PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A genetic bottleneck
       problematic for a world wide flood

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think for a second if evolution is true--at one point in time there was no such thing as legs.
Evolution had to produce a new machine for transport and put it where it was beneficial for survival.

It did all this without a blueprint or even an idea.  It didn't know where it was going--it just finally mutated until the legs were profitable for survival.  


Incorrect. Fossils show a clear lineage of fins into legs. Your claim that legs were unprofitable for survival until they were fully formed is visibly false:



Note the middle specimen. That's tiktaalik, a recently discovered fossil that shows a clear middle ground in the progression of fins to legs:



As you can see from the diagram, legs started out as nothing more than powerful fins that could transport fish from one body of water to another. Before such fins developed, fish simply used their body to wiggle along the ground. More powerful and larger fins helped them move faster and farther, and yet more powerful fins with bones allowed them to move even faster and even farther. The process continued into amphibians, reptiles, and the ancestors of mammals.

That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.


You really don't even have any idea what you are talking about. The Theory of Evolution deals directly with the present, not just the past. It is a model for explaining not only how life has diversified, but how it continues to diversify:

When there is excess reproduction among a population of life, and when there is a mechanism for changing offspring (DNA), and when there is environmental pressure that causes some of the population not to reproduce, then evolution will occur.

That's the wording of the Theory of Evolution. It is an observed phenomenon. When the required conditions are present, it is impossible that evolution won't occur.

What you don't understand is that scientific theories are models for explaining something. They are often a collection of ideas. Calling something a scientific theory in now way indicates a weakness in its evidence.











(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/3/2009 at 11:52 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:44 AM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

These legs do not function.  Theoretically NS will root them out.  Antenna serve a viable purpose and will survive.

But in arthropods the same cells that form the legs also form the mouth parts and the antenna.  

Think for a second if evolution is true--at one point in time there was no such thing as legs.
Evolution had to produce a new machine for transport and put it where it was beneficial for survival.


And at one time there was no fins either, but now we see where fins came from, how they mutated, how mutation produced a "new machine for transport".  And it occurred through unguided, natural processes.  Legs are modified fins and we're begining to see how they evolved also.

It did all this without a blueprint or even an idea.  It didn't know where it was going--it just finally mutated until the legs were profitable for survival.

Yes, evolution is an unitelligent prcess, but we can see how it produces these structures without a blueprint.

WHY?

Because we see how new genetic information can be added by natural means.  So if there is a mechanism to add information to a genome, there is no reason to assume that genetic information was higher in the past.  Simple as that.

Look at the cambrian explosion and how many extinct phyla there are--whether you interpret in evolutionary context or the flood--there was more phyla and so a great portion of the overall gene pool was lost.

There is much greater diversity today.  Your mistake is in not realizing that phyla is merely a man made designation and really has no actual meaning in nature.

Perhaps you believe that the evolutionary mutation rate than what NS would delete.  That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.

You don't know what a theory is, ever heard of the Heliocentric theory?  YOu know, the one that says the earth orbits the sun?  Evolution is a theory, just as well supported as that one.

As for dating bottlenecks--this is untestable since no one can observe thousands
of years.


Why is it untestable?  We can certainly observe the evidence of thousands, millions and even billions of years.  And we can cross reference our data with other sources and double check them.  So dating genetic bottlenecks ISN'T untestable.

(Edited by Demon38 8/3/2009 at 7:46 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:25 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not much time--I'm answering several arguments made above.  The point I was making is legs on the head of a fruit fly is what?  Legs that came from pre-existing information--it not considered new information.  

So are people that have six fingers evolving?

Nice diagram on the fins to legs though.  I would ask where is the transition for precursors to lungs and vestigial gills.  Yes I realize we have no soft tissue evidence in the actual fossils, and probably not the complete skeltons.  

What profitable function do the many precursors to lungs have that NS would not delete?   Mount improbable indeed.  I will stick with common design features from a common Designer.

And actually "theory" is part of the scientific method.  "Fact"  which evolutionists are so accustomed to saying is not.  "Scientific law" is the last step of the SM.

Modern diversity has nothing to do with my point on the Cambrian explosion, which shows deletions in the gene pool.  Why?  Because many of the species found in it are extinct, along with alot of living fossils i.e. modern animals.

If you are going to say that phylum is a ambiguous or confusing signification, then you do not respect taxonomy.   So how do you define the diversity of which you speak?

(Edited by AFJ 8/3/2009 at 10:26 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:24 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not much time--I'm answering several arguments made above.  The point I was making is legs on the head of a fruit fly is what?  Legs that came from pre-existing information--it not considered new information.  

This goes back to your claim that we never see mutations that can change the phenotype of an organism.  Mutations to the HOX genes can do that.  And since we know that the mouth parts of insects come from the same genes that produce legs, new information has arisen.  this is explained by evolution, and by inducing mutations in the HOX genes and seeing an antenna turn into a leg, we see that evolution can convert one structure inot another.  

So are people that have six fingers evolving?

Here's another of your very basic mistakes that demonstrate that you don't understand evolution.  No, people that have six fingers aren't evolving.  Single organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  Until you grasp this, you don't understand evolution.

Nice diagram on the fins to legs though.  I would ask where is the transition for precursors to lungs and vestigial gills.

Lungs are modified swim bladders.  Fish fill them with gases to maintain equilibrium in the water.  As we see in lung fish, these can evolve into lungs and allow the organism to breath air.

What profitable function do the many precursors to lungs have that NS would not delete?

As shown above, swim bladders are very beneficial.

Mount improbable indeed.

Not improbable at all, just your general ignorance on the subject.

I will stick with common design features from a common Designer.

And you'll bask in your ignorance and deny all evidence that falsifies your superstitions.

And actually "theory" is part of the scientific method.  "Fact"  which evolutionists are so accustomed to saying is not.  "Scientific law" is the last step of the SM.

Completely wrong.  Theory is the highest a concept in science can reach.  A theory is a model that has been rigourously tested, fully supported, makes acurate predictions and explains a number of interrelated facts.  A scientific law is much less robust and limited.  
From here:
Theory vs. Law

"The main difference between a scientific law and a theory is that a law does not include a model or explanation; it is simply an observation. Put colloquially, "the world works like this, but we don't completely understand why". As such, a law limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc."

So no, a scientific law is NOT the last step in the scientific method, a theory is  because it has far greater explanitory power.  Here's a little tip, if you want to talk science, learn what what scientific terms mean, you can't make up your own definitions.

Modern diversity has nothing to do with my point on the Cambrian explosion, which shows deletions in the gene pool.  Why?

Deletion in the gene pool??  HOw does the Cambrian explosion show deletions in the gene pool?  There was a great diversification of life!  All those new life forms shows a great increase in the collective gene pool of the earth, you have it exactly opposite of what actually was happening.

Because many of the species found in it are extinct, along with alot of living fossils i.e. modern animals.

What modern animals were alive in the Cambrian???  None of them.  And as to species going extinct, that was due to the four mass extinction events that happen througout the Cambrian period.  

If you are going to say that phylum is a ambiguous or confusing signification, then you do not respect taxonomy.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.  What I'm saying is that phylum, genous, family, everything but species has no meaning in nature.  These names are man's attempt to label stages in a continuum to better understand it.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:17 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, could we get this topic back on track, I know it's fun poking at the ignorant creationist (and he has shown himself to be quite ignorant of evolutionary theory). But the original post is still about how creationists have to explain the lack of bottlenecks on all animals from noahs ark.

I personally don't feel the need to amuse him by explaining him things which he doesn't understand in any case.

The case is, he's ignorant about evolution. He believes he isn't though, and unless he admits that, it'll be a game with constant goal post moving and arguments from ignorance.

Done.

Now back onto topic.

(Edited by Zucadragon 8/4/2009 at 05:30 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:27 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:24 PM on August 3, 2009 :
Not much time--I'm answering several arguments made above.  The point I was making is legs on the head of a fruit fly is what?  Legs that came from pre-existing information--it not considered new information.  



Not this again....

Please see url=http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=46248&page=3" rel="nofollow]this thread[/url].


What is YOUR definition of genetic information?
Were you aware that Kimura demonstrated mathematically that adpative evolution increases genetic information in 1961?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:44 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This goes back to your claim that we never see mutations that can change the phenotype of an organism.

Mr. Demon,

You have clearly misunderstood me.  I do not believe in species fixity.  I have read plenty on variation in phenotype thank you.  My point on the flies was in terms of  new information.  Legs in a different place are encoded by genes for legs which is preexisting information.

The cambrian explosion does have modern animals in it--you need to research it.

Where do you think creationists get the term "living fossils?"
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:55 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:55 PM on August 6, 2009 :
The cambrian explosion does have modern animals in it--you need to research it.



Evidence?





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:04 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:55 PM on August 6, 2009 :
The cambrian explosion does have modern animals in it--you need to research it.


I want to see the Cambrian bunnies!


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:45 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The cambrian explosion does have modern animals in it--you need to research it.

I have researched it and I defy you to show us one modern animal that was alive in the Cambrian.  Got the guts to take up the challenge or are you going to run away?

All the major animal phyla appearred in the Cambrian, but not modern animals.  do you even know what phyla means?  There were no reptiles, birds, mammals in the Cambrian.  there were no modern invertabrates in the Cambrian.  so no, there were no modern animals in the Cambrian.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:05 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point I was making is legs on the head of a fruit fly is what?


Evidence for the process of tagmosis; the evolution of legs on segments of arthropods in a way that provides new functions.    The antennae, chelicerae, pedipalps, mandibles, etc. are all highly modified legs.  If you can interfer with the evolved genes that make them so, they will develop into legs.   Which happens because they are evolved legs.

Legs that came from pre-existing information--it not considered new information.


Every mutation in a population creates new information.   Would you like to see the numbers?

So are people that have six fingers evolving?


No.  First, as you've already been told, individuals don't evolve.  Second,  supernumary digits in vertebrates is not caused by a mutation for six digits, but a slight prolonging of the development of the limb bud during development.

Nice diagram on the fins to legs though.  I would ask where is the transition for precursors to lungs and vestigial gills.


Lungs developed from diverticula in the digestive system.   In some organisms, the connections remain.

Gills are merely elaborations of blood vessels in the branchial arches, which were originally for filtering out food particles.  Would you like to see the evidence for these facts?

Yes I realize we have no soft tissue evidence in the actual fossils, and probably not the complete skeltons.  


In many cases, we have still-living transitionals.

What profitable function do the many precursors to lungs have that NS would not delete?


Early chordates were very small and had neither lungs nor gills.   As they grew, enlarging the surface area of tissues involved in gas exchange was the easiest way to go.

Mount improbable indeed.  I will stick with common design features from a common Designer.


Problem is, what "designer" would cobble up a lung from an alimentary canal?   What "designer" would make a gill from a food scraper?   And yet there it is.  

As engineers begin to tackle complex problems by abandoning design and adopting evolutionary processes, it become clear that God once again had it right.   No mere "designer", He.

And actually "theory" is part of the scientific method.  "Fact"  which evolutionists are so accustomed to saying is not.  "Scientific law" is the last step of the SM.


No.  Laws are weaker than theories.  Both predict phenomena, but theories are stronger and more useful, because they also explain why the phenomena happen.   Hence, Newton's theory of gravity (not Newton's laws of motion) are stronger and more useful then Kepler's Laws which describe the same phenomena, but cannot be applied generally.



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 4:45 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello yehren,

Thank you for your comments.  First, I know that individuals do not evolve.  Any mutation must be passed into and reoccur in consecutive generations to bring change--I understand this.  

Your not mentioning selection in all this. In any reoccurring variation within a population, there must be an advantageous or adaptive trait or change in phenotype for it to be selected for, of course according to environmental and resource factors.

It has been reported that the double wings in these fruit flies hinder flight.  Is this true?  And I would like to see the reocurrance of this in this species of  fruit fly population.  Do you have the data for that?

As far as lungs I have heard this explanation before and have not studied it in depth.  The problem I have personally with this, besides my religious convictions, is non-lungs developing one step at a time.  At each step, they must serve a vital function in order to be selected for--so it is past difficult to imagine what function or organ was precursor to lungs at each step.

You say from the digestive sytem--that is easy to say--but an actual mechanical transition step by step seems to be futile .  The respitory system is complex, separate, and very different than the digestive system.  At any step there could a revertant population because of selection i.e. a deformed organ coming out of the digestive system hence an impasse.  To say it happened because we have lungs is circular reasoning.

Thank you.

(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 01:26 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:01 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your not mentioning selection in all this. In any reoccurring variation within a population, there must be an advantageous or adaptive trait or change in phenotype for it to be selected for, of course according to environmental and resource factors.

Another incorrect claim.  There doesn't have to be an advantageous or adaptive trait or change in the phenotype to be selected for.  A neutral mutation can become fixed in a population and have no benefit to the organism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:18 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is all contexted in evolution.    Most modern mutations are deleterious.  But in order for an organism to speciate there has to be a change. Some changes will not be adaptive, some will, some will be harmful, some deadly, and some beneficial.

But unless you are going to leave Darwin behind selection is what guides evolution.  That's your doctrine not mine.



(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 02:04 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:37 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most modern mutations are deleterious.

Incorrect again, most mutations are neutral, not deleterious.  

But in order for an organism to speciate there has to be a change. Some changes will not be adaptive, some will, some will be harmful, some deadly, and some beneficial.

Once again, you seem to be missing the mark on your understanding of evolution.  Yes, in order for a new species to form, something has to change.  Harmful mutations will most likely be weeded out, but neutral mutations can be retained and at some point in the future, they may become beneficial.  Whether a muatation is beneficial, neutral or harmful is based on the environment it manifests itself in.
Ever heard of selective sweeps?  From here:
Selective Sweep

"A selective sweep can occur when a new mutation occurs that increases the fitness of the carrier relative to other members of the population. Natural selection will favour individuals that have a higher fitness and with time the newly mutated variant (allele) will increase in frequency relative to other alleles. As its prevalence increases, neutral and nearly neutral genetic variation linked to the new mutation will also become more prevalent. This phenomenon is called genetic hitchhiking. A strong selective sweep results in a region of the genome where the positively selected haplotype (the mutated allele and its neighbours) is essentially the only one that exists in the population, resulting in a large reduction of the total genetic variation in that chromosome region."

So no, there doesn't have to be an advantage for a mutation to become fixed in a population.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:20 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your not mentioning selection in all this.


Hasn't been needed, so far.

In any reoccurring variation within a population, there must be an advantageous or adaptive trait or change in phenotype for it to be selected for, of course according to environmental and resource factors.


So, if a small chordate has neither lungs nor gills, it's OK, because it can get enough gas exchange through body surfaces, especially heavily vascularized ones.  

But if it gets bigger, what then?   It can increase the surface area (which would normally increase as the square of the length, when tissues increase as the cube of the length).   So any change that slightly folds or widens tissue is a good thing.   This is what we see in embyros as the lungs develop.    It's what we see in branchial arches as gills develop.  

Simple process.  If you'd like to learn more about how surface area can grow like that, read D'Arcy Thompson's  "On Growth and Form".   Written about a century ago, it's still worth looking at.

It has been reported that the double wings in these fruit flies hinder flight.


In all dipterans, which have modified one set of wings to make halteres, which serve as organs of balance.   Without them, dipterans can't use their mode of flight.    The deal is, if you go in and disable the mutations that led to this evolutionary change, they regain their wings.   But they have changed in other ways, and can no longer fly like that.

As far as lungs I have heard this explanation before and have not studied it in depth.  The problem I have personally with this, besides my religious convictions, is non-lungs developing one step at a time.


OK.  Primitive tiny chordate, just doing gas exchange through body surfaces.   The digestive tract is highly vascularized, and water is pumped in the front section, so it does a lot of that.   A mutation folds or exvaginates a part of the gullet, and now it more efficiently exchanges gas.   If it gets bigger, even better.   More blood vessels help, too, as does more surface area in the sac itself.    And so we see all sorts of intermediates between the simple chordate, and complex vertebrate lungs.

At each step, they must serve a vital function in order to be selected for--so it is past difficult to imagine what function or organ was precursor to lungs at each step.


Show me a step in the process that's impossible, or even dauntingly difficult.

You say from the digestive sytem--that is easy to say--but an actual mechanical transition step by step seems to be futile .


See above.

The respitory system is complex, separate, and very different than the digestive system.[ /quote]

It is for us.  But for simpler chordates, no.

At any step there could a revertant population because of selection i.e. a deformed organ coming out of the digestive system hence an impasse.


Probably happened a lot.  Natural selection sorts that out.

To say it happened because we have lungs is circular reasoning.


To say that's the argument scientists use is a strawman.

Thank you.


My pleasure.




(Edited by Yehren 8/8/2009 at 7:58 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 7:45 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren--"So, if a small chordate has neither lungs nor gills, it's OK, because it can get enough gas exchange through body surfaces, especially heavily vascularized ones.  

But if it gets bigger, what then?   It can increase the surface area (which would normally increase as the square of the length, when tissues increase as the cube of the length).   So any change that slightly folds or widens tissue is a good thing.   This is what we see in embyros as the lungs develop.    It's what we see in branchial arches as gills develop. "


     Breathing through skin: Frogs now do this but have 20 % help from lungs.  Note they are in an environment of 17% O2 not H2O.

     The only gilled animal who does this is the eel--uses skin at 29%.  No fish reported.
Neither are there any gilless or lungless animals that breathe through their skin.  Do you have an example?  The animal you speak of is hypothetical.

     Embryonic research evidence--okay. The embryo is on life support from the mother--it can't survive on it's own.  Of course the lung tissue is expanding--it's developing--everything is expanding.  That gives no evidence that it actually happened.



(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 11:51 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:50 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
So, if a small chordate has neither lungs nor gills, it's OK, because it can get enough gas exchange through body surfaces, especially heavily vascularized ones.  

But if it gets bigger, what then?   It can increase the surface area (which would normally increase as the square of the length, when tissues increase as the cube of the length).   So any change that slightly folds or widens tissue is a good thing.   This is what we see in embyros as the lungs develop.    It's what we see in branchial arches as gills develop. "

Breathing through skin: Frogs now do this but have 20 % help from lungs.  Note they are in an environment of 17% O2 not H2O.


Not quite.  There is at least one lungless frog.  Barbourula kalimantanensis gets all it's gas exchange via skin.   There is at least one lungless caecilian, Atretochoana eiselti.   There is an entire family of lungless salamanders, the Plethodontidae.   They don't have gills as adults, either.

The only gilled animal who does this is the eel--uses skin at 29%.  No fish reported.


Eels are fish.

Neither are there any gilless or lungless animals that breathe through their skin.  Do you have an example?  The animal you speak of is hypothetical.


See above.   The animal closest to the ancestral cephalochordate is Amphioxus.  It gets all of its gas exchange through body tissues.  This animal has gills, but they are used to gather food (which seems to be the original use of gills in chordates)

So there's a great deal of evidence for the evolution of gas exchange in chordates.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:42 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes your right.  Eels are fish.  I guess your always going to find something in the diversity we have.  Good job.  Is there example of an animal who breathes through it's intestines?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:52 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is there example of an animal who breathes through it's intestines?


The rear of the digestive tract is not a very good place for gas exchange.   However, the amphioxus does gas exchange at the front of its alimentary canal.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:16 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to chat a bit about genetic bottlenecks and how that impacts the world wide flood myth.


A.  Had a chance to reflect and study a bit. Three things are common causes of bottlenecks.

1.  Breeding (artificial selection)
2. Hunting (endangering species)
3. Invasive species. (Such as Asian carp)

There are many documented cases of endangered or bred species in recent history (e.g. buffalo in the 1800's/ breeding dogs/ cats/ livestock).  How many undocumented cases are there in the unrecorded history of thousands of years ago, which is by no means exhaustive in info to us?


B. As far as variation in bats.  There is too much emphasis on mutation in evolution and very little on genetic variation.  if you read on I will explain.

Though eye color would not usually be used as a taxonomic factor in determining species, for the sake of argument, let's go with it for a moment.

First, I am not a zoologist, so I'm not an expert on bats, but I have read a little on genetics.  Mendel and those later acknowledged that alleomorphic factors were not always completely dominant or recessive.  Proof of this in human eye color is apparent (e.g. hazel, green, light/dark blue, light/dark brown).  This is from one factor in each gamete, forming two in the heterozygote.  Or what so many love to oversimplify by saying two alleles.  The point this is only ONE alleomorphic factor.  

Now if you take two factors, IF there is random distribution (which there is not always),and total dominance and recessiveness (which there is not always) you will have 4 possibilities (e.g. small blue, large blue, small brown, large brown).

If you take three you will get eight possibilities (e.g. small round blue, small flat blue, small round brown, small flat brown, large round brown, large flat brown, large round blue, large flat blue).  This is using only 2 traits for each alleomorphic factor.  The shape of eye--round/flat.  The color--brown/blue.  The size--large/small


Please do not confuse this with the ratios of Mendel's peas.  This is only the variation of possibilities between three small traits in eyes.   Not the ratios.  

If you use 4 factors you will get 16 possibilities.  Five you will get 32 possibilities.  You see to potential for simple variation.  How much if you go through the entire anatomy?

If lines begin to separate you will have eventual speciation, and if left alone unhindered, perhaps many variations . When I say speciation, I do not mean a total genetic boundary where they are unable to recombine their genetic material.  This would be the case I assume in bats--able to breed from two different species--if physically possible i.e. size difference.


The point is there are a multitude of factors in each organism i.e. populations --latent and active or appearing (dominant and recessive), because have descended from many ancestors.

Because we have blue eyes does by no means we have only a gene that creates blue eyes, we may have a strong hazel influence or green in our linage.  And that may show up in one of the zygotes we are responsible for.

Second, there is genetic linkage i.e. coupling and repulsion.. that is that which was originally together alleomorphically tends to stay together, and that which was originally apart tends to stay apart (factors) so that there is not a random distribution of factors in the heterozygotes (hence offspring) in respect to dominant and recessive traits.

By "originally" it is meant "wild type" organisms.  So for Mendel's peas, it was peas of the early 1900's --so the ratios came up for them.  Other ratios came up later and the data in the previous paragraph was found.

The point of this is (just food for thought) what is wild type of today compared to wild type of 4000 years ago.  You don't know what was dominant and recessive 4000 years ago or even 500 years ago for that matter.  



(Edited by AFJ 8/15/2009 at 12:27 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:01 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 11:01 PM on August 14, 2009 :
First, I am not a zoologist, so I'm not an expert on bats, but I have read a little on genetics.  Mendel and those later acknowledged that alleomorphic factors were not always completely dominant or recessive.  Proof of this in human eye color is apparent (e.g. hazel, green, light/dark blue, light/dark brown).  This is from one factor in each gamete, forming two in the heterozygote.  Or what so many love to oversimplify by saying two alleles.  The point this is only ONE alleomorphic factor.  


OK, so let's look the ark situation and run some numbers.  Noah and his wife could each have two alleles at each locus, so his sons could have combinations of those 4 alleles.  Their three wives could each have another 2, so at most we would see (4 + 2x3)=10 alleles for each gene in the human genome.

Now let's look at an actual gene:


P450 oxidoreductase  (POR)

It has 41 documented alleles plus another 15 known but not fully researched.

Where did they come from?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:12 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What Apoapsis asks, is the real question. We're not talking about alleles for different traits. We're talking alleles of a single trait.

As he points out, there's 56 specific alleles for that single trait, how did they arise from the a flood genetics stand point?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 1:29 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps a more understandable example.  The CODIS database is run by the FBI to store DNA information.  It is based on 13 locations in the human genome.  One of them is in the FGA gene, which makes a blood clotting protein.

FGA  fibrinogen alpha chain

There are currently 103 cataloged variations.

FGA Variant List

If you are unlucky enough to be in CODIS, your version is listed.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:42 AM on August 17, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Zucadragon at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2009 :
What Apoapsis asks, is the real question. We're not talking about alleles for different traits. We're talking alleles of a single trait.

As he points out, there's 56 specific alleles for that single trait, how did they arise from the a flood genetics stand point?



Hold on here.  You're saying there are 56 alleles for a single trait.  All these alleles are variations of a gene at a locus.  There has been research which shows involvement at other loci for traits.

Okay, Noah had how many great grandparents? Eight.  He had how many great great grand parents? Sixteen.  He did not have 16 different alleles per trait in his first son.  He had 1 in the gamete which joined his wife's gamete that showed as an alleomorphic factor in one trait (e.g.hand size) in his first son.  On his second son, it was two different gametes that joined  with potentially two different alleles that brought a potential variation in the hand size of the second son.  It is a real possibility that one got an alleomorphic factor that was similar to a brother of his maternal grandfather for hand size-- and the other gother got an alleleomorphic  factor  similar to his great uncle on his dad's side.  

When you say 2 alleles this comes from the two specific gametes that come from a direct act of sex, which produces a zygote, which produces only one individual.  That individual will be unique in all his alleomorphic factors.  He will be totally different than perhaps his brother--and probably his first cousin.

That doesn't mean your going to have ONLY 2 alleles for a trait per  person or all the children would be nearly identical.  
 

No.   People have always had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors per person within their DNA.  The eight (assumed) people on the ark had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors within them because of their grandparents.

You are forgetting that we pass on recessive factors (e.g. baldness or twins among the most obvious).

(Edited by AFJ 8/24/2009 at 9:40 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:27 PM on August 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:27 PM on August 24, 2009 :
Quote from Zucadragon at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2009 :
What Apoapsis asks, is the real question. We're not talking about alleles for different traits. We're talking alleles of a single trait.

As he points out, there's 56 specific alleles for that single trait, how did they arise from the a flood genetics stand point?



Hold on here.  You're saying there are 56 alleles for a single trait.


That's what he said, but it's alleles of a single gene.

 All these alleles are variations of a gene at a locus.  


That's right.

There has been research which shows involvement at other loci for traits.


So what?  We're talking about one gene.

Okay, Noah had how many great grandparents? Eight.  He had how many great great grand parents? Sixteen.  


And he had at most two alleles at one location.


He did not have 16 different alleles per trait in his first son.  He had 1 in the gamete which joined his wife's gamete that showed as an alleomorphic factor in one trait (e.g.hand size) in his first son.  On his second son, it was two different gametes that joined  with potentially two different alleles that brought a potential variation in the hand size of the second son.  It is a real possibility that one got an alleomorphic factor that was similar to a brother of his maternal grandfather for hand size-- and the other gother got an alleleomorphic  factor  similar to his great uncle on his dad's side.  


Huh?

When you say 2 alleles this comes from the two specific gametes that come from a direct act of sex, which produces a zygote, which produces only one individual.  That individual will be unique in all his alleomorphic factors.  He will be totally different than perhaps his brother--and probably his first cousin.

That doesn't mean your going to have ONLY 2 alleles for a trait per  person or all the children would be nearly identical.  

 
One allele from the mother and one from the father over 20,000 genes is plenty of variations, but still a maximum of 4 potential alleles at one location.

No.   People have always had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors per person within their DNA.  The eight (assumed) people on the ark had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors within them because of their grandparents.

You are forgetting that we pass on recessive factors (e.g. baldness or twins among the most obvious).


Huh?

Here is how Answers in Genesis think Adam and Eve's blood types went, two alleles per parent, just like everybody else:



Now, you can download a spreadsheet of more than 160 known alleles of the ABO bloodtype gene here:

ABO Allele database spreadsheet

Where did they come from?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:32 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm not really understanding the problem since Noah is one person and had two alleles and then 4000 years later 6 billion people have 56 different alleles of this trait.  So are saying that if Noah had only two and his wife two that there should always be 4 alleles.  

Perhaps you should study Mendel. The bottom line is alleomorphic factors.  They are the evidence of  variation between dominant and recessive.   So if there is evidence of mixture of dominant and recessive, then there can also be family lines of variation.

How many variations are there in eye color?  I have seen many.  Even in blue eyes alone there is variation.  SO are you saying there are only two alleles in eye color?  

Everyone has hidden (recessive) traits in their family line.  You can say whatever about any so-called genes.   There are recessive traits in all of us which are not showing in us but may show in our children which come from our ancestors.  

Sorry I keep editing, but I thought of an example.  Say there is a trend in a generation of more black and white mixing.  In the second generation a certain % o mixed seek mixed as mates.  Say some social factor then causes them to segregate away from blacks and whites.  They will have alleles that were different than their ancestors, especially if they keep recombining the same alleles.  This is what happened with the Creole.

(Edited by AFJ 8/27/2009 at 10:25 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 8/27/2009 at 10:40 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 8/27/2009 at 10:56 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:23 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing complicated, one person can have at most two alleles of one gene.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:37 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So first it was "Let's not get this too complicated", and now we're talking about recombination.

Why don't you explain recombination to us?

Can it change the length of a gene?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:59 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Recombination in DNA happens everytime a zygote is created.  Because two gametes meet and recombine 23 chromosomes a piece (in humans obviously).  The gametes are not clones--they are variations of genetic material that have produced dominant and recessive traits within that person, and mixtures of dominant and recessive that were inherited from their parents.

"Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books....The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1  This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 2(6700)  or 10(2017) (exponents). The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 10(80), extremely tiny by comparison."

Why would you want to ask about gene length when we are talking about the variations of the gene and the factors it produces.  That is an attempted goal post shift.  

One can see by the evidence of factors, like Mendel did with peas.  He was not studying introns, exons. and operons.  He was studying the factors the genes produced.

I explained that geneticists conclude that there is mixture in varying degrees of dominant and recessive traits.  This creates variation for potential family lines with "stand out" traits which differ from another family (and extended family).  

Otherwise you could not breed animals and plants.  Breeding is done by noticing desirable traits and isolating them to mate or (self/cross) pollenate, thus causing a higher production of the desired traits in offspring.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 08:56 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you considered crossovers?
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 09:21 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 08:56 AM on August 30, 2009 :
Why would you want to ask about gene length when we are talking about the variations of the gene and the factors it produces.  That is an attempted goal post shift.  


The tables of alleles I've shown you are not all the same length.

Does that mean the longer ones have more information?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:48 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:12 PM on August 15, 2009 :
Quote from AFJ at 11:01 PM on August 14, 2009 :
First, I am not a zoologist, so I'm not an expert on bats, but I have read a little on genetics.  Mendel and those later acknowledged that alleomorphic factors were not always completely dominant or recessive.  Proof of this in human eye color is apparent (e.g. hazel, green, light/dark blue, light/dark brown).  This is from one factor in each gamete, forming two in the heterozygote.  Or what so many love to oversimplify by saying two alleles.  The point this is only ONE alleomorphic factor.  


OK, so let's look the ark situation and run some numbers.  Noah and his wife could each have two alleles at each locus, so his sons could have combinations of those 4 alleles.  Their three wives could each have another 2, so at most we would see (4 + 2x3)=10 alleles for each gene in the human genome.

Now let's look at an actual gene:


P450 oxidoreductase  (POR)

It has 41 documented alleles plus another 15 known but not fully researched.

Where did they come from?






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:03 PM on March 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:32 AM on August 26, 2009 :
Quote from AFJ at 9:27 PM on August 24, 2009 :
Quote from Zucadragon at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2009 :
What Apoapsis asks, is the real question. We're not talking about alleles for different traits. We're talking alleles of a single trait.

As he points out, there's 56 specific alleles for that single trait, how did they arise from the a flood genetics stand point?



Hold on here.  You're saying there are 56 alleles for a single trait.


That's what he said, but it's alleles of a single gene.

 All these alleles are variations of a gene at a locus.  


That's right.

There has been research which shows involvement at other loci for traits.


So what?  We're talking about one gene.

Okay, Noah had how many great grandparents? Eight.  He had how many great great grand parents? Sixteen.  


And he had at most two alleles at one location.


He did not have 16 different alleles per trait in his first son.  He had 1 in the gamete which joined his wife's gamete that showed as an alleomorphic factor in one trait (e.g.hand size) in his first son.  On his second son, it was two different gametes that joined  with potentially two different alleles that brought a potential variation in the hand size of the second son.  It is a real possibility that one got an alleomorphic factor that was similar to a brother of his maternal grandfather for hand size-- and the other gother got an alleleomorphic  factor  similar to his great uncle on his dad's side.  


Huh?

When you say 2 alleles this comes from the two specific gametes that come from a direct act of sex, which produces a zygote, which produces only one individual.  That individual will be unique in all his alleomorphic factors.  He will be totally different than perhaps his brother--and probably his first cousin.

That doesn't mean your going to have ONLY 2 alleles for a trait per  person or all the children would be nearly identical.  

 
One allele from the mother and one from the father over 20,000 genes is plenty of variations, but still a maximum of 4 potential alleles at one location.

No.   People have always had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors per person within their DNA.  The eight (assumed) people on the ark had many alleles and potential alleomorphic factors within them because of their grandparents.

You are forgetting that we pass on recessive factors (e.g. baldness or twins among the most obvious).


Huh?

Here is how Answers in Genesis think Adam and Eve's blood types went, two alleles per parent, just like everybody else:



Now, you can download a spreadsheet of more than 160 known alleles of the ABO bloodtype gene here:

ABO Allele database spreadsheet

Where did they come from?






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 05:40 AM on March 2, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a very simple yet very important point they keep weaseling out from.

So very simple... So very mouth shutting...

When you say 2 alleles this comes from the two specific gametes that come from a direct act of sex, which produces a zygote, which produces only one individual.  That individual will be unique in all his alleomorphic factors.  He will be totally different than perhaps his brother--and probably his first cousin.

That doesn't mean your going to have ONLY 2 alleles for a trait per  person or all the children would be nearly identical.
One allele from the mother and one from the father over 20,000 genes is plenty of variations, but still a maximum of 4 potential alleles at one location.
That's right, of course, but i doubt that they will understand the word "potential". If you say it like that they might understand that there might be people with 4 alleles in one locus.

They have done sillier things. Like when Lester thought that the woman who could see 4 colors was visually impaired.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:35 AM on March 2, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bump


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:53 PM on March 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bump


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:35 PM on August 15, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

G-day all.
was directed to this thread via the "Adam and Eve: the parents of the human genetic diversity" thread
I would be lieing if I said I read the entire thread, but I did skim the majority of it. expecially the first page.

now Im no genetics PhD professor, but prehaps I can make some meaningful observations and bounce ideas off the rest of you.

as stated, of what I read of this thread was mostly on the first page. so I will be taking the line of conversation right back to the OP and the first few directly proceeding it (hope you don't mind). and as such, please don't hold against me anything other creationists have said (on or off the internet). allow me to make my own mistakes ^_^


as always, missinterpriting the question can lead to pointless arguments. so here is MY interpritation of the OP. numbered in dot point for easyer reference
the OP is stating that
Point 1 - 4,000 years ago all animals in the ark where reduced down to 1 breading pair (a male and a female). [with the exception of humans and 'clean animals'. but the extra 'clean animals' where used as a sacrifice anyway]
Point 2 - and this radical reduction in genetic divercity would/should cause EVERY creature to experiance a genetic bottleneck
Point 3 - because EVERY creature experianced a bottleneck, then EVERY creatures DNA should be showing "red flags"
Point 4 - and said "red flags" would be like the biggest brightest neon sign in existence pointing to 4000 years ago and going "SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE !"
Point 5 - and, the "red flags" are not present in all creatures. thus discrediting (if not disprooving) the great flood

the OP uses bats and cheetahs as the prime examples.
Bats - 1100 species exist (Zucadragon: That is a new species roughly each year), all coming from the one breading pair
cheetahs - currently at a population of 9000 - 14000 are in a genetic bottleneck. and (Zucadragon) Cannot mutate fast enough to produce a diversity of species within a short period of time.

through out the first few posts there is also much pointing to the fact that All animals have two alleles for a given genes. eg:
Zucadragon: One bat will have 2 alleles of every gene, meaning that the maximum difference that every bat has, is those 2 alleles. (for instance, one bat can have an allele for eye color green and one for blue, but not a third one for brown).

So if there were two bats on the ark, that effectively gives them 4 alleles to diversify from.
4 different alleles is nothing.






that is MY understanding of the questions being asked. now for my responces (NOTE: nothing I say in this post should be taken as dogmatic. everything I say is my opinion, and my opinion in liable to change in respect to the responces I get from others. remember Im just bouncing ideas of people, Im not a geneticist)

Point 1: as a YEC I do not disagree with this. and given the nature of the questions being asked, this point (at least for this thread) should be set in stone (aka, not argued about within this tread)

Point 2: a fundimental face. also should be set in stone

Point 3: as has already been asked
AFJ: Cheetahs have a low sperm count and flagella problems in the sperm. Is this what you guys are talking about when you say red flags? What other supposed evidences of bottleneck are we looking for?
not sure if it has been answered yet tho

Point 4: see responce to Point 3

Point 5: see responce to Point 3

it seems that your argument rests heavily on your definition of genetic red flags. and as such I don't really have much to add to this so far  
but once I know what you mean my "red flags" I can then look into some reasons WHY other species don't have them




so now on to the specific examples of Bats and Cheetahs:

Zucadragon: That is a new species roughly each year
I think your maths is a little off there. thats 1 new species every 3.6 years
and if AFK is right about his 4 bats on the ark (2 for Macro, 2 for Micro), then that lessens the speed the species have to mutate by half. making it 7.2 years
AND given hyperbolic nature of a single bat species splitting into 2 dis-simmilar species. then those 2 species splitting again.... it calculates to 1 split in species every 363.6 years. this is hardly an extravigant number

and as for the existance of such an obviouse bottleneck in the cheetah.
start with the Feeline Eve. then limit that DNA to just the big cats of Africa. then limit that again to only the cheetah family. then only a few breeding pairs within the cheetah family. add a few centries population control (hunting/starvation/deseise) to keep inbreeding at its prime. maybe even chop down to a few breeding pairs again. and before you know it the cheetah family is as inbreed as your run-of-the-mill lab rat.

and to back up my points, I will revisit one of AFJ's quotes
Second, cheetahs are predators and invasive to man. That is man has competed for resources with cheetahs i.e livestock, and wild game.  Cheetahs being a threat to man, the population was probably never allowed to get out of control.  They were probably, as at present, kept in isolated populations for the last 4000 years.

Bats, unlike cheetahs, are ubiquitous, living in all kinds of habitats.  They eat insects and are helpful in pollination of flowers.  So their habitat and resources are world wide--not isolated.  It would be expected that they would have a large gene pool and diversity in their genome.



and finally the point of the alleles (And I did have to do some research into allele and Locus just to understand what you where talking about):
Zucadragon: One bat will have 2 alleles of every gene, meaning that the maximum difference that every bat has, is those 2 alleles. (for instance, one bat can have an allele for eye color green and one for blue, but not a third one for brown).

So if there were two bats on the ark, that effectively gives them 4 alleles to diversify from.
4 different alleles is nothing.
so the maximum ammount of different eye colors is 4?
and I suppose this logic can be applied anywhere? such as the human blood types A, B, and O?   WRONG!
to quote a much disliked source (not 100% reliable, but is usually 95-98% reliable)  Wikipedia :
It is now known that each of the A, B, and O alleles is actually a class of multiple alleles with different DNA sequences that produce proteins with identical properties: more than 70 alleles are known at the ABO locus.[4] An individual with "Type A" blood may be a AO heterozygote, an AA homozygote, or an A'A heterozygote with two different 'A' alleles.

so, I am lead to believe that if multiple alleles can affect (or is it effect!?) the same trait within an organisim, then the changing of each one of those can (but not always will) give a different out come for said trait. In other words, the reason that bats have so many different eye colors (hypertheticly), or why felines have so many different patterns on thier fur(reality), it is all because there is NOT just two alleles per trait!
wisp: And where is the fantastic rate of mutation that gave us the cheetahs, lions, panthers and domestic cats from a pair of felines in the ark?
no fantastic rate of mutation needed. just by fur color, lets say there are 6 alleles that make this trait (a complete bullshit number I just pulled from my head). change one allele and you get a different color, change another and you get stripes instead of spots, change another and you get more stipes/spots. if you made every combination of these then you would have 2^6=64 possible combinations of fur color. thats 64 species of Cat JUST with fur color. next we add size, shape, feeding habits, temperment. thats a lot of species of cats


lol cat strikes again


I have every intention to giving other posts for this thread in responce to your responces, but said posts may take time....
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 11:41 AM on October 1, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NIF - it sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:25 PM on October 3, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion:
NIF - it sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
if this is the way you feel that’s fine. The fact is that I was brought up as a YEC and I am convinced that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

But I don't like to argue faith or theological beliefs. Especially not my faith.
I would much rather debate about science, provable facts, logic and other stuff like that
[oh yeah, and please no one quote this paragraph out of context]

Despite your personal view on how my post sounded. I personally believe that I answered the question presented in an educational manner, addressing key points, and (depending on how others respond) may have even thwarted some of the 'evidence' presented to support the OP's view.

And just for the record, the OP asked (paraphrased): "IF the earth was flooded 4000 years ago, then why aren’t there more genetic markers for bottlenecks"
So I am just working within the parameters given by the OP

 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 01:38 AM on October 4, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, I have now read over more of the tread and have realised that the alleles for blood type/ multiple allele per trait point has already been raised. so now I wonder what exactly is the problem?

we seem to agree that multiple alleles pairs contribute to differences in traits

but you keep stressing that humans have more that two allele per location! where - if anywhere - is the evidence for this?
or did someone just make the mistake of mixing multiple combinations of alleles with multiple alleles?

I thought I'd do some research myself into multiple alleles per gene. and after a few searches on Google I didn't find anything.... I know, not rery convincing. right?
it was around this time that I remembered how I ended up on this thread, so now I point to a devoted Evolutionist who also claims he can not find any evidence of a gene with more than 4 alleles
Geronamid:
I need help. I had a discussion with a young earth creationist. He believes Adam and Eve were real people and that all the genetic diversity we find in the human population today existed in Adam and Eve since the creation. He also believes all mutations are degenerative.

To me this is obviously false and i set out to prove him wrong. If Adam and Eve are the first humans and all mutations are degenerative, we would not find genes with more than 4 functional alleles (2 from Adam and 2 from Eve). The problem is i cant find any human gene with 5 or more functional alleles.

Does anybody know of such a gene?

The same idea works for animals and plants if we were to consider Noah's arc story.

 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 02:23 AM on October 4, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point of genetic bottlenecks, as I understand it, is that populations founded on just a few individuals are suspectible to lower adaptibility to environmental changes and coping with desease.  These populations are 'less fit', one can say.

Bottlenecks and Founder Effects

We don't see evidence of Genetic Bottlenecks in most populations.  How do Creationists address this issue in a scientific manner?  They can't.  This is another example where Creationism fails utterly to explain what we see in the real world today.  

That's why Creationism and ID cannot considered as a science - they have nothing to offer in terms of explaining what we see in world/universe today.  But yet organizations such as the Discovery Institue continue to try to get Creationists ideas presented as an alternative to ToE in the science classroom.  This is just plain WRONG.  Presenting Creationism in a science classroom only presents children with a false impression of what science really is.  It's akin to presenting witchcraft and Voodoo and telling them that they are valid ideas of science.

Science and religious faith are two seperate matters, and should be treated as such.  In fact, I would agree that science and religious faith are incompatible with each other.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:33 AM on October 4, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion:
The point of genetic bottlenecks, as I understand it, is that populations founded on just a few individuals are suspectible to lower adaptibility to environmental changes and coping with desease.  These populations are 'less fit', one can say.
agreed. that is also how I see it

We don't see evidence of Genetic Bottlenecks in most populations.  How do Creationists address this issue in a scientific manner?  They can't.  This is another example where Creationism fails utterly to explain what we see in the real world today.  
there are several points given in this paragraph. rather than break it up into 3-4 quote boxes (witch is a style I have seen others use that REALLY bugs me) I will address the paragraph as a whole.
firstly, jumping back to our agreed apon outline of what a "genetic bottle" neck is, I can say that the definition uses the term 'less fit'. witch in turn implies that there is a control group that is 'more fit'.
because modern science goes by what it can see it often over looks the recorded past (for your sake lets say Im using the term lightly). if all animals, dogs, cats, bats, skunks, etc. are currently experiencing a bottleneck then the original population must have been 'fitter' than current day populations. but because modern day science will only use living creatures as the control group then it is easy to over look the existing 'genetic bottlenecks'

you may see this as just random speculation. so I will give you a specific example of a genetic bottleneck presented by the bible... Humans. Humans where recorded as having life spans of 900+ years before the flood. but after the flood that number plumeted right down. the reason for this plumet is because, as you put it, the genetic bottleneck caused by a population founded of just a few individuals caused the population to become less adaptible to environmental changes and coping with desease. they became 'less fit'
so there you have it. a creationist has now addressed the matter in a scientific manner. witch leaves Your statement conserning your opposition in this debate to be woefully inaccurate.

That's why Creationism and ID cannot considered as a science - they have nothing to offer in terms of explaining what we see in world/universe today.  But yet organizations such as the Discovery Institue continue to try to get Creationists ideas presented as an alternative to ToE in the science classroom.  This is just plain WRONG.  Presenting Creationism in a science classroom only presents children with a false impression of what science really is.  It's akin to presenting witchcraft and Voodoo and telling them that they are valid ideas of science.

Science and religious faith are two seperate matters, and should be treated as such.  In fact, I would agree that science and religious faith are incompatible with each other.

earlier you stated that my quote "sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself that the earth is only a few thousand years old."
well in all honesty this last part of your post I quoted sounds to me that you are ranting on about your (off topic) ideals about christianity being tought in schools. in my opinion.

but at least you did make one valid point
Science and religious faith are two seperate matters, and should be treated as such.
but weather or not they are incompatible is the basis for most of the threads on this sight (well, the Evoluton vs Creationism part of this sight)

signed   NIF

PS:  I know YEC stands for "Young Earth Creationist". and that the E in ToE stands for "Evolutionist". but could some one please give me a list of common short hand used in this forum
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:28 AM on October 5, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 05:28 AM on October 5, 2011 :
firstly, jumping back to our agreed apon outline of what a "genetic bottle" neck is, I can say that the definition uses the term 'less fit'. witch in turn implies that there is a control group that is 'more fit'.
because modern science goes by what it can see it often over looks the recorded past (for your sake lets say Im using the term lightly). if all animals, dogs, cats, bats, skunks, etc. are currently experiencing a bottleneck then the original population must have been 'fitter' than current day populations. but because modern day science will only use living creatures as the control group then it is easy to over look the existing 'genetic bottlenecks'

you may see this as just random speculation. so I will give you a specific example of a genetic bottleneck presented by the bible... Humans. Humans where recorded as having life spans of 900+ years before the flood. but after the flood that number plumeted right down. the reason for this plumet is because, as you put it, the genetic bottleneck caused by a population founded of just a few individuals caused the population to become less adaptible to environmental changes and coping with desease. they became 'less fit'
so there you have it. a creationist has now addressed the matter in a scientific manner. witch leaves Your statement conserning your opposition in this debate to be woefully inaccurate.


About the 'more fit' 'less fit' thing; it isn't comparative to a control group but to the original population. The original population for example may have allele A B C D E F, each having a different effect. When a genetic bottleneck comes in the new population may have allele B C and F. Since the new population is less diverse than the original it is dubbed 'less fit'.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by looking at the 'recorded past', do you just mean historical records like the Bible?

Good luck showing that Orion's statement is wrong though, you're going to need it. Just the Bible saying or implying that we have a genetic bottleneck without the empirical evidence to back it up isn't science as you're using no physical evidence. A hypothesis is a good start, now all you need is some hard evidence.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:47 PM on October 8, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you Fencer27. Your response is just the sort of limited reasoning I was referring to. Witch now makes my job of elaborating on what I said a lot more easy.

First let us make sure we are all on the same page
Fencer27:
The original population for example may have allele A B C D E F, each having a different effect. When a genetic bottleneck comes in the new population may have allele B C and F. Since the new population is less diverse than the original it is dubbed 'less fit'.
what you are saying here gives the impression that there are More Than Four alleles for a location (A B C D E F). I am quite sure that this is Impossible. Especially if we are talking about humans.
However, if what you were trying to imply that your hypothetical scenario has 6 combinations of alleles for a single trait, then I understand what you mean.


For the sake of simplicity lets us refer to a set of hypothetical allele combination for a trait:
there are 4 alleles: A , B , C , D
And using combinations of only 3 Alleles, you get differences in a particular trait:  (64 total combinations)
figure 1
AAA AAB AAC AAD BAA BAB BAC BAD CAA CAB CAC CAD DAA DAB DAC DAD
ABA ABB ABC ABD BBA BBB BBC BBD CBA CBB CBC CBD DBA DBB DBC DBD
ACA ACB ACC ACD BCA BCB BCC BCD CCA CCB CCC CCD DCA DCB DCC DCD
ADA ADB ADC ADD BDA BDB BDC BDD CDA CDB CDC CDD DDA DDB DDC DDD


Now let’s say that one variation of the trait (variation x) can be made from any of the combinations that end in B.
Our example sub-species has bred to the point where there are zero animals in the herd (gene pool) that have the genes for variation x. thus the gene pool for this species looks like this:
figure 2
AAA --- AAC AAD BAA --- BAC BAD CAA --- CAC CAD DAA --- DAC DAD
ABA --- ABC ABD BBA --- BBC BBD CBA --- CBC CBD DBA --- DBC DBD
ACA --- ACC ACD    BCA --- BCC BCD CCA --- CCC CCD DCA --- DCC DCD
ADA --- ADC ADD BDA --- BDC BDD CDA --- CDC CDD DDA --- DDC DDD


And like you said
Since the new population is less diverse than the original it is dubbed 'less fit'.


We all in agreement so far?  Good. Let’s continue


Just as Fencer27 said: for determining Genetic bottlenecks Modern science needs to be based on "The original population".
this coincides precisely to what I was referring to when I said "modern day science will only use living creatures as the control group".

Unless someone can prove that the control group used by scientist is Actually the "original population", then it is perfectly logical to assume that that population has gone through some inbreeding, and there for has lost some of the combinations along the way.
ie: instead to the control group being like figure 1, it is more like figure 3.
figure 3
AAA --- AAC AAD BAA BAB BAC BAD CAA CAB --- CAD DAA DAB DAC ---
--- ABB ABC ABD BBA BBB --- BBD --- CBB CBC CBD DBA --- DBC DBD
ACA ACB --- ACD BCA BCB --- BCD CCA CCB CCC CCD DCA DCB --- DCD
ADA ADB ADC ADD --- BDB BDC BDD CDA --- CDC --- DDA DDB DDC DDD


and thus what is being tested as the "original population" is actually only a sub species that has already become "less fit" than the original.



Fencer27:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by looking at the 'recorded past', do you just mean historical records like the Bible?
yes. but me basing the scientific merits of my argument on what the bible says is ludicrous. so let’s cut that statement down to just "the past".
in "the past" animals still bred. and some bred within a limited group (like their own herd). this, as we can all agree, will inevitably cause a genetic bottleneck. a "loss of data". a loss of diversity. speciation. or whatever terminology you would like to use... that point is that the animals we see Today, and run our tests on Today, are ALL going to be 'less fit' than the animals of 1000 years ago. who will be 'less fit' than the animals 4000 years ago (on or off the ark). who will be 'less fit' than the "original Population".

and this, once again, gives a scientific explanation to the question
(paraphrased): "IF the earth was flooded 4000 years ago, then why aren’t there more genetic markers for bottlenecks"



Signed Nif


PS: if there is ANYONE on this forum who does not agree with these two points then they should speak up NOW!
1- there can only be 4 Alleles per location
2- there can be a combination of Multiple Alleles that affect a single trait

PPS: also, there have been multiple posts on this thread that indicate that some people Do disagree with the above two points. So if we can all agree on these now, then we won't have to back track the conversation later

 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 08:18 AM on October 15, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 07:18 AM on October 15, 2011 :

PS: if there is ANYONE on this forum who does not agree with these two points then they should speak up NOW!
1- there can only be 4 Alleles per location
2- there can be a combination of Multiple Alleles that affect a single trait

PPS: also, there have been multiple posts on this thread that indicate that some people Do disagree with the above two points. So if we can all agree on these now, then we won't have to back track the conversation later



OK, for an individual, there can be two alleles for one gene.  Why do you think there can be four?  Where would they go?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:14 PM on October 16, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


NIF:
First let us make sure we are all on the same page

Fencer27:
The original population for example may have allele A B C D E F, each having a different effect. When a genetic bottleneck comes in the new population may have allele B C and F. Since the new population is less diverse than the original it is dubbed 'less fit'.


what you are saying here gives the impression that there are More Than Four alleles for a location (A B C D E F). I am quite sure that this is Impossible. Especially if we are talking about humans.


NIF:  Fencer is referring to the number of possible alleles for a particular gene within a population.  You appear to be confusing her comments with an idividual.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:46 PM on October 16, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

@ Fence and Orion:
since my entire knowlage on alleles, locus, and thier affects on traits is completly based on what I have learnt since reading this thread, it is entirely possible that I have the wrong understanding of the topic.
never the less, this is how I see it. feel free to correct any missunderstandings.

an individual has their own set of traits that is defined by their genetic structure.
each trait is defined by one or more combinations of a particular set of alleles within their genetic structure
each gene (single location within the entire DNA) can hold only two alleles at any one time. ie: in the individual
however, each gene can hold a possible of four different alleles. ie: in the entire population
because of this last point: creationists are able to argue that these four different alleles came from Adam and Eve (2 from Adam and 2 from Eve)

my 'knowlage' about the four alleles per location is based on what Geronamid said. I have also looked up the definitions of Locus, alleles and genes (before now), and what I read did not contradict this. that is how I came to this conclution.
Geronamid:
I need help. I had a discussion with a young earth creationist. He believes Adam and Eve were real people and that all the genetic diversity we find in the human population today existed in Adam and Eve since the creation. He also believes all mutations are degenerative.

To me this is obviously false and i set out to prove him wrong. If Adam and Eve are the first humans and all mutations are degenerative, we would not find genes with more than 4 functional alleles (2 from Adam and 2 from Eve). The problem is i cant find any human gene with 5 or more functional alleles.

Does anybody know of such a gene?

The same idea works for animals and plants if we were to consider Noah's arc story.



like I said. if I am wrong in any of this, correct me.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 03:33 AM on October 17, 2011 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 02:33 AM on October 17, 2011 :
like I said. if I am wrong in any of this, correct me.


Geronamid is stating the consequence of the creationist position.  If we believe that Adam and Eve were specially created, there should only be 4 alleles for any gene found in the human population.  You appear to agree with this statement.

In reality, many genes have a larger number of alleles cataloged, in this thread, I gave examples of the P450 gene with 56 known alleles, and the FGA fibrinogen alpha chain with 103.

What is the creationist position about where this new information came from?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:36 AM on October 17, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 07:18 AM on October 15, 2011 :
Thank you Fencer27. Your response is just the sort of limited reasoning I was referring to. Witch now makes my job of elaborating on what I said a lot more easy.


Glad I could help.

First let us make sure we are all on the same page
what you are saying here gives the impression that there are More Than Four alleles for a location (A B C D E F). I am quite sure that this is Impossible. Especially if we are talking about humans.


Only populations evolve. With humans, each individual has only 2 alleles per gene, one from each homologous chromosome (you have 46 chromosomes, 23 pairs). But you have more than one individual in a species; a hundred individuals means a total of 200 alleles per gene (whether they're different or not is another matter), so it is quite realistic to assume that a given gene has 6 or more different alleles when you add up all the different alleles present in said species or group for a hypothetical scenario. As Apoapsis commented, we know of genes that have a lot more alleles than just 4 or 6.

For the sake of simplicity lets us refer to a set of hypothetical allele combination for a trait:
there are 4 alleles: A , B , C , D
And using combinations of only 3 Alleles, you get differences in a particular trait:  (64 total combinations)
figure 1
AAA AAB AAC AAD BAA BAB BAC BAD CAA CAB CAC CAD DAA DAB DAC DAD
ABA ABB ABC ABD BBA BBB BBC BBD CBA CBB CBC CBD DBA DBB DBC DBD
ACA ACB ACC ACD BCA BCB BCC BCD CCA CCB CCC CCD DCA DCB DCC DCD
ADA ADB ADC ADD BDA BDB BDC BDD CDA CDB CDC CDD DDA DDB DDC DDD


I think you're mixing and matching different aspects of genetics. Genes are located on chromosomes, and any given gene on a chromosome is just one allele - whatever the gene is as alleles are essentially different forms of genes. Since you get half your chromosomes from each of your parents, you have a total of two alleles per gene (one from each corresponding chromosome segment/gene).

Now let’s say that one variation of the trait (variation x) can be made from any of the combinations that end in B.


There are things called dominant and recessive alleles/genes (AA, aa). If you're familiar with Mendel's pea plant stuff that is what this is based on. The idea of allele combinations with three (like you've been doing; i.e. CCD) requires chromosome pairs with three chromosomes instead of two per pair. It doesn't matter what order you put the alleles in; Aa or aA still comes up with the phenotype of "A" as that is the dominant allele and still has the recessive allele "a" and can pass on either to the next generation.

Our example sub-species has bred to the point where there are zero animals in the herd (gene pool) that have the genes for variation x.

And like you said
Since the new population is less diverse than the original it is dubbed 'less fit'.


That is the gist of the idea. In a genetic bottleneck you would see a lot less diversity, so many phenotypes would be lost and/or reduced. Some alleles are less fit than others, so it is more than just shear diversity.

Just as Fencer27 said: for determining Genetic bottlenecks Modern science needs to be based on "The original population".
this coincides precisely to what I was referring to when I said "modern day science will only use living creatures as the control group".


Just as you don't need eye-witnesses to solve a murder, scientists can look at the current evidence and figure out if there was a genetic bottleneck in the past. A genetic bottleneck is characterized by substantial reduction in diversity, not a little loss here and there. But scientists do make use of every tool available, including looking at closely related modern species and groups.


in "the past" animals still bred. and some bred within a limited group (like their own herd). this, as we can all agree, will inevitably cause a genetic bottleneck.


Not at all. I really don't follow your logic. How is only breeding in your group, which was always the case, inevitably cause a genetic bottleneck?

Many animals force their members to travel outside the herd and join another pack, this helps maintain diversity within each individual pack, as well as spreading beneficial mutations. And mutations also helps in increasing genetic diversity.

and this, once again, gives a scientific explanation to the question
(paraphrased): "IF the earth was flooded 4000 years ago, then why aren’t there more genetic markers for bottlenecks"


So the explanation is that everything is constantly undergoing reduction in genetic diversity in tandem with the fact that we cannot travel to the past?

PPS: also, there have been multiple posts on this thread that indicate that some people Do disagree with the above two points. So if we can all agree on these now, then we won't have to back track the conversation later


It is sometimes hard to follow what you're saying because of your unorthodox understanding of genetics, at least for me, so lets not get too carried away.

(Edited by Fencer27 10/17/2011 at 5:14 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:12 PM on October 17, 2011 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.