Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds" (and/or decreasing genetic diversity)

Hi Faith,No worries - I saw you were suspended or having some issues with your account, just didn't want this to get lost again. (If you simply don't want to discuss, let me know, I don't want to badger you.)I'm most interested in a response to the second half of message #14.Thanks.

I see that since there are many alleles in a total population, that this is hard to explain in terms of the ancentral kind pair, at least on my Mendelian system. Some kind of "mutation" which I tend to think of as nonrandom if it's beneficial, must be involved.As for the second point I *know* that genetic diversity is reduced by the normal processes of evolution, the selection processes, splitting of populations and so on, on the basic Mendelian system, and in fact this is recognized as a problem in some conservation programs. They simply take the view that reduction in diversity has outstripped useful mutations, which of course in the usual frame of reference takes thousands of years at the very least, maybe millions. So I'm not conceding on this one but I do have questions about what mutation really is, and the way it is usually discussed here I may never get ansswers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

These statements seem to contradict each other, but I think I understand your point now: You accept that genetic diversity is increasing, but you do not accept that "unguided" or "unprogrammed" mutation has anything to do with it.Is that accurate?Your answer didn't really get to the gist of my second, and main, question asked of you earlier, in the framework of your speculations on hyperevolution from hyperpolyploid ancestors via reproductive isolation and selection:Why is that sort of hyperevolution compatible with your belief system (faith), but not simple mutation and selection that all scientific evidence points to?Do your beliefs lead you to believe that God would use/permit one, but not the other? Why, specifically?Thanks.

I start from the FACT that there were TWO original human beings, plus the FACTS of the Fall (changes of some kind in the created order) and the Flood (severe bottleneck). Everything I say is an attempt to explain what must have happened between then and what we observe now.Scientists aren't trying to explain this because they don't believe it. Only creationists are, and in this case a creationist who has very little scientific knowledge. I'm sure with your knowledge you could do a better job of it than I, but you aren't motivated in that direction. What else is there to say?

Technically speaking those are hypotheses. You are hypothesizing that if the stories in Genesis could be substantiated as fact then such and such would be case. As it is they are just one of thousands of unsubstantiated stories in the ancient written and oral accounts of the world.Your arguments are hypothetical because you've no evidence. All you have is a story, one of many, about the origins of mankind and the world.It's a fact that the Bible contains these stories. But that is not the basis for establishing fact in science, history, or even ordinary discourse. It's only fact in a special use of the word by some religious groups to indicate things that for religious reasons they believe to be fact but that otherwise aren't facts. I mean if they were facts you wouldn't have to be a belieiver to believe they were facts they would stand on their own, which the creation stories don't.lfen

They are facts and they do stand on their own. They are not hypotheses, they are the starting facts from which young earth creationists think about science. Your disagreeing that these are facts can only muddle up the actual situation here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : word changes for clarification

I can accept them as hypotheses. I can not accept them as facts until there is demonstrated evidence to support the assertion. They are the starting hypotheses that YEC attempts to form a theory from that will be consistent with the observations of physics, geology, astronomy etc.Has someone found the bones of Adam and Eve? A tomb? Garden of Eden? No. Adam and Eve are no more factual than Romeo and Juliet.lfen

Believe what you want. The point is simple. YECs regard them as facts whether you do or not. And if you don't grasp this you can't grasp what it is we are trying to do with the scientific questions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Science often works with hypotheticals to develop theories. I think I can understand what you are trying to do with the science theory. You are trying to develop a theory consistent with observed "laws" and current known state of the world that gets you from an initial state postulated in Genesis to our current world.I see no problem with that.lfen

I wasn't really up to trying to answer your questions before, but here's a stab at it now. Actually I don't accept that genetic diversity is increasing. Overall it has to be decreasing. "Overall" means over hundreds of years perhaps, and there may be temporary increases here and there, since recombinations at least create apparent if not real increases, and most particularly mutations if beneficial mutations really exist. But overall the trend of evolution is to speciation and extinction, reduction not increase in diversity. What you are calling "hyperevolution" to me would be just the playing out of normal genetics from generation to generation, especially if it all started out with polyploidy. The overall affect of this process would be reduced genetic diversity, not increase. The ONLY thing that really allows for increase is mutation in the end, and I'm not convinced it could account for anything near what evolution demands.I keep using the present example of the enormously variable dog populations because clearly it doesn't take a long time to get striking new breeds of dogs. I don't see the need for mutation in this process, and all the less need if it all starts out with hyperpolyploid ancestors. It has nothing to do with what God would be for or against. I'm simply trying to account for the Biblical picture, first, of a Fall which brought death into the world and must somehow or other have affected the genetic inheritance of all the original living things; and second, the Flood which cut all living things including human beings down to a very tight bottleneck, from which nevertheless all now-living things have "evolved." If there are many alleles in living populations today there had to be that possibility somehow inherent in the few individuals saved on the ark. Mutation appears to be needed by evolution. I don't see how it's useful for what I'm trying to understand about the Biblical picture, that's all. But if mutation turns out to be some kind of predictable chemical thing it could very well be useful for explaining all this.

What biological EVIDENCE leads you to this 'FACT'. If you are using the bible, then you are using an "assumption" rather than a fact.You see, in science, you look at the evidence first, and then come to an conclusion. It seems you start with a conclusion, and then try to fit the evidence to the conclusion. Science does not work that way.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. "Overall, it 'has to be' decreasing." No, it doesn't. That is an assertion on your part unsupported by actual evidence. Increased genetic diversity has been OBSERVED in laboratory situations. We can create genetic variants (yes, by mutation, contrary to what you think about mutation) in the lab and scientists have observed them occuring in nature. There you go again, Faith, throwing around scientific terms that you have no idea what their meaning is. Polyploidy refers to multiple sets of chromosomes. It does not occur in animals, at least not in "advanced" animals. A polyploid mammal is a dead mammal. It does occur in plants, in fact it is thought to be important in plant evolution. But plants do not "start out" polyploid. Polyploidy can occur when different species of plants hybridize and/or when chromosome doubling occurs.

"Genetic variants" are no problem for a YEC. Microevolution, remember. That's all you ever get in the lab or anywhere. Microevolution. I hate the term but it is necessitated by the Prevailing Paradigm.As for polyploidy, from a YEC point of view what is the case now is simply no reliable clue to what once existed.

Science wouldn't be so stupid as to ignore an actual fact if they thought they had one to work from.

Just because eomeone accepts something as a 'fact' doesn't mean it is.The Moonies accept the fact that Sun Yen Moon is the second coming of Christ.The Bahiahs accept teh fact that the Baps is the second coming of Christ.The Mormons accept the fact that Mormoni gave Joseph Smith a crown to translate some Golden Tablets.and YEC accept the fact that Adam and Eve existed.