Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

There is no excuse whatever for your straw man versions of my argument, and Dr. A's are even worse. NN does the same, but then he does it on every subject imaginable.The Wikipedia article concerned ONLY disease processes, why is that? You'd think such an article would make an attempt to be inclusive of all the forms but no it only mentions three diseases. ONE mention of a normal variant in the fur color illustrated by the mice in the picture.My reaction was quite honest to that article.Defining a disease allele as an allele is what is dishonest even if every geneticist does it. All it proves is that the ToE has a stranglehold on you all.Here is a link to a couple of pages discussion the ABNORMALITIES connected with Runx-2. You asked, I'm answering:
Runx2 Targeted Allele Detail MGI Mouse (MGI:3043791)
Perhaps you can show that other versions do not produce abnormalities? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That would be an increase in genetic diversity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THe point, which you have clearly managed to overlook or intentionally garble, is that the adjectives are not used, while the word "allele" is used alone to designate every sequence found at a gene locus no matter what its origin.

Perfect misrepresentation of my argument.

I don't get the point of your example. I also don't doubt that mutations can make all kinds of changes, why not? They're just mistakes that seem to occur more or less willy-nilly, with some apparent preference for certain locations for some reason. But why would I doubt that sequences could not be changed by a single base or any other chunk?

Yes Dr A has been egregiously misinterpreting my argument and that's a case of it.I made ONE error in my answer to something about genotypes that I backed down on. ONE. You have a habit of misinterpreting me in the most ridiculous ways it's tiresome having to keep correcting you. Except for the one about genotype, there are no contradictions in your quotes of me, it's all in your own head. I've explained my argument and all its parts so many times if you don't get it by now, there is no hope you'll ever get it. Or Dr. A or HBD or any of the rest who keep getting it wrong.If it's that hard to understand what I think of as a very simple argument -- rather counterintuitive but simple -- I don't see any point in trying to correct it any more. I've repeated the argument dozens of times, maybe even hundreds by now. There must be some terminological problem I'm not recognizing, in which case I can't do anything about it until that is revealed, or it's just the usual blinded evos who won't stop to figure anything out if it goes against evolution. Perhaps both.

If it's called "Runx-2" why should it matter whether it's in mice or dogs? Shouldn't one expect it to do similar things?Isn't one of your examples of it the changing craniofacial forms of dogs? You present it as normal but that gene is presented as creating abnormal craniofacial structures in mice. Why should those be abnormal but the dogs' be normal?Isn't one of your examples from the head of a bulldog? Are you aware that the face of that dog, as well as its general body build, are detrimental to the animal?Here's a 2014 Scientific American article on problems with purebred dogs. It doesn't mention the Runx-2 gene but since bulldogs seem to be afflicted with the same abnormalities attributed to it in the article about mice, perhaps there's a connection. Breathing problems, mating problems, birth problems. Are these products of your normal Runx-2 gene? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have as much of a problem defining disease as you do. I can even say that human beings are weird enough to like some products of disease, as food, or pets for instance. That doesn't make them undiseased, it just means human beings are a weird lot. Ya know, it's just ToE definitions that you're talking about when you say it's hard to make a distinction between normality or health and abnormality or unhealth.Did you just say that since bulldogs are selected for their unhealthy traits that makes it hard to call them unhealthy? After all it facilitates their survival through their reproductive advantage through human intervention. Ai yi yi HBD. That's because the ToE defines selection as the road to evolution, defines survival/reproductive success as the fruit of selection. Parasites that harm the health of many animals and human beings are of course highly selected, highly reproductively successful, but I'm not going to call them good no matter what Evo Madness says about them. By definition nothing that is selected can be unhealthy or abnormal. But the ToE is basically a crackpot worldview, it shouldn't be allowed to dictate such things but it's that sort of irrationality we creationists are up against.I was hoping it was the runx-2 gene that was responsible for the bulldog's unhealthy condition, meaning a mutation thereof, but apparently it was simple human selection.I've forgotten your original question. Didn't you say the Runx-2 is a mutation? Isn't that what I was supposed to be answering? So the mouse experiment was doing a mutation to a mutation?I'm coming to the conclusion that even where a mutation produces something at least superficially beneficial, all that's happened is that it's a mutation to a particular locus that makes a product that it would be hard to corrupt. Such as fur color. What could it do but change the color? Or kill the allele I guess, which is one common thing mutations seem to do. "Benign" mutations that don't change what the gene codes for seem to me to be benign because the allele under attack is flexible enough to resist change to the product. It's hard to imagine a deleterious form of a fur color gene in other words, one that produces a disease of fur color. Do you know of any?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never said a thing about the rightness or wrongness of what breeders do, at least not as part of my argument about the processes involved. These I claim are the same processes that occur in the wild because the source of selection doesn't matter in regard to the processes involved.Yes of course the sequence is what the allele DOES. I'm assuming Runx-2 is identified by its sequence. There are some variations in sequence that don't appear to change what it codes for of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The testiness, the irritability, the anger, even the hate, are getting to me. I need to take a LOOOOONG break from this atmosphere, but stup-idly just *have to* answer this or that. It's getting to the point that I couldn't care less what you say or anybody says. You make so little effort to make sense of my posts. Does it ever occur to you that you really might be enslaved to a false worldview? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not if it does harm to the animal. I don't define "beneficial" by human aesthetics. And this has nothing to do with my argument about genetic diversity. Genetic diversity. Meaning the sum of the genetic possibilities available in the population for creating new varieties of phenotypes (which you think of as mutations and I think of as Created for the purpose of variation of the Kind). [qs] Prior to the mutation in Runx-2, you had several populations of dogs that shared similar alleles. Let's call that allele "A". Along came this new mutation and produce allele B. In the isolated bulldog population, this mutation was selected for and replaced the A allele.Before
not bulldogs= allele A
bulldogs= allele A Genetic diversity, not complexity.And I answered you that it is an increase in genetic diversity. To try to be clearer then, the point is that it is the sequence that DETERMINES what the gene does. Yes? The protein it codes for and the phenotypic expression of that coding. Something is very unclear here too. I don't say mutations "can't produce changes in the phenotype," I just don't think they have much to do with that process in the normal run of things,When I'm talking about the production of phenotypes I'm talking specifically about how that process reduces genetic diversity. I'm not focused on how the pool of genetic diversity originated from which the new population developed, but when mutations get into the picture I do acknowledge that of course they WOULD contribute to that diversity if they really do what you all say they do. I have acknowledged that much as a hypothetical situation I don't know how many times.THEN I go on to my point which is how the isolated new population with its new gene frequencies (which may or may not include mutations although you would claim they are all mutations, but it doesn't matter for the sake of the argument at this point what they are -- they are whatever makes up the gene pool which is composed of a new set of gene frequencies in relation to the parent population -- at this point in the argument I don't consider it important whether they are mutations or not, because the point I'm trying to make is that this new gene pool brings out new phenotypes that didn't exist in the parent population, and they are brought out due to the recombination of the new set of gene frequencies.This would happen whether those new gene frequencies were mutations or built in. I have TRIED to say this a million times. I try to allow mutations for the sake of argument just to get the point across that it makes no difference to my argument what they are, but since I believe mutations really don't contribute anything beneficial to the organism I have to bring in the other alternative at the same time.I'm focused on the reduction of genetic diversity through the mere reduction in numbers of individuals that founded the new population, which works best in reproductive isolation. I'm claiming that recombination of existing alleles alone produces the new phenotypes, you don't need mutations and for the most part depending on when they occur they interfere with the formation of the new species or breed anyway.And yes I know a breed is not a species, but insofar as it is a new population with a different phenotypic presentation from other populations, and was formed by isolation of a smallish number of individuals from those other populations, it demonstrates the same process.I don't CARE if Runx-2 is one of the few mutations that doesn't do anything overtly deleterious.I'm actually trying to stop arguing about this because after saying it over and over for years nobody gets it anyway. Believe what you want, evolution is a lie but I'm tired of the whole debate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Aren't you supposed to be a genius? You are certainly obtuse for a genius. The mutations don't count because they would only function as normal alleles anyway, which I'm arguing have to be reduced in the formation of a new species or breed. It's the reduction of the genetic material, whether that material is made up of mutations or built-in alleles, that is the point. Mutations can not change the fact that to get a new species REQUIRES reduction of genetic diversity. You have to LOSE them to get a new species or breed, you HAVE to, Adding anything at this point is redundant or destructive.But I know I'm talking to a box of rocks. This has been explained at least a hundred times and you continue to have your obtuse silly straw man you made up yourself without ever getting for half a second what I'm talking about. Then you have the gall to call me names. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My conversion from "Christian" to atheist occurred at age 15 under the tutelage of atheist friends and a charmingly funny and brilliant atheist propagandist math teacher. Something over thirty years later I learned that Christianity is a lot more than what I barely absorbed in church as a child anyway. So did I. School taught me no religion, and the religion I got in church didn't include any knowledge of salvation and didn't stick for long when I encountered atheists. I don't remember being told anything about hell or about evolution in church, it seemed to be the atheists who cared about all that. Of course if there are areas of reality that aren't subject to scientific testing because they have nothing to do with the physical world but another realm of reality altogether, and you've arbitrarily rejected them for simply being a different kind of reality, that's pretty irrational of you isn't it? That's not a problem if science has gone off the rails, and it went way off with Hutton and Lyell and Darwin for starters. I have to throw away everything that has to do with presumptuously declaring as fact mere hypotheses about what in true fact cannot be observed or tested, events in the remote past, and unfortunately there's a lot of that irrational nonsense in those sciences. But despite that there's also objective reality in all of them that I consider to be true science. Remove the evolutionary hypothesis from all of them and they'd be a lot better able to do their work as sciences. I inhabit an entirely different paradigm than the one that corrupts the minds that write those papers, so that whatever is true in them is always being subsumed under a Big Fat Lie that skews it all beyond any real scientific usefulness. The science in them would stand without the lie, but that would require some intricate epistemological surgery.Anyway, there's no excuse in any of that for the attitude creationists have to put up with here. I've often given as good as I get but I've been knocking myself out to avoid metaphorically punching you all in the teeth for weeks now. God loves you all so I have to learn how to no matter what you throw at me, even when it's really too much to take.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : correct spelling

You are seriously delusional if you think you understand anything of what I've been arguing.

You are seriously delusional if you think your little formula is any kind of answer to what I've been arguing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.