Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

This got left out of the last post: 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.

No it is not overthrown.1) In some circumstances it is a good thing. Both for the immune system and for rabbit fur. White rabbits fur is only good in some situaitons, in others it is bad. Just as black moths have an advantage in only some environments.2) The multiple allele is not just a supposition. It is supported by the evidence. What you are doing is arguing that you can envision something better and therefore what we actually see is wrong.Here is another example. A mutation that protects against malaria but is otherwise not beneficial is an allele that you would be completely useless if required to be shared by all humans. It can only provide an advantage if it can be selected for in some environments but not others.

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.

Your statement is inaccurate. I described my reasoning and provided examples. So yes I have said something that shows that multiple alleles are beneficial. If you choose to disagree, that's fine. It would probably have been at least good form to address the arguments that were presented. So you assert without much discussion. And again, the problem is that we have a functioning two, three, and more allele system in existence.

In that message I had misinterpreted this sentence from the book The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and its functions.

quote:

---

There are more than 200 alleles of some human MHC class I and class II genes, each allele being present at a relatively high frequency in the population.

---

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. This is what is observed. The observed alleles are of ancient mutations that have spread and become distributed throughout the population, not of new mutations that just "pop up". Their frequency indicates strong selection.--Percy

What is interesting is that almost all of Faith's objections are actually things that support both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution and also refute both the Young Earth fantasy as well as any Creation or Designer fantasy.Yes, what is seen in reality is haphazard.Yes, what is seen in reality is inefficient.Yes, what is seen in reality is far less than ideal.Yes, what is seen in reality is variety.Yes, what is seen in reality is inconsistent critter to critter.These are all exactly what you would expect if life evolved over long periods where only the most negative characteristics are weeded out; if the process is mutations that are only culled when they are so serious that the critter does not reproduce.

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.2) We have examples of thriving multiple alleles genes. It is pretty difficult to insist in that case that the mechanism is debilitating. 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.3. The multiple alleles with different functions demonstrate exactly what evolution folks have been saying about evolution and you have been denying. 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. Great. Don't care about the rest of your post. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

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.

A number of factors are involved, beneficial mutations potentially, but not the type that creates new information in the genome, but there is allopatric speciation to consider which may have been very rapid for the first few hundred years post-flood before it settled down, almost an explosion of variety I imagine.Post-flood, there would be no more antediluvian world. Logically this represents a major change for all organisms. Pre-flood they would have lived in more gentle, more uniform climates, the bible says there was increased longevity. So the speciation post-flood, the pressure would have been superb immediately after the flood, different populations spreading out with new selection pressures on those animals.As for the misconception that there was, "rapid evolution" after the flood, that is usually a sign people are indolent about the mathematics. If you do the basic mathematics you will see that natural selection, or even call it, "evolution" if you want, does not depend upon a passage of time, it depends upon the amount of generations you can get within a passage of time.So then let us pretend just for an example, humans get off the ark and they have a generation of say 20 years for arguments sake, and birds annually. What does that mean for, "evolution"?Logically it means that if 40 years pass, evolution only has two chances to evolve humans since evolution is all about reproduction, but evolution has had 40 chances to evolve birds.Relativistically, if that's a word, this means that relatively speaking, if 4,500 years have passed since the ark the maths shows that given those figures were correct, this would mean 225 generations would have occured in humans approximately, which means that 4,500 years of time for birds, would actually be 225 years.So birds have had about 90,000 bird years to become birds, which as a belief, is not unreasonable when compared to the belief that lightning zapped slime became bunnies, giraffes, trees, fleas, beas, cheese and hairy knees, in well, whatever number it is they give these days.So really from a logical perspective I only have to ask myself this; what is more reasonable? Is it factual that large boats can float, and that birds become birds? Yes, in fact both claims are provable, so I see no major problem with this.edit; I have written more about this issue here in message one of this thread;
Bot Verification (the numbers I give are only guesses of course, about the generation spans, just approximations, I have no great knowledge of how long it is for each generation of the various species, but basically it's just to show you that we would expect more speciation and diversity for organisms with fast generation spans.)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

We know what you believe Faith.Unfortunately for you reality shows that what you believe is simply nonsense.

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. Diseases may thrive just as well. 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. 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. This is true. 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.

Bare assertion using the epithet, "nonsense". You agree as a group that what creationists believe is nonsense, therefore conclude that it is.Oh how wonderfully clever. that means so very much to us, I am now converted to an evolutionist because some prejudiced bigots say I believe nonsense. I guess that means the belief large boats can float is nonsense, and the believe birds reproduce birds is, "nonsense". But lightning zapped sludge bringing us ATP synthase, DNA code, epigenetics and millions of viable anatomies, I suppose, is, "fact" in Jar's world.

Faith is literally arguing that evolution through mutation and selection would produce too much diversity. Surely long time posters will see some irony in that.

I have no intention or desire to convert you or anyone else Mike as you well know. You are free to continue to believe whatever nonsense you wish. If I ever post that then we can discuss it but until then it just gets tossed into the trashcan with the rest of the nonsense creationists post.