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

I think the answer is more simple that that. The argument is that more alleles exist than either the pair of Adam and Eve, or the collection of folks on the ark actually could have possessed.

Where neutral means performing the same functions. Let's pick at that a bit.
We know that the gene for blood type has three alleles and that the result is different types of blood that may form the same gross functions, described in a general way, but which are not compatible and thus cannot when looked at in detail be said to function the same.

Siimilarly, the gene for producing fur color in rabbits has more than two alleles. This article says four.

https://www.khanacademy.org/...ete-dominance-and-codominance.

The result is multiple colors of rabbits, and I would call the difference in fur color functional.

But it seems to me that the only examples that a Creationist cannot easily explain are limited. Dogs come from wolves so showing an increase in alleles for a gene is relevant. The Bible says that there were only two humans, so the possibility of more than two alleles is important. But for all other animals, there is no such limitation.

For now, why isn't the blood type answer a sufficient example?

Okay.

I would add that this particular line of argument required proving much more than was required. We know that there are some mutations that are 1) dominant, so that they could not have been hiding out in the gene pool, and 2) directly traceable to phenotypes so we know that they are not non functional.

For a lot of traits, yes. But for blood type, and the particular rabbit gene in question, no. Human blood type, in particular, is determined by a single gene with three alleles. Period.

The real question for blood type is why three is sufficient. Four would be required.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The ABO gene is a single gene with only three alleles. Perhaps this direct statement will clear up the confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABO_(gene)

quote:

---

he ABO gene resides on chromosome 9 at the band 9q34.2 and contains 7 exons.[4] This gene encodes three alleles: the A allele produces α1,3-N-acetylgalactosamine transferase (GTA); the B allele encodes α1,3-galactosaminyl transferase (GTB); and the O allele lacks both enzymatic activities because of the frameshift caused by a deletion of guanine-258 in the gene which corresponds to a region near the N-terminus of the protein.[7][8] This results in a frameshift mutation and translation of an almost entirely different protein that is unable to modify oligosaccharides which end in fucose linked to galactose.[9] Remarkably, the difference between the A and B glycosyltransferase enzymes is only four amino acids (Arg/Gly-176, Gly/Ser-235, Leu/Met-266, and Gly/Ala-268).[9][8] Other minor alleles have been found for this gene.[4]

---

Edited by NoNukes, : terminology correction.

I provided a reference for this before. Since the reference (khanacademy) was possibly not a persuasive one, I will provide a second one here:

http://www.thenaturetrail.com/...nchilla-sable-himalayan-rew

quote:

---

Although there are five main color genes that determine the color of a rabbit’s fur, the c-series of genes is called the “color gene.” The color gene, which controls where and how much color will be expressed rather than which color will be expressed, is definitely one of the most difficult to understand. The first complication is that there are more variations of this gene than of most color genes. Another complication is that some genes are incompletely dominant over others. But in spite of its complications, genes at the C-locus is one of the most fascinating to work with.

---

So there are multiple genes that affect color, but among those genes, the functionality of the c gene and its affect on how the color is expressed is well known. So you have a point regarding the system for determining fur color, and yet we still have an example to discuss. Namely, a single gene controlling an easily visible phenotypic parameter with multiple alleles at a single location. Five alleles for that particular gene have been identified.

Given that, I don't really care whether or not Faith was serious about accepting the example. Again if I were arguing the other side, I would point out that there are no real limits to how many rabbits were specially created so there is not a hard limit of only four total alleles for a gene as there is for humans. Perhaps for the sake of this argument, human examples are best.

My argument for the ABO gene being a further example is similar. Even if ABO is not the complete picture for blood type, that gene does have a definite and functional expression on human phenotype and accordingly is a legitimate example of a gene with more than two alleles.

From wikipedia.

quote:

---

ABO blood types are also present in some other animals, for example rodents and apes, such as chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas

---

Edited by NoNukes, : fix quote tags

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand that. My question is why we would not allow Adam and Eve to possess four alleles between them.

I understand from wikipedia that there are more, somewhat rare, alleles for ABO type, so that the number in question exceeds even the three. However, I don't have any information regarding functionality.

It was in the reference, but perhaps pulling that out is not a high priority given what we agreed on with respect to animals.

There is also the matter of how kind is defined. It is not the same thing as species. Too much trouble to establish an upper limit for rabbit alleles if we can find human examples.

There is some basis. Eve was formed completely from material taken from Adam.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Would God have had to change the alleles for blood type to accomplish that? What is the advantage of having multiple blood types in a Land of Perfection? In fact, would not something like multiple Rh factors among a closed population just create more problems than having diverse Rh factors would help?

Obviously, some changes were made, but making Eve a non-clone does not require new alleles for every single gene.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What if it were a fluke? Is anyone claiming that the blood type mutations are anything other than random with respect to fitness? In the basic theory of common descent, are mutations described as anything that happens with a purpose?

Yes. Mutations are relatively rare. But the mutations that separate humans from other primates are not even claimed to be all beneficial. Humans are no longer able to fit in the niches that other primates occupy. We are weak, nearly hairless, with limbs poorly suited for climbing. While we do have advantages, some of those advantages, like dexterity, have clearly come as trade-offs between suitability for our hands and feet to perform other tasks.

In short, I don't think your current line of argument places much of an impediment on the theory of evolution.

This turns out to be complete double talk. The four alleles in combinations produced markedly different phenotypes by varying visible elements that are not controlled by other genes. Not redundant, and certainly not superfluous. But even if they were superfluous, they would still exist and require an explanation of how they got there.

I also notice here you've moved the goalposts from different functions to "necessary" functions. Fur color differences are functional, visible, and obvious and controlled by the c-gene alleles. But nice attempt to sweep them under the rug with BS.

Yes. But several things should be made quite clear.

1. There are substantially more than four alleles whose functions are known for at least a few gene locations. That is enough that you ought to be coming up with a new argument.

2. It is unlikely that all of the unknown ones are just neutral, but in any event, you don't know and therefore they don't represent any argument for your position, particularly given point 1.

3. Folks are participating in this line of argument are ceding a great deal of territory to you that need not be yielded. It is sufficient that an allele code a new protein for the allele to be distinct from the others. There are actually an enormous number of alleles that have arisen for some gene locations. Whether or not that new protein is neutral or beneficial is partly a function of the environment as well as the structure and activity of the new protein. Calling mutations neutral or even beneficial without stating the environment in which you made the evaluation is not possible.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, Faith. Mutation is not the only component of evolution. Selection is the non-random portion of what attributes are found on creatures in a population.

So what? Nobody is claiming that evolution is efficient. Only that it works and is supported by the evidence.

In short, YECs dismiss reality. Even on your terms your theory fails to explain what we actually see. Namely some helpful effects rather than simply unharmful ones. You have your examples.

1) Redundancy does not disprove the fact that genes have multiple alleles.
2) If there is some kind of redundancy, why don't you describe it? I provided a reference for the rabbit color gene. You are welcome to use it as you see fit or to find another reference.

Yeah. I saw that. The problem with your argument is that the efficient system you prefer does not exist. We do not as a species all possess the same immunities to disease, ability to digest lactase, resistance to UV radiation, etc. It's silly to dismiss what we actually see on the basis that you've imagined something better.

Your new argument is about what you wish happened. But it is not demonstrated by any evidence. Of course, that will not stop you from believing whatever you want. But it does explain why you cannot convince anyone else.

If that turned out to be true, so what? Is that different from what the theory of evolution actually anticipates?

I agree that you cannot do that. To acknowledge that reality would be to give up nearly the entire game.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This statement is nonsense. Fur color can be a survival trait for mice, butterflies, etc. The same problem exists. And even if there are multiple gene mutations that can produce the same coloring, that does not make one of such mutations neutral, particularly if the population had none of those genes prior. Total crap argument.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What we are talking about here is 4 or more. Not necessarily an enormous number. Further, listing disadvantages is fine. But given that multiple alleles are what is observed, that situation cannot be an argument in favor of some other situation that is not observed.

Not just claimed. Demonstrated. But only five or more are needed to trash your idea.

It does not matter how many two allele genes there are. Perhaps most genes have only two alleles. Just a few with five or more alleles (or three or more) ought to be enough to make you rethink.

You cited a notion of having a predator destroying scattered alleles as a disadvantage. But having populations spread across different ecological niches each exploiting different alleles is an advantage for the same mechanism.

But mainly, the point you are trying to overcome is the fact that multiple allele genes are actually observed in nature. Not just two and sometime more than four.

As for eye color and skin color, I would not pretend to be in position to sort those things out. Multiple genes, possibly they involve no more than a couple of alleles each. But where two alleles only exist, that only means that it is possible that the two alleles were present in the first humans. It may very well be that one or the other alleles is a mutant version of an original allele.

You've already acknowledged that too many alleles for a gene (more than two or four) that are functional, distinct, and beneficial is inconsistent with your hypothesis. Whether or not such a thing is normal or abnormal isn't the issue.

Edited by NoNukes, : 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.