The origin of new alleles

I'm new to this forum but for the last couple of weeks I've taken a slight interest in the evolution vs. creation debate. I don't know if this topic has already been covered extensively on here before, but I searched and found nothing. Although I do not know very much about evolution/creation, something recently occurred to me and if I'm correct and not being naive, then surely it would be a huge blow to the young Earth view. People who believe in a global flood 4500 years ago contend that the "kinds" aboard the Ark genetically diversified very rapidly following the flood, but that the mechanism of this diversfication was not mutation but other genetic mechanisms like recombination, crossing over, chromsome translocations, etc. From my understanding, during these processes alleles are shuffled around and swapped among chromsomes, but no "new" alleles are created during these processes. We all know that each individual has two alleles per gene locus in their genome; one from mom and one from dad. If a genetic bottleneck actually occurred some 4500 years ago, this would reduce the number of possible alleles to 4 per locus for each "kind" since there were only two representatives of each kind aboard the Ark. Today, obviously there are much more than just four alleles per locus in the gene of pool of any given "kind" . For example, among the human "kind", 240 different alleles have been identified for for the HLA-B locus. Where did these new alleles come from if not from mutations? If young Earthers deny the ability of mutations to create new alleles, they must present some alternative mechanism by which new alleles can be generated, or accept the ability of mutations to do so. If they accept mutations, then they must admit that mutations can in fact createnew "information" (because as far I can see, a new allele would be new "information"). And if they go so far as the admit this, then what is to stop evolution from changing one kind into another?Edited by tyler121515, : typoEdited by tyler121515, : Grammar

Hi tyler,This isn't a bad first post at all. However I'm not sure where to put it.It can go in biological evolution if you want to discuss science or Bible accuracy if you want it from a Biblical prespective.I'll also warn you that if you expect reasonable answers from believers in Noah's ark you won't get any if you get any response at all.

My guess would be to put it in biological evolution since we are discussing the actual genetic mechanisms of evolution.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I believe that some that believe in the Great Flood may also believe that mutations and therefore 'new information' can be added. Call it microevolution. So I guess new alleles are fine, its just the big changes as a result of multiple genes having evolved that many have trouble believing. These are not my beliefs, I'm jsut paraphrasing from what I've heard.Nonetheless, you are correct that the genetic diversity that exists in terms of the number of alleles (and recently I heard the number of copies of genes that humans have) doesn't make much sense after only 4500 years of evolution.

Yeah, this is one of my favorite points as well. One problem with trying to make it to a creationist is that there are so many different types of creationists. When mentioning allelic diversity in my experience you'll find one of the following responses:a) a confused creationist that uses both "no beneficial mutations" arguments alongside "no new information" rhetoric and generally hops back and forth between the two arguments. This is a merry-go-round without end. They will concede your point, then retract their concession, then fake left while whistling amazing grace. This is the usual response. They arent sure what to admit to so they try and run out the clock.b) a creationist that will just throw up their hands and say, "sorry, dont understand alleles, lets talk about all the missing comets" (or whatever).c) Ive read a few places where creationists are trying to use a process called homolgous recombination as some kind of way around the allele problem. Rather than allow the alleles came about from mutation they try and suggest that the new alleles are being constructed by the system itself and are thus guided. This is not your standard reponse though as these writers will usually lament the average creationists inability to see the seriousness of the allele problem for them. No evidence for this guiding but, hey, at least its an admission of a potential problem for them.

What are the staistically probabilities of a workable, novel allele from such recombination?Furthermore, how do they get around the problem of asexual organisms and their allele variations from the flood bottleneck? No genetic recombination in what amounts to clones, therefore they need another mechanism for variation.

I dont know the details of the process yet. Apparently this process can work to create new alleles but from what I can tell its just another mechanism like a copying error. There is no evidence of it being guided that I know of. So far, I see it as a Hail Mary pass by those creationists who see the allele problem. They are suggesting that alleles are being created but that its non-random and being directed by the cell itself (under god's supervision). It looks like theistic evolution to me but I dont think they would admit that.Also, there are the AIG creationists (those who actually read on the site) who accept new alleles but just consider them "microevolution" or use similar rhetoric. AIG does now accept beneficial mutations in general and have "dont say there are no beneficial mutations" in their "arguments creationists shouldnt use" article. So the real value of the allele argument is against those who claim there are no beneficial mutations. Its an easy point (though they likely will run rather than concede anything. lol). For those who accept beneficial mutations, they will just retreat to the vague "no new information" rhetoric or call it microevolution.Thats an excellent point about the asexual reproduction though. Ill check that out once I understand H-R better. Sounds like a silver bullet.Edited by but..what..of...lazarus?, : No reason given.

So they redefine copy error mutation as not mutation?The other argument I have seen with this is that extra copies of DNA segments are "stored" DNA for future use to be brought out when needed, even if they have to be combined with segments from other "stored" DNA to make the necessary new genes.Hall's experiments with e-coli and the lactose evolved IC mechanisms for example. Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experimentsThere is a mechanism for horizontal gene transfer between single cell.Welcome to the fray but..what..of...lazarus?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : single cell added

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Indeed. This argument generally revolves around the non-coding regions, tandem repeats, etc. It often takes one of three forms: a) the non-coding regions are "storage" for DNA material that will be incorporated into exons when "needed" (this is the teleological IDist formulation); b) it represents the remainder of the universal genomes present in the various "kinds" before the Flud, and hence are the bits that weren't used up in the hypermicroadaptations experienced within "kinds" subsequent to that event (and also represents the bits that are available for shuffling about when any new adaptation or species is identified, thus bolstering the "no new information" argument); or c) it represents an "echo" of the perfect all-encompassing genome present in the original organisms of the GoE before the Fall, and thus is evidence of the long-term degradation of all life after the apple incident.

I think there is a difference between functioning allele variants and raw copies, pseudo-genes and broken genes. Allelic variants arent just raw materials, they actually do something that wasnt being done in that way previously.I suppose if they claim that alleles are being manufactured via the will of the creator from pseudo-genes and other odds and ends there isnt much to say... I think this is where YECS and IDers would part company though, depending on the YEC.

That would have to be some kind of super-duper-polyploid person, with a repression mechanism to repress all the unwanted genes (to be transcribed in the future), a magical repair system to make sure none of those genes get degraded by random mutations, a recombination mechanism that replaces the new gene with its homologue (old gene) while completely degrading the latter, a mechanism to completely vanish all of the proteins specific for the activities above, and do all that in 4500 years. That is insane!BTW: I think homologous recombination is a mechanism by which the cell repairs broken DNA (both strands) by pairing it with its homologue on the other chromosome and 'filling in the blanks' use recombinational methods.

Agreed. Try to explain that to someone that is happy with DNA being like computer code and very little knowledge of genetics.That's where the fun commences. ie god-did-it but left no traces ...see Page Not Found | HHMI BioInteractive
for horizontal gene transfer between bacteriaEnjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:andClick on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"thas the quick course.Edited by RAZD, : horizontal

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From wikipedia
Homologous recombination - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Homologous recombination is the process by which two chromosomes, paired up during prophase 1 of meiosis, exchange some distal portion of their DNA. Crossover occurs when two chromosomes,

---

Can happen with equal lengths and unequal lengths with different results. Did not see material added back though.Perhaps one of the genetic mavens can inform us.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And with only 4 letters in the DNA alphabet it is easy to conceive such combinations only being "old" information being recycled.However alphabet is not language or ideas or information, else one could type out the alphabet and cover all knowledge that ever was or will be.And as such, new features are then made of "old" information and the concept of "information" is useless as any constraint on the ability of evolution to generate new features.Not that they will see it that way.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.