiness so that it can't be easily used as evidence against it. Probability alone suggests such inefficiency couldn't produce a single living cell let alone the complex living systems that exist, but aficionados will not be persuaded against their dear theory.
As a YEC I believe that the original created Kinds were beautifully designed and highly functional, that the DNA worked perfectly in every creature, and that mutations are just one manifestation of the disease and death brought into the world by the Fall. I wonder how much more extinction and death it might take for the establishment to stop to consider maybe they are calling a disease process normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 8:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 11:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 387 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 8:11 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 357 of 518 (810758)
06-01-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 10:01 AM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
1) I have explained how multiple alleles can be positive. They allow folks to take advantage of environmental niches where a particular allele gives the advantageous phenotype even if that allele provides some disadvantages.
And I have answered that the hit or miss effect of the scattering of the mutant alleles throughout a population actually works against any such specific adaptation, whereas the intact two-allele gene system provides all the necessary variability and provides it in a predictable reliable way. The multiple alleles do nothing good for a species.
2) We have examples of thriving multiple alleles genes.
Diseases may thrive just as well.
It is pretty difficult to insist in that case that the mechanism is debilitating.
I don't find it at all difficult myself, but I can see how it's an uphill battle to get an entrenched evo to see it. It seems clear to me that the insistence on its normality and health is based only on belief in the ToE, even acceptance of the incredible sloppiness of the system due to mistake after mistake after mistake.
In trying to argue that something else is more efficient and therefore the multiple allele scheme cannot exist. You are literally trying to discredit what is actually observed to be helpful.
It obviously exists for pete's sake, I haven't said it doesn't or can't, but yes I am trying to discredit what I see as a gigantic illusion that imputes helpfulness and normality to something that will eventually have to show itself to be inevitably destructive. The signs are already amply present but as long as the ToE provides a rationalization for their misinterpretation it's going to be a while before the reality is recognized.
3. The multiple alleles with different functions demonstrate exactly what evolution folks have been saying about evolution and you have been denying.
This is true.
Have you forgotten why we started the listing of multiple alleles genes in the first place? Now that the examples have been presented, you elected to moving the goal posts to somewhere that nobody other than you cares about.
First, those examples aren't quite as clear as you are claiming, they are in fact a pretty motley collection of hits and misses. But overall your point is correct enough. This thread has led me to change my views a few times based on what has come up, and I'm now both back at my original position and more educated about what that position is. When I saw, only a few posts ago, that multiple alleles means scattered effects, that clinched it for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 10:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 12:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 388 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 8:26 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 362 of 518 (810767)
06-01-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 12:25 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
Except when they do. To the extent diversity is a good "dna-survival" strategy, multiple alleles accomplishes just that.
What led me to the two-allele gene was the recognition that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity that exists and then some. That makes multiple alleles at least unnecessary.
It is not perfect, but it works well enough that we can observe multiple alleles in the human population and in others.
And if this is the illusion I think it is, based on the fact that it so far manages not to be overtly and immediately destructive, and that its displacement of an original better system is hidden by these facts, even though it actually allows more diseases than it protects against, you can go along being deceived by it for quite some time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 12:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 1:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 422 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 11:48 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 366 of 518 (810781)
06-01-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
Quite obviously two-alleles provides less diversity than is possible with three alleles, and in some cases we know we have more. Your "sufficiency" is a sham.
I'm talking about a system of many genes with two alleles. The MHC system has 240 genes, eye color and skin color have half a dozen or more genes. The combinations possible are enormous, creating great diversity. Just two genes for the range of skin color produces all the skin colors we see from black to white, the other genes probably give intermediate shades.
An extra allele in most cases, based on what we know about mutations, is either going to produce the same protein as the original or it's going to do something destructive. If it does do something different it will nevertheless be something that is done by some gene in the system; there is no need for anything new, and the likelihood of getting something truly new and functional is about zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 1:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 3:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 391 by Percy, posted 06-02-2017 8:46 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 378 of 518 (810807)
06-01-2017 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 3:03 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
It does not make any sense to have BOTH systems. For one thing the original can no longer function well if at all because of the miserable mess of extra alleles that replace the originals in a great many individuals. The one system would be completely adequate if not garbled by mutations, and the other system has negative effects in the scattering of protections and traits. And the redundancy of many of the sequences is just the usual indication that we're talking about mistakes, not a normal process.
The problem with your argument is that the multiple allele portions of reality are incompatible with an Adam and Eve scenario and in some cases even the post-Noah scenario unless beneficial mutations are allowed.
It wouldn't be hard to argue that the genome started out with two alleles per gene and then acquired the extra alleles, but as this discussion has progressed I've become convinced that the extra alleles are ALL interfering mutations even where they appear to do something beneficial. I'm sure those positive effects are adequately covered in what I now believe to be the original system, and as mutant alleles are just redundant. Sorry to be so inconsistent. When I get new information or see things from a new angle I do change my mind, and usually not in a pro-evolution direction.
Now that you have conceded that point, you have weakened one of your arguments against evolution. Namely that there are no such things as beneficial mutations.
Well, I have taken back that concession. In fact I've taken it back at least twice in this thread. I've concluded that the two-allele gene is a perfect design for variation under all circumstances. It is a very satisfying conclusion because it shows simplicity and elegance and efficiency in the DNA system which is what I would expect of God's design. I certainly went through phases of considering the multiple alleles as genuine and pondering how to make use of the idea, but in the end they appear to be the usual hit or miss sloppy mistake-ridden system the ToE accepts as how life evolves, with unnecessary repetitions, random scattered beneficial functions, gaps in immune protection and enough big gaps in all other traits to make selection highly problematic.
So I now see the suppsed beneficial mutations as the usual illusion that is so prevalent in the ToE.
So you are wrong. Adding alleles to the multiple gene situation increases diversity.
It actually destroys it. In fact there is only one case so far "proved" of increased diversity and that is the rabbit fur color change, but I suspect that further research will show that's the usual case of either a repeat of an original allele for one of the many genes that govern fur color, or a fluke sequence that does code for a functional protein.
Meanwhile the original system IS destroyed by all these extra alleles since they displace the originals. If some of them manage to simply repeat the original at least that isn't doing direct harm, but it IS scattering the effects in the population which is not a good thing. The original immune system would give equal protection to all possessors for all diseases, especially with its codominance which gives equal expression to all its alleles, making particular protections available wherever they are needed instead of all over the map where they may or may not be needed. Obviously the original system as I'm now seeing it is far and away superior to the multiple alleles, and again, no there is no way both systems can peacefully coexist.
Even if there were an exact duplication of a multi-gene phenotype, and generally there is not, there become multiple pathways to reach advantageous phenotypes.
What you are failing to grasp is that the original system has all the pathways needed for whatever phenotype is needed, and it has them in far more reliable form rather than scattered where there is no certainty they will be available when needed. EVERY individual possesses EVERY protection in the immune system in the original. They are not scattered among individuals, they are available to all when needed.
And that two counts as diversity and more rigor. And of course. in at least some cases, new advantages are realized.
This is utterly false. All the diversity is present and more available in the system I'm now considering original. Rigor is compromised by mutation, it can't be a product of it. There are no new advantages in the system that shotguns its effects through the population.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 3:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 8:49 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 380 of 518 (810820)
06-01-2017 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by NoNukes
06-01-2017 8:49 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
OK I'll say it again. 1) The systems are in conflict, the multiple alleles interfere with the original system. And 2) It does not add diversity if all the "new" sequences are just repetitions of existing sequences, which on top of that interfere with those existing sequences and scatter their effects. I'm glad the situation isn't yet as bad as it could be, but it will get there as long as the reality that these extra alleles are just a disease process is ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 8:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 10:57 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024