ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:39) | Russell ... | Quote | | You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time. |
No I don't because I don't claim that. You guys are the ones that cannot keep things straight. Again ...
1) You guys claim it's some kind of problem to go from 16 HLA-B alleles to 61 (500 if you are Eric) in 250 years. We've been through this in detail. Go look it up. |
No we haven't, Dave. It is 500 alleles, you know it's five hundred, I gave you a link to evidence it's 500, and that's what you have to deal with.
Ayala doesn't help you here. There is no "pre-existing genetic variation" to get you there. There's nothing to look up. Why do you think I've been asking you this question for two months?
| Quote | | 2) I claim that the Ark bottleneck is no problem and back it up with evidence. |
Your "evidence" is worthless where it's not non-existent. Quoting Ayala over and over again doesn't get you anywhere. Quoting Woodmorappe over and over again doesn't help you. Quoting Nei over and over again doesn't help you either. Problems with all of these quotes have been pointed out to you over and over again to the point of stupidity. Instead of addressing those problems, you pretend they were never raised.
Doubt me? Go look it up.
| Quote | | 3) I claim that bottlenecks do not decrease variability if H is high enough to begin with and back it up with numerous citations |
Your citations are worthless. We've pointed out exactly why they're worthless. You can't conjure variability out of thin air after it's lost. But that's exactly what you're trying to do, and you know it. Which basically makes you a liar.
| Quote | Russell reads this and says ... | Quote | | You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time. |
 ???? Helllllooooooo!! McFly!!! Anyone home? |
Dave, you have cited no references whatsoever for the proposition that you can get large numbers of new alleles in a short amount of time, especially without mutations. You simply haven't. If you think you have, show me the quote. Don't tell me to "look it up," because it's not there.
| Quote | | I don't make any preposterous claims about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time. My whole discussion on this topic showed how your 500 number is baseless and at most it is something like 61 for HLA-B. |
Dave, I explained to you where the 61 comes from. Mike's spreadsheet was not an exhaustive list, and you know it. The correct number is 500, and you know it, because you've never disputed it before today. And you've never shown how you can get even one additional allele without a mutation. Let alone 490. In any amount of time, let alone 250 years. Which would be almost 2 mutations a year, or 20 a generation.
Edit: Here's where the 500-allele figure comes from, Dave. Look at how the alleles are identified:
| Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 18 2006,08:23) | Dave, please take your AIG figure (which is obviously designed to deceive individuals like yourself with little understanding of biology into drawing the completely erroneous condclusions that you have drawn).
Assume that Adam is the "Father" and Eve is the "Mother".
"Maa" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-A" GENE (do not mix up the "-A" in the gene name with the "a" in the allele name: HLA-A is a gene, represented by "M" in your AIG figure, for which each human has two alleles. They could be two copies of the same allele, but assume, as in your figure, they are different in both parents. For example, as in your figure, the two parents could be Ma/Mb. Or, you could try to help your case by working it out for Adam who is Ma/Mb and Eve who is Mc/Md.
Similarly, "ma" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-B" GENE (just as above). Adam could be ma/mb and Eve could be mc/md.
Go ahead and work out the "genetic richness" of the offspring, if you want. Yes, it will be less than or equal to that of the parents.
But then you have to tell us why human populations actually have Ma through Mhp alleles for the HLA-A gene. (That's once through the alphabet for each allele, a-z, then we start with aa-az, then ba-bz, and so forth until we reach the 250 observed alleles at this locus.)
Why do human populations actually have ma through msf for the HLA-B gene. (That's 500 alleles.) How genetically rich is our current population at these genes relative to your proposed initial founders? |
| Quote | Now how about those dogs (since the article is free)?
How do you explain this, Russell? | Quote | They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm |
Hmmmm ... "intensive breeding is responsible for the dramatic differences in only 500 years!"
NOT due to genetic origins. |
Where do you think that genetic variability came from in the first place, Dave? It wasn't "created in," because 4,500 years ago no dog had more than 2 alleles for any gene. Two.
And, how is it that in 500 years, no new dog species have arisen? You have hundreds if not thousands of new species arising from every "kind" on the ark in 800 years. What force is preventing further speciation?
--------------
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
|
