No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

But changing allele frequency alone is not enough to make two sub-species reproductively incompatible. I hope you are going to follow my Genetic and Cellular Mechanisms and Variation thread.HBD

They are trying to get across that the terms "neutral, beneficial and deleterious" refer specifically to the effect a mutation has on the organism's fitness, ie. it's ability to reproduce. It does not refer to any particular change in DNA or protein or phenotype, but only the effect on the organism.However, I would suspect that any mutation that has an effect on phenotype would be either beneficial or deleterious and not neutral. The beneficial or deleterious effect may be so inconsequential so as to call it neutral, but none-the-less I think there would be some effect. But still, neutral doesn't mean that it has no effect on phenotype - it means it has no effect on fitness.Also keep in mind that phenotype doesn't just mean something you can see, it may also be a biochemical process that you have no idea has changed just by observing the organism.The other major point is that you really can't use terms like beneficial, deleterious or neutral without context of the environment. Thus a change can be beneficial in one environment and deleterious in another. It's about the context of fitness, how is the organism's ability to reproduce affected?HBD

As Jon pointed out, Silent mutation may be a better term for what you are describing.But I think what is more confused is that you wouldn't refer to a mutation in an allele unless you were talking about something that changed the function of that allele. Additionally, there are more ways to change function besides changing the protein. What if the mutation was in a promoter region so that the gene produced twice as much gene product, but the protein itself does not change? This could very well be the case in mice having darker fur (I don't know that it is but this is a common situation). Melanin or whatever pigment is in their fur) could be produced at two or three times the rate as in tan mice and produce darker fur. No change in protein - just more of it. Would this be a different allele? Yes, without even changing the protein. More specifically you are asking about mutations to the gene. Yes, most mutations occur in non-coding regions where they are invisible to selection, ie. neutral.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : might not be melanin in the fur - but probably is

Hi, and welcome CreationPigeon First problem is that the Bible says that all living creatures were killed by the flood except those that were on the ark. Now, one could argue what "alive" means.
Gen 6:7 says

quote:

---

I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky;

---

Gen 7:21 - 23 says:

quote:

---

All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

---

So maybe plants, fish and insets are not included in this list, but its hard to justify that "amphibians and small, semi-aquatic animals such as otters and monitor lizards " were not destroyed by the flood.Second problem depends on what kind of flood it was. Some YECs believe that the flood was so catastrophic that it stripped the land bare and laid all that sediment back down in layers miles thick. It is kind of hard to imagine that anything, fish, plants, insects - anything, could survive such a catastrophic event.Now if you imagine a gentle, semi-lethal event, well then it may be possible for some creatures that weren't listed as being killed to survive. However, now we will have trouble explaining geological features in a YEC time frame.HBDNote: use the peek button at the bottom of the frame to see how quote boxes are formatted. For other formatting issues you can click on dBCodesEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I meant to say "some YECs" rather than "So ..." Anyway, it is not an uncommon argument the YECs use, that the flood laid down the strata and deposited the fossil record. I don't think I have heard anyone but you actually say that the material for the geological column came from scouring the land, but it is the only "logical" place it could have come from.So, how could sea creatures have survived a catastrophe of the magnitude you imagine?HBD Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.