The origin of new alleles

Yeah, this is one of my favorite points as well. One problem with trying to make it to a creationist is that there are so many different types of creationists. When mentioning allelic diversity in my experience you'll find one of the following responses:a) a confused creationist that uses both "no beneficial mutations" arguments alongside "no new information" rhetoric and generally hops back and forth between the two arguments. This is a merry-go-round without end. They will concede your point, then retract their concession, then fake left while whistling amazing grace. This is the usual response. They arent sure what to admit to so they try and run out the clock.b) a creationist that will just throw up their hands and say, "sorry, dont understand alleles, lets talk about all the missing comets" (or whatever).c) Ive read a few places where creationists are trying to use a process called homolgous recombination as some kind of way around the allele problem. Rather than allow the alleles came about from mutation they try and suggest that the new alleles are being constructed by the system itself and are thus guided. This is not your standard reponse though as these writers will usually lament the average creationists inability to see the seriousness of the allele problem for them. No evidence for this guiding but, hey, at least its an admission of a potential problem for them.

I dont know the details of the process yet. Apparently this process can work to create new alleles but from what I can tell its just another mechanism like a copying error. There is no evidence of it being guided that I know of. So far, I see it as a Hail Mary pass by those creationists who see the allele problem. They are suggesting that alleles are being created but that its non-random and being directed by the cell itself (under god's supervision). It looks like theistic evolution to me but I dont think they would admit that.Also, there are the AIG creationists (those who actually read on the site) who accept new alleles but just consider them "microevolution" or use similar rhetoric. AIG does now accept beneficial mutations in general and have "dont say there are no beneficial mutations" in their "arguments creationists shouldnt use" article. So the real value of the allele argument is against those who claim there are no beneficial mutations. Its an easy point (though they likely will run rather than concede anything. lol). For those who accept beneficial mutations, they will just retreat to the vague "no new information" rhetoric or call it microevolution.Thats an excellent point about the asexual reproduction though. Ill check that out once I understand H-R better. Sounds like a silver bullet.Edited by but..what..of...lazarus?, : No reason given.

I think there is a difference between functioning allele variants and raw copies, pseudo-genes and broken genes. Allelic variants arent just raw materials, they actually do something that wasnt being done in that way previously.I suppose if they claim that alleles are being manufactured via the will of the creator from pseudo-genes and other odds and ends there isnt much to say... I think this is where YECS and IDers would part company though, depending on the YEC.