Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 335 of 518 (810635)
05-31-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
05-31-2017 12:17 AM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
Faith writes:
The redundancy is shown on those, such as in Percy's Message 329 where "measles seropositivity" and "measles seronegativity" each show up on three different genes.
First, it shows up on three different alleles for the same gene.
Second, measles seropositivity is just one function. There are also alleles that protect against influenza, HIV, and other diseases. These are found on different alleles than those for measles seropositivity. There is clearly more than two alleles for HLA-B.
Not sure what "possible" implies.
It is the implication you have been making all along, that you can't change the DNA sequence of the human genome without causing harm or no change in function at all.
Do we share those "beneficial changes" with all primates or not?
We don't share all of those changes. If we shared all the same changes then we would all look identical to one another. We don't.
The reason that we look different from other primates, and why each primate species looks different from all other primate species, is that each species has its own beneficial mutations. The very existence of hundreds of other primate species refutes your argument that beneficial mutations are so rare that one can ignore their very existence.
Obviously, changes can be made to the human genome and those changes can be beneficial. It doesn't matter if those changes are made by a deity or the observed processes of natural mutagenesis. Among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are the beneficial mutations that benefit both chimps and humans.
But I want to end by emphasizing what I said above, that the multiple-allele system seems to me to be a hit-or-miss system, very inefficient if it's intended to be THE system for protection of the human race against all kinds of diseases, since each individual only gets protection for some diseases and not others. While a system of multiple genes of two alleles each could protect ALL individuals from ALL diseases since we'd all possess the gene for a particular protection and if the two alleles are codominant as I thought someone said is true for the immune system we all get complete protection from all the same diseases.
But that's not how it works in reality. We are dealing with reality, not your fantasies of what reality should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 12:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 1:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 420 of 518 (811350)
06-07-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
05-31-2017 1:33 PM


Re: Multiple Alleles an Inefficient System
Faith writes:
Yes, and a lot of redundancy as I said, which is shown on Percy's chart.
It's not redundancy if they do something different.
Well, but that apparently does happen a lot with mutations. What's the problem here? Many of the positive effects of changing the sequence are redundant, and although it's not clear from anything said so far, probably don't change the function of the original allele.
Are the mutations that separate the human and chimp genome redundant? Do chimp genes do the exact same thing as human genes?
Obviously, they don't do the same thing. They aren't redundant. If they were redundant then chimps would look and act just like humans.
I'm not so sure about that yet. But again all you are doing is declaring the theory of evolution through mutation to explain different species.
I am explaining the differences between species through differences in DNA sequence. You are claiming that you can't change the sequence of the human genome and get something different and functional. Every single primate genome disproves this claim because they have different sequences that are functional and produce different species.
The best system for the immune system would minimize the variability, and that would mean two alleles per gene, co-dominant. The great number of alleles is overal not a good thing because it scatters the benefits. The best I can say for the many alleles is that many DO protect against SOMETHING. Again, for all I know, the same something the original allele protects against, but I understand that the very concept of an original allele makes no sense in the ToE system of thinking.
But that's not what humans have. We don't have just two alleles that protect against all known diseases. We have tons of different alleles with different functions that protect against different diseases.
This would be a lot clearer if we knew what the original alleles for a particular gene do. I suspect the different protective functions of the many alleles don't add anything new to the basic design, just scatter its effects through the population.
Then why are other primate species different from humans if it isn't due to a DNA sequence difference between our genomes?
I think it's turning out there is a big problem here which is obscured by adherence to the ToE: Can you tell the difference between the original alleles for a gene and the mutations?
Are you saying that the original humans and original chimps looked and acted identical to one another right after the flood? If not, what are you going on about? Do you think humans and all primate species started out with genomes that were 100% identical to each other? Was there a time when the rhesus monkey genome was 100% identical to the human genome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 1:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 421 of 518 (811351)
06-07-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 3:17 PM


Re: falling into place
mike the wiz writes:
And the award for the post most packed with question-begging-epithets goes to...............
Read any peer review journal on the relevant scientific subjects. Find out for yourself what the scientific consensus is.
What you will find is that no one is presenting any research on a Young Earth, a recent global flood, a recent origin of fossil and living species, or the separate creation of species groups. None. Nada. Zip. Those subjects are dead, and it is backed by the simplest of PubMed or Google Scholar searches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 3:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 422 of 518 (811352)
06-07-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
06-01-2017 12:33 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
Faith writes:
What led me to the two-allele gene was the recognition that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity that exists and then some.
That is disproven by the multiple alleles for HLA-B that have different functions against different diseases.
And if this is the illusion I think it is, based on the fact that it so far manages not to be overtly and immediately destructive, and that its displacement of an original better system is hidden by these facts, even though it actually allows more diseases than it protects against, you can go along being deceived by it for quite some time.
A less fit system would not replace a fitter system. It's called natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 12:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 424 of 518 (811355)
06-07-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
06-03-2017 3:46 PM


Re: YEC requires selection on mutants
Faith writes:
Haven't seen any evidence that all these alleles do anything new, so I assume they just do whatever the original alleles did for any given gene.
We have already shown you that different alleles have different activities against different diseases. That is something new, times 100.
All that's needed to create all the known diversity since the Ark is two alleles per gene shared by all individuals.
That's disproven by the hundreds of HLA-B alleles that are observed in the human population. The existence of these alleles isn't theoretical. It is a fact.
If there are too many mutations to have occurred in the last 4500 years since the Ark, what can I do but assume that for some reason they occurred a lot faster than usual since then, at least in the immune system which appears to be unusual for its great number.
You could take a second and realize that you are trying to force your theory onto reality, and ignoring the evidence that falsifies your theory.
You don't need selection to increase the number of a certain allele in the population if it does the same thing as the original alleles or SOME original allele somewhere in the original system. Anything that actually functions is going to be passed on no matter what because there's no reason for it not to be.
Then we should see the same amount of genetic drift in other genes, but we don't. There is simply not enough time for these neutral mutations to reach such a high percentage of the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 3:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 425 of 518 (811357)
06-07-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-07-2017 10:47 AM


Re: YEC requires selection on mutants
Faith writes:
But I will make one point: if all those mutant alleles really contribute to protection against many diseases it's rather odd that we seem (to me anyway) to have a lot more immune deficiency diseases than ever before. I note mention of them here and there, but I also have personal experience of it: A friend of mine suddenly acquired one a few years ago and was dead within six months of his first symptoms, a rare muscle-wasting immune deficiency disease that hit him out of the blue in the midst of what had seemed like a condition of robust health.
In what world does your anecdotal account of two friends with immune related disease equal a worldwide increase in immune related diseases?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-07-2017 10:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024