Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,392 Year: 1,038/14,102 Month: 30/411 Week: 51/168 Day: 11/19 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?
Percy
Member
Posts: 19960
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 61 of 518 (808495)
05-11-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 8:01 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
bluegenes writes:

...it is Faith (although she doesn't realise it) who needs new function and positive selection for her model.

I agree, but I think more argument and clarification is needed for your position. Why is a (restating) "5% rate of occurrence or more in the sample for at least five MHC alleles" impossible in 300 generations by drift alone?

I was browsing through the Wikipedia article on Major histocompatibility complex and see some of what you've said, for instance (going from memory) that some genes of the MHC complex have nearly 1000 alleles or more. A simple question is how so many alleles could have arisen and spread through a population in only 300 generations. Which you may have asked at least once already?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 8:01 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 10:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 11:14 AM Percy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8469
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(1)
Message 62 of 518 (808511)
05-11-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
05-10-2017 8:05 PM


Re: Counting Alleles
Faith writes:

These are not statements of the ToE.

That's a flat out lie. Those are all statements from the theory of evolution.

All the time and it is not a good thing.

That is an empty assertion with zero evidence to back it.

Yes but misleading since evos attribute the differences to mutation which mostly creates no differences in function or undesirable differences.

If differences in DNA sequence do not create differences in function, then how in the world do you explain why species look different from each other? How do you explain why alleles function differently from each other?

You aren't making any sense at all.

Another misleading definition and I'm not sure it's completely true as stated anyway. That is, the crucial differences may be in particular parts of the genome; that is, in particular sequences that are responsible for particular differences rather than in a mere summation of sequence differences.

Why aren't the differences between species due to the summation of differences in their genomes? Where in the world do you think the physical differences between species comes from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 8:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8469
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(1)
Message 63 of 518 (808513)
05-11-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
05-11-2017 1:19 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
Faith writes:

I'm going with two alleles per gene

For the HLA-DRB1 gene there are thousands of alleles in the human population. Your model is falsified.

No beneficial mutations, they are all an interference

Chimps have 40 million mutations compared to the human genome and they do just fine. Your model is falsified once again.

If the human genome can't be changed at all without causing "interference" then humans should be the only species in existence. Obviously, they aren't. Your model is falsified.

Strong selection isn't needed, nor drift, though either might occur; just migration + isolation

Strong selection exists and occurs. Since your model can't incorporate reality, it is falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8469
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 64 of 518 (808516)
05-11-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
05-11-2017 2:00 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:

I did read that but since it is hard for me to read anything of any length I may have missed something. the question I have is whether there is really any difference among the alleles since "neutral" mutations don't change the function. So when function is described -- the codominant function of two alleles -- isn't it possible most or all of the alleles do the same thing?

If the DNA sequence of the human genome can't be changed to produce new function then humans should be the only species on Earth. That is what your model predicts.

If changes in DNA sequence can lead to new function and new species, then mutations can produce new functions and new species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 2:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8469
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 65 of 518 (808518)
05-11-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
05-11-2017 8:27 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
Percy writes:

I agree, but I think more argument and clarification is needed for your position. Why is a (restating) "5% rate of occurrence or more in the sample for at least five MHC alleles" impossible in 300 generations by drift alone?

Another question would be why all other genes don't have the same variation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 8:27 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 518 (808524)
05-11-2017 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
05-11-2017 8:27 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
Percy writes:

I agree, but I think more argument and clarification is needed for your position. Why is a (restating) "5% rate of occurrence or more in the sample for at least five MHC alleles" impossible in 300 generations by drift alone?

Here's a group of 120 Cubans and 1 MHC gene.

Table 1 HLA-A, allele frequencies in
Cuban individuals with a dengue 2 virus infection history.

HLA GF (%)
A*02- 22.7
A*30- 10.6
A*24- 9.5
A*68- 8.0
A*03- 7.0
A*29- 6.5
A*23- 5.5
A*01- 5.5
A*31- 4.5
A*74- 3.5
A*33- 3.0
A*32- 2.5
A*34- 2.0
A*36- 2.0
A*25- 1.5
A*26- 1.5
A*66- 1.5
A*11- 1.0
A*80- 1.0

HLA human leukocyte antigen; GF allele frequency (as percentage

The easiest way to explain this might be to look at ourselves as individuals. On the YEC model, we are ~15,000 mutations away from Adam and Eve on the whole genome. That would give us ~ 180 mutational hits on the small part that is coding genes, most of them falling on different genes, so we have new alleles on ~1% of the total of ~18,000.

So, if we take 120 people as above, what would we expect on a given gene in purely neutral evolution. The four original alleles dominating, and perhaps 1, 2 or 3 exceptions.

Now look at the chart, and what do we see? If the YEC model, then signals of very strong selection on lots of new alleles.

Percy writes:

I was browsing through the Wikipedia article on Major histocompatibility complex and see some of what you've said, for instance (going from memory) that some genes of the MHC complex have nearly 1000 alleles or more. A simple question is how so many alleles could have arisen and spread through a population in only 300 generations. Which you may have asked at least once already?

With a population this size, if 1000 alleles can be tolerated, they'll be there. 100 million births gives you all the point mutations and more. So, it depends on the size of the group you're looking at.

Edited by bluegenes, : nothing of note

Edited by bluegenes, : removed mistake in chart


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 8:27 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 2:06 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 05-12-2017 2:17 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 518 (808562)
05-11-2017 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
05-11-2017 7:43 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
Percy writes:

Faith writes:

I'm going with two alleles per gene

If by this you mean only two alleles per gene in the original human population, in your scenario this is demonstrably false. Both Adam and Eve could have contributed two unique alleles per gene for a total of four. Even though you believe you only need two alleles per gene, you actually have a potential maximum of four.

I know but I've come to the conclusion that it was most likely two and I'm going with that for now. I think it's going to hold up. I've already given some of my reasoning for this.

This is better for your scenario because now people have to demonstrate at least five alleles for a gene before they can claim any arose through mutation, and then they still have to show they produced new function.

Well I'll see how it goes. I'm going with two alleles per gene in all generations, mutations contributing nothing new/beneficial. I recently came to this conclusion from the various facts I've already given that show great variation possible from nothing more than the many possible combinations of genes with two alleles each. I expect to try to defend this more as the thread proceeds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 7:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 518 (808564)
05-11-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
05-11-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Number of Genes for Eye Color and Skin Color
It is worth mentioning again that eye color is determined by at least 6 genes, and skin color by at least 10.

That's good, I figured there had to be more genes and more information about this since Parker's 1982 book. Since you can get the whole range of skin color in one generation from only two genes with two alleles each this shows that you don't need a lot of alleles per gene. In fact although I expected there must be more genes for these traits I didn't expect there to be this many, they seem unnecessary considering the great range of diversity possible from two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-11-2017 7:13 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19960
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 69 of 518 (808570)
05-11-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-11-2017 1:13 PM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
Faith writes:

I know but I've come to the conclusion that it was most likely two...

Based on what?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 518 (808572)
05-11-2017 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 2:40 AM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
bluegenes writes:

Faith writes:

I don't think so. Just random recombination of Adam and Eve's two genes with two alleles per gene for skin color could produce in one generation all the different skin colors. There is no lack of diversity in this system. Diversity is all a matter of the many possible combinations of the two alleles per gene.

Again, the extreme variation at certain loci is there, whether or not 2 alleles would perform the function.

That extreme variation that is there is due to mutations, right? Which so far you've only shown to have unique functions in two examples as I recall. In my model mutations are an accident, a disease process fundamentally, even if mot of the time they manage to avoid changing a functioning allele, meaning they have the same function as the allele they replace; or, rarely, even manage to create a new sequence that really does do something beneficially different (I have my doubts about this but that discussion would be far down the road for me).

bluegenes writes:

Faith writes:

But my main argument is for a random selection anyway, the random favoring of certain alleles over others in the simple migration of a part of a population to another location where it has reproductive isolation. You get new gene frequencies that way, that bring out new phenotypes, others decreasing and even eventually disappearing from the new population. The original two alleles per gene now seems to me to be completely sufficient for all the diversity of life we see, including the formation of every species including some exotic or strange ones.

Then how have many, many "new" alleles in the MHC become common in 300 generations? Mutation and drift certainly won't give that result. Almost all the mutants would be very rare.

I'm not following you. First I don't see what drift has to do with any of this. But mostly I don't see why there couldn't be some enormous number of mutations at a locus that seems to be prone to mutation. I don't expect anything good to come of mutations, though, at best noninterference with the function of the allele they change.

The only thing that might (possibly) explain this is strong selection. Apart from that we would need humans and other mammals to have been around for far longer than 300 generations..........

Again I'm not following your thinking. I'm thinking only of mutations occurring as mistakes in DNA replication and don't see that there is anything that would particularly promote or prevent that occurrence if they're accidents of replication. Some loci are more prone to mutation than others for whatever reason, perhaps you know the reason but I don't, but in my system they are a disease process, not good for the organism.

bluegenes writes:

Then how have many, many "new" alleles in the MHC become common in 300 generations? Mutation and drift certainly won't give that result. Almost all the mutants would be very rare.

The only thing that might (possibly) explain this is strong selection. Apart from that we would need humans and other mammals to have been around for far longer than 300 generations..........

So, which is it?

I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 2:40 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 1:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 2:17 PM Faith has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8469
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 71 of 518 (808576)
05-11-2017 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-11-2017 1:35 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:

In my model mutations are an accident, a disease process fundamentally, even if mot of the time they manage to avoid changing a functioning allele, meaning they have the same function as the allele they replace; or, rarely, even manage to create a new sequence that really does do something beneficially different (I have my doubts about this but that discussion would be far down the road for me).

This would mean that humans can be the only species in existence because the only possible function is that found in the human genome. Since this isn't true, your model is falsified.

I don't expect anything good to come of mutations, though, at best noninterference with the function of the allele they change.

Then you wouldn't expect other species to have a genome that differs from humans. Since they do differ, your model is falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 2:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19960
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 72 of 518 (808577)
05-11-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bluegenes
05-11-2017 11:14 AM


Re: The YEC model requires ...
bluegenes writes:

The easiest way to explain this might be to look at ourselves as individuals. On the YEC model, we are ~15,000 mutations away from Adam and Eve on the whole genome. That would give us ~ 180 mutational hits on the small part that is coding genes, most of them falling on different genes, so we have new alleles on ~1% of the total of ~18,000.

How are all the numbers derived?

So, if we take 120 people as above, what would we expect on a given gene in purely neutral evolution. The four original alleles dominating, and perhaps 1, 2 or 3 exceptions.

I think I follow the logic here. Given the amount of the human genome taken up by coding genes, the 15,000 mutations since Adam and Eve would be sprinkled around so that only a very small percentage of genes would be affected. Most would be unaffected, and a small percentage would have 1 maybe 2 and sometimes maybe even 3 mutations. Certainly it would be very unexpected for any gene to have experienced hundreds of mutations.

Now look at the chart, and what do we see? If the YEC model, then signals of very strong selection on lots of new alleles.

But so many alleles wouldn't be possible in the YEC Adam/Eve model, would they? Wouldn't the "signals of very strong selection" be evidence that some other model must be in play?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 11:14 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 05-11-2017 2:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 518 (808578)
05-11-2017 2:11 PM


Whole range of skin color in one generation chart
My thinking on this subject has changed due to appreciating how much variation is possible from two alleles per gene with more than one gene. Here's Gary Parker's discussion of the great range of skin color possible from just two genes with two alleles each:

From What Is Creation Science?, 1982 paperback by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, pp 113-114 (this part written by Parker):

The amount of skin color we have depends on at least two pairs of genes. Let's call these genes A and B. People with the darkest skin color have genes AABB as their genotype (set of genes for a trait); those with very light skins have aabb. People with two "capital letter" genes would be "medium-skinned," and those with 1 or 3 such genes would be a shade lighter or darker.

Now, let's start with two medium-skinned parents, AaBb. [here is] a genetic square that shows the kind of children they could have. Less than half (only 6 of the 16 combinations) would be medium-skinned like their parents. Four each would be a shade darker or lighter. One in 16 of the children of medium-skinned parents (AaBb) would have the darkest possible skin color, while the chances are also 1/16 that a brother or sistr will have the very lightest skin color (See Parker, Reynolds and Reynolds, 18977b).

Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), how long would it take to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today? Merely one generation! In fct, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Afr4icans, and some -- perhaps a brothe or a sister in the family -- as light as the lightest Europeans.

So here's the chart, though my reproduction of it will no doubt leave a lot to be desired:

-------- /AB------- Ab------ aB -------ab

===========================

AB---- --/AA ------- AA-------Aa-------Aa
---------- /BB------- Bb-------BB------- Bb

Ab ------- /AA-------AA------Aa-------Aa
---------- /Bb-------bb------BB-------bb

aB------- /Aa-------Aa--------aa--------aa
---- -- ---/BB-------Bb-------BB--------Bb

ab------- /Aa-------Aa-------aa--------aa
---------- /Bb-------bb-------Bb--------bb

I'm

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 518 (808579)
05-11-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-11-2017 1:35 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Faith writes:

I don't see what selection or drift or even number of generations has to do with any of this. I guess I'm just not getting your whole frame of reference.

See if Message 66 makes it any clearer to you. Particularly, concentrate on the point that we would only have mutations (new alleles) on ~1% of our coding genes as individuals. The rest would be identical to the four in Adam and Eve. So, take a random gene and examine it on 100 people, and you'd expect the original 4 alleles + perhaps 1 individual with a new one on average.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 2:57 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 518 (808580)
05-11-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
05-11-2017 1:53 PM


Re: The YEC model requires beneficial mutations and strong positive selection.
Nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 1:53 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021