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

You are saying that you can't change DNA sequences hardly at all without getting deleterious results, mutations or not. This means that there can't be any other species, but there are.

If the human genome can't be altered hardly at all without causing deleterious effects, and if it can't have any other function than what is found in the human genome, then how can there be any other species but humans in your model?

Cats, giraffes, and chimps are all just the result of a different mixture of human alleles?

So you are saying that humans could give birth to cats, giraffes, or chimps with just the right combination of human alleles?

What makes it "their own genes"? How can they survive without human genes? You have said that almost any small change in human genes will be deleterious, so according to your model all other species need to have genes nearly identical to human genes or they will die of disease.

"You haven't grasped the fact that a gene with two alleles in combination with others genes with two alleles is all it takes to produce all the diversity of life we see."--FaithThat is exactly what you implied. You are implying that a mixture of human alleles can produce every other living species.

You have said that you can't alter the human genome without causing disease, and no alterations will produce new functions. Isn't this correct?

What is confusing is that you keep saying that almost any alteration to a human gene will cause disease and will not change its function. This means other species must have nearly the same sequence as the genes found in the human genome, and those genes have to have the same function because there is no other possible function for those genes.

How do you determine if an allele is "viable"?

That's because the vast majority of the genome is junk DNA. Are all of the cat alleles functioning the same as the human alleles?Or do they have different functions because they have different DNA sequences?If a different sequence can produce a different and beneficial function, then why do you say that mutations altering DNA sequence can not produce new and beneficial functions?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As soon as you have two alleles you have a mutated allele. I really don't see how it would make a functional difference if the sequence differences were produced purposefully or through random mutations. How would an allele be any less damaged if a deity changed the sequence than if a DNA replication error changed the sequence? If naturally occurring mutations were almost always either neutral or detrimental, then that would apply to changes that any deity would make. In the context of biology, "not viable" usually means it causes disease or is a lethal mutation. The first words that come to my mind are "functionally redundant sequences", but that's a bit of a mouthful. "Selectively neutral" would be another way to phrase it.

We don't need Mercury in our Solar System, yet there it is.You seem to be under the impression that if you decide something doesn't need to be in nature that it will suddenly disappear. That just isn't the case. When we add up all of the alleles across all species we will have millions and millions of functioning alleles and millions and millions of different functions, all for each homologous gene.

I sense that we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I am looking at this problem from a global scale where all species are considered. You seem to be focusing on the problem using a singular scale, at the scale of a single species.From my perspective, what is true within a species must also be true between species. Afterall, each species has to have a functional genome.To use an example, if you say that "AAGGAGCCGAAAA" is the only functional sequence that a gene can have, yet I find a whole bunch of other species that have a different sequence for that gene and that sequence is functional, beneficial, and that function is slightly different from the human gene. Obviously, I was wrong about that specific sequence being the only possible sequence.If alterations of the DNA sequence can produce different and beneficial functions in different species, then I don't see why mutations can't do the same within a species. Your model seems to be short sighted because it fails to include the sequence diversity seen between species and apply it to changes within a species.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

What Faith said about the human genome has implications for other species and their genomes, genes, and alleles.Let's use an analogy. I focus on the design of just one car model. I observe that the car burns gasoline (petrol), has 4 cylinders, and is front wheel drive. I declare that there is no way that you can change any of those features or it will be deleterious.I then find another car that runs on electricity and is rear wheel drive. I also declare that there is no way you can change a car to make it run on anything but electricity and it can only be powered by the rear wheels.See the problem?

The problem is that human genetic diversity can not be explained by just two alleles per gene. Your perspective is inconsistent with reality. You can't make a bird with human genes, so that is false. In order to have different species you need different DNA sequences. We have millions of species, each with their own genomes that have altered DNA sequences that differ in function. This demonstrates that there is way more functional sequence than you admit to.