incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,12:11) | Cory ... I wasn't lecturing you. I was lecturing the MVD.  |
You're simply not in a position to lecture anybody about genetics, Dave. My breadth-course students -- most of whom had not had any biology whatsoever beyond grade 10 general science -- have no trouble remembering concepts such as alleles and heterozygosity. Punnett squares (which you earlier trumpeted almost as though they were some insightful AiG contribution) are, what, grade 7 material?
| Quote | | I know you understand this stuff--at least the basic genetics. I confess I forgot about your slides, but I wouldn't have had time today anyway. Maybe another day (another forum?) |
Yes, I do. And I'm telling you that Eric -- whom you included in your 'review' by name -- has been spot-on in his comments and questions.
| Quote | | Explanations for patterns of polymorphism: Have not read many yet, but as you can imagine, I would trust the creationist explanations more because they are more honest, i.e. they don't try to say that their version of "Whodunit" is a proven scientific fact like your camp does. |
That's a joke, right, Dave? I won't bother with the "more honest" bullshit. But I will say that polymorphism has nothing to do with "whodunit". Population genetics, especially at this basic level, is pure, simple math, Dave. You didn't pick up on the clues in my little paragraph about explanations because you don't know one of the most basic concepts involved in the consideration of allele frequencies -- a simple equation that is as obvious as it is useful. And oh yeah -- it doesn't have a thing to do with what you call "macroevolution" (it's actually pure "microevolution", since everything you've been going on about in this vein are concepts related to populations, Davey -- not species, not kinds). So your Creationist sources would be educating you on basic popgen if it helped their case. Odd that you haven't come across it, no? But trust me -- virtually all the people you presumed to lecture know exactly what I was talking about.
| Quote | Cory ... | Quote | | Because Dave, it's not enough to show that there are generally 1-4 alleles per locus within populations. Never mind those "rare" alleles (that shouldn't exist according to your "CGH") or the many, many exceptional loci that exhibit greater polymorphism (like HLA, which was ignored by you -- not "discussed" -- previously). You have to show 1-4 alleles per locus within a kind, which you have claimed is roughly equivalent to the biological family. Do some homework, Dave, and you might see how laughable this is. |
It's not laughable at all. I've cited many papers that show 1-4 alleles per locus in many species. Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"? We can only make educated guesses. Just as you (Evos) can never definitively prove many things about your theory. It's not possible because of the historical nature of the inquiry. |
There you go, trying to equivocate kinds and species again, Dave (neither of which is accurate in this case). A kind (as you have had to define it to fit them all on your boat) is not a species, nor is it a population (for which we actually measure allele frequencies). How many populations make up a typical species? How many species make up a typical kind? Without that information, you cannot extrapolate your mined generality of 1-4 alleles per locus within a sampled population to anything as meaningful as, "see, these are the 1-4 God-implanted alleles for this kind". That's what's laughable, Dave. Tell you what -- you show me that this 1-4 alleles per locus broadly applies to biological families (pick a few representatives -- your choice! , as opposed to a single species or population, and I will investigate your claims.
| 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? |
Um, how 'bout the part where you explain where those new alleles came from in all these indigenous (and later admixed) populations after the Flood? Eric is quite correct -- at least 617 alleles must have emerged (sure, in localized populations if you want) since then. Mutation is the only option (unless God intervened again?). You have been trying to claim this can't happen. Furthermore, you concede that they have been naturally selected for, which denies you the "harmful mutation" escape hatch. Dave, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
| 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
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. |
That's nice, Dave. Now explain the genetic diversity that is part of the "dramatic differences" we observe among living organisms on this planet (this is what we've been asking). I don't care what they look like -- we're talking DNA, which has its own "dramatic differences" that cannot be explained by recombination (what is there to recombine?). Nobody ever claimed (though you tried to make it seem like they did) that the extreme phenotypic variation in dogs (not to mention other species), selected by centuries of human domestication, is not in large part a result of recombining existing genetic diversity in canids. We've been trying to get you to tell us where you think that existing diversity came from. Hint: there is no way whatsoever that it could ever have been even mostly contained in two individual dog-type-things within the past 10,000 years, no matter how heterozygous you think they were. A simple scan of the genetic diversity present in canids would convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that it has been a long, long, long time since any canid Adam and Eve (quite likely longer than anything we call canids themselves have been around). If you continue to claim that it hasn't, then either you haven't got a clue about the existing genetic diversity or you believe in rates of mutation higher than anything I could postulate with a clear head (probably both). Maybe you should have tried cheetahs? At least their genomes show some evidence of a recent bottleneck.
Oh, and if I was to supply you with an actual definition for your "genetic richness", I suppose it would be something along the lines of genetic diversity, a concept I work with and teach in regularly. Genetic diversity (I'm talking within a species) exists at three basic levels: within individuals, within populations, and among populations. (We've also been talking about an even higher level -- that among species and higher taxonomic groups.) Yes, heterozygosity would be a component of genetic diversity/"richness" (i.e., that found within individuals). But just one part, and the only part you can stuff on the Ark. How about polymorphism (i.e., genetic diversity/"richness" within populations)? How about rare alleles and allele frequencies (i.e., genetic diversity/"richness" among populations)? Then we could talk about the importance of genetic diversity (e.g., for conservation) as a source of evolutionary potential and fitness. See Dave, I even do better than you do with invented concepts you pull out of your ass.
| Quote | | Quote | | The fact remains that you have no objective way of knowing if the created "man" kind initially included chimps (and gorillas and 'rangs). |
True, but you also have no objective way of knowing if we share a common ancestor. Genetics can only give us clues. We have to turn to other things for more clues. And to these I have turned. I am not so myopic or arrogant as to presume that only science can tell us everything there is to know. |
That's nice. Neither am I.
| Quote | | Cory, your science training has limited your vision. |
In the land of the blind...
| Quote | | You say you reject anything that you cannot prove scientifically, |
Oh, REEAAALLLLYYY now? Care to remind me when and where I said I subscribe to such an obvious absurdity? Or are you making things up again? Liar.
| Quote | | yet you uncritically accept the proposition that matter organized itself into biological structures in defiance of the very scientific laws that you applaud. |
I do, do I? By matter organizing itself into biological structures, I assume you mean abiogenesis? Or do I uncritically accept the proposition that plants and animals metabolize matter from their surroundings to organize their own structures? Assuming it's the former, please remind me where I have said anything whatsoever regarding my beliefs about the origins of life. You won't find it, so you'll have to make something up. Then you'll have to show me how whatever theory of abiogenesis you ascribe to me violates any "scientific laws that I applaud". Then you'll have to show me that I have accepted this scientific-law-defying-theory-of-abiogenesis-I-never-voiced uncritically. If you can't do that, then you're making shit up again, Dave. Liar.
| Quote | | You accept written eyewitness testimony for many things in your life. |
Yep. And reject it for many others. Most recently in a turn in jury duty, for example (much less exciting than it sounds, but I did reject eyewitness testimony). I also reject the eyewitness accounts of flying witches in Salem, Davey. See, I actually incorporate such accounts into a broader field of evidence to see if they coincide. You should try it some time. And in all cases, I know who the professed eyewitness actually was, since this goes a long way toward determining credibility. As you should know better than most, Dave, would-be witnesses LIE. Or make stuff up without even knowing they're doing it.
| Quote | | You just don't regarding the Origin of Species. |
The book? Sure I do. My girlfriend gave me an original Sixth Edition in beautiful condition for Christmas (it really is gorgeous). I accept the dealer's account of its provenance. What are you talking about, Dave? Assuming you didn't mean the book, apparently you and I actually both agree on the origin of species -- they emerged from existing biological diversity through mutation, selection, geographical isolation, local adaptation, etc., etc. If you're talking about the origin of kinds, you'll have to tell me what the #### those actually are, how I can recognize them (you know, just so I can be sure they exist before I waste time delving into their origins). You haven't done that. If you're talking about the origin of life, see above, you liar you. That's a topic for another day -- but not with you, Dave, because it involves biochemical concepts you don't have a prayer of understanding within either of our lifetimes.
| Quote | | Alas, maybe you will someday. |
You know, in my own way, I pray for you, too, Dave. But if I was to use the melodramatic, "Alas!", it would only be for the kids through which your nonsensical (but well-adapted) memes will be propagated.
|
