ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:11) | Cory ... I wasn't lecturing you. I was lecturing the MVD. 
I know you understand this stuff--at least the basic genetics. |
Dave, do you even bother to read my posts? You really should; that way it wouldn't take you months to learn things.
How many times have I told you what homozygosity means? How many times have I told you what heterozygosity means? How many times have I told you how many alleles an individual organism's genome can contain for a given gene? Or a mating pair? Or a group of eight individuals, five of whom are related?
You're not "lecturing" me about anything, Dave. You're just parroting back to me what I've been telling you for months. And don't think no one else will notice.
| Quote | And pray tell, what part of this ...
| Quote | ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
First, Woodmorappe explains that ... | Quote |
To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location: | Quote |
Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations. It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture. For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (The origins of HLA-A, B, C polymorphism. - group of 2 »P Parham, EJ Adams, KL Arnett - Immunol Rev, 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 177) |
|
|
... is unclear to you and Eric? |
It's not unclear. It just doesn't matter. What conceivable difference can it make that individual populations only express a limited number of alleles, Dave? Can you explain what significance that has for your "hypothesis"? You still have to explain where all those alleles came from. You say they're not from mutations. You have finally admitted that they were not present on the ark. That leaves magic, Dave. Is that where you think they came from?
| Quote | | Quote | | Phenotypic diversity was never at issue, but genetic diversity most certainly still is. It has to come from somewhere, Dave. Where? |
Well then we miscommunicated.
I have been arguing all along that ...
1) "Dramatic differences" are possible in a very short time, and
2) "Dramatic difference" potential can easily survive a single pair bottleneck simply by inclusion of most common alleles in the pair |
And you're wrong. Those phenotypic differences come from where, Dave? And you can't pretend that large genotypic differences don't exist, because they do. 627 alleles, Dave. Where did they come from?
| Quote | I think of "dramatic differences" as "large phenotypic diversity" ... what about you? I think of "genetic richness" as "high heterozygosity", i.e. inclusion of most common alleles in the bottleneck pair ... how about you?
I thought Eric was trying to refute these two points.
If he (and you) are not ... then Hallelujah! We agree on something for a change. |
"Dramatic" phenotypic differences is a red herring, Dave. There's no clear-cut connection between the amount of phenotypic difference and the amount of genotypic difference. Your argument on this point is irrelevant to your larger problem, which is how you get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species in less than five millennia.
So even though you now understand that an organism can have at most two alleles, you still think that one organism can be significantly more heterozygotic than another one? How is that possible, Dave? How do you get new alleles, which you cannot deny exist, and you cannot deny must have arisen after the "flood" other than through mutations? You cannot.
Just because most genes have only a few, maybe one, maybe a handful, of different alleles, does not help you explain where genes with dozens or hundreds of alleles came from.
What you still haven't grasped is that heterozygosity will get you, at most, variation. It will not get you speciation, which is what you need. You need speciation at a rate far beyond anything ever contemplated by standard theories. You need to compress four billion years' worth of speciation into 4,500 years, and "heterozygosity" ain't gonna do it for you.
And you still can't explain where those extra 570 HLA-B alleles came from.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
