I wrote:
>>But Noah and his family did not start with two million copies of a gene at
least as far as reproduction is concerned. They started with 10 alleles max
at each location ...<<
Walter replied:
>Fine, for the sake of discussion let's freeze the genetics right there --
and allow NO MORE MUTATIONS. Glenn allows that the population contains 10
alleles maximum for a given gene. How many genes are in the human genome?
Here I will use the evolutionists' figure of 100,000 genes to code for the
human body. (I think it a serious underestimate on their part, it amounts
to merely 2.9 percent of the DNA in a human sperm.) Thus, that small
population contains roughly 10 x 100,000 = ONE MILLION different alleles.<<
Here is the nub of our disagreement.
I am really surprised that you have the wrong definition of an allele. I
quote William D. Stansfield, _Genetics_ 2/ed, Shaum's Outline series,
(McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1983), p. 1.
"Each gene occupies a specific poosition on a chromosome, called the
gene *locus* (*loci*, plural). All allelic forms of a gene therefore are
found at corresponding positions on genetically similar (*homologous*)
chromosomes."
Walter, an allele is defined as follows: For a given location on a
chromosome, there are several variant DNA sequences which can be inserted
into that position. As you correctly point out, the human has 100,000 genes,
on all of his chromosomes. But each chromosome is represented twice. Thus
each set of chromosomes has the potential to have a different allele. The two
chromosomes though may have the same allele on both chromosomes. In the case
of eye color, I have a copy of the allele for blue eyes on each of the
appropriate chromosomes. This is the only way I can have blue eyes. My
wife has brown eyes. I suspect that she is homozygous [this means that she
has two copies of the brown eyed allele on both her chromosomes}. Our
children are all brown eyed, inspite of the fact that one of their
chromosomes has the brown-eyed allele and the other chromosome has the
blue-eyed allele. The brown-eyed allele wins (it is dominant) so if you have
one brown and one blue eyed allele on your chromosomes you have brown eyes.
This is an allele.
What you calculated above is the total number of GENES in the population of
10 people. That is not at all the same as the number of alleles that same
population could have. The maximum number of alleles in the 5 independent
people on the ark was 10.
I think you dealt your case a fatal blow here. Most of the rest of your
argument is based upon your faulty definition of an allele.But there are a
couple of issues that need a response.
Walter wrote:
> Is Glenn really making an argument? Or is he on
an exploratory mission?<<
I can answer that! I most certainly am on an exploratory mission. I love to
explore the implications of various facets of science and how they relate to
Scripture. I will wear that label proudly. And I am glad you noticed.
Walter wrote:
>Glenn originally made his argument in terms of ONE gene, he said 59 versions
was too much genetic variation for one gene. He emphasized that his argument
was precisely about the variation at ONE gene site, and even protested when I
showed that a population can easily receive 700 MILLION new mutations (which
means MANY new versions of MANY genes) in ONE GENERATION. He seems to have
forgotten that now, and is talking about SETS of genes for Africans and SETS
of genes for Europeans. His argument is a traveling target, he is now
wandering around trying to make it work. Let me say it again? 700 million
new mutations is a whopping lot for creating many sets of variant genes, and
it can plausibly be accomplished in one generation. <<
You yourself have talked about how most mutations are detrimental. So if we
get 695 million new detrimental genes in every generation, how can we still
be living?
Your 700 million was calculated as the number of mutations in an entire
population and assuming that each individual had 7 new point locations in
each generation. This means that 7 out of approximately 4 billion
nucleotides are different in each individual. You have not shown that nearly
all alleles are are a one point mutation from all other alleles. If all
alleles are simply one point mutation distant from others, my argument is
invalid. Does anyone want to point me to the relevant literature to document
this fact? I will rapidly back down and state that you are correct if this
fact can be shown. But I want to see an article in the scientific literature
attesting to this fact, not your book.
Walter wrote:
>>Racially distinctive sets of genes ----
>it gives you 2500 years in which to develop all those
>alleles that Africans and Europeans do not share.
Glenn says, "all those alleles" All WHAT alleles? He has not identified the
alleles that are distinctly unique to all Africans or all Europeans. What set
of alleles is sufficient and necessary to make you African? Or European? Is
it one allele? Or five? Or 100? Glenn hasn't even discussed this yet.<<
I don't know how many allelic differences make one an African rather than a
European. But I can guess that it is anywhere from a few to a few hundred.
The number is not the issue. I don't agree with the manner in which you
calculate genetic alleles. And I am inviting anyone who can point me to the
appropriate literature to do so, so I can fill in this gaping hole you seem
to think I have in my education. I do have holes in my education and I will
eagerly fill them if you will tell me what articles I should read. Will you
do that Walter?
I wrote:
>>> Third, I do not think ... that we
>see the type of genetic variation which you envision here in molecular
>studies of various animals. Your model of allele formation would >require
massive, massive numbers of alleles. I just don't think we see >that. Can you
provide documentation?
Walter replied:
>>Yes, I can provide documentation. The best kind ... from Glenn. My
argument used his figures for mutation rate, etcetera. (It set aside and
ignored the factor of 50. It used his measures of genetic variation -- the
MHC, with 59 alleles. It showed every step in the math.) He now complains
that I can provide TOO MUCH genetic variation -- which is the exact opposite
of his original argument. <<
Walter, I don't think I qualify as a refereed scientific journal, but thanks
for the vote of confidence. It is nice that you think of me as "the best
kind". Maybe some of the others on the reflector will now view me with more
respect. :-)
glenn
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, Tx 75248