Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 03 2006,23:59)|
Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...
1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)
What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?
|Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,02:34 )|
|Dave, more than than 20 contradicts your "hypothesis." 10 extra alleles in 450 years is going to be very difficult for your "hypothesis" to explain. So I suggest you get busy.|
Especially if you think a human generation at the time was more than a hundred years.
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,08:08 )|
|How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to? Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?|
|Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,12:06 )|
|No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.|
"Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,13:08 )|
|I'm thinking you have not even looked at Mike's HLA DB. You appear to not be understanding my question.|
I'm not going to argue about this sample set. I told you the table didn't sample for all the HLA alleles. This is only a representative sample, but large enough to make my point.
The commonality of HLA alleles across population groups is significance enough. Whether we have one, two, or MANY people with the same HLA allele doesn't matter. The fact that the distinct geographic populations SHARE a common HLA allele IS significant.
I don't think you read my posts too thoroughly. Go back and read the part where I ask about the UCGH timeline.
In that part I ask you specifically when the UCGH ice age was finished. This is the last time the North American population intermingled (admixed) with the Africa-Euro-Asia population until 1492. (We can ignore the impact of the Leif Ericson settlement since this influence was localized to Labrador).
If the North American population was ISOLATED from the end of the UCGH ice age to 1492, then the common HLA alleles between these populations must have come about BEFORE the populations seperated. The data set specifically tested aboriginal populations that have never shown familial history of admixture with outside groups (that is the 'Citation' tag under each geographic heading in the table).
THIS IS WHY THE UCGH HAS ONLY 250 YEARS TO CREATE AND MIX THE HLA ALLELES THAT ARE COMMON BETWEEN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND AFRICA-EURO-ASIA POPULATIONS.