Glenn writes:
>Abstract: Walter's argument is shown to be based upon a faulty definition of
>what an allele is.
Glenn and I both use the same correct definition of an allele. As shown
below he is not correctly interpreting my argument.
>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.
The maximum number of alleles FOR A GIVEN GENE would be 10. Since the
number of genes in the human genome is (at least) 100,000, the total number
of alleles (FOR ALL GENES) would be roughly 10 x 100,000 = one million. For
example, that would be ten different versions of a homoglobin gene, plus ten
different versions of an insulin gene, plus ten different versions of gene
#3, plus ten of gene #4, etc. That is a huge amount of genetic variation in
the population. (More on this later.)
>Walter wrote:
>> Is Glenn really making an argument? Or is he on
>an exploratory mission?<<
Glenn began by making what he felt was a solid argument against the rapid
origin of genetic variation. That argument has fallen apart and he is now
on an exploratory mission to find a replacement.
>You yourself have talked about how most mutations are detrimental. So if
>[the population gets]
>695 million new detrimental genes in every generation, how can we still
>be living?
I used Glenn's numbers for mutation rate, together with the standard model
of evolutionary genetics, and I showed every step in the math. If he has
problem with the results, then that is a problem HE must face, he cannot
escape it by passing it off to me or anyone else. Glenn is trying to change
the subject. His original argument was against the rapid origin of genetic
variation -- and that argument has been refuted.
If Glenn wishes to argue that creationists imply too rapid a genetic
deterioration, then that is altogether a different argument than the one he
originally made. And it is yet another argument he hasn't even begun to
coherently nail down.
>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.
That's a mistake. By Glenn's own assumptions it results in far more than 7
new mutations per progeny. See my previous posts.
>You have not shown that nearly all alleles are a one point mutation
>from all other alleles.
I never claimed they were. I have repeatedly pointed out otherwise.
>If all alleles are simply one point mutation distant from others, my
argument is
>invalid.
Glenn has not yet made any such argument. He has only made vague reference
to it, and hasn't begun to show how it helps his case. He incoherently
threw everything but the kitchen sink into his posts, such as "cave
paintings" and 59 MHC alleles (now nowhere in sight). He now invites me to
take up your time to dismantle an argument he hasn't even made coherent yet.
(I am here venting more frustration at Glenn's seemingly endless ramblings
and obfuscations.)
>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.
As I pointed out previously, Glenn hasn't even begun to nail down the key
steps in this new version of his argument. He has identified any alleles
distinctive to Europeans, for example. So here he makes a "guess" that
perhaps a few hundred alleles (maximum) would be enough to form a racially
distinctive set. Okay, let's roll with that. I already showed that Glenn's
small population ALREADY contains about ONE MILLION various alleles -- more
than enough to satisfy him -- more than enough to form many such racially
distinctive sets. For example, it is enough to form 10000 distinctive sets
where each set contains 100 unique alleles not possessed by any other group.
(one million / 100 = 10000) If 100 unique alleles is enough to form a
distinctive race (as Glenn suggests), then Glenn's small population already
has enough genetic variation for around 10000 races. (This does not include
the full number of races that could be formed from the one million alleles.
The number of combinations of one million distinct alleles taken 100 at a
time is C(1e6, 100) = 1e442 ... an imponderably large number of races.)
> The number is not the issue.
Yes numbers are the issue, at least in an argument about genetic variation.
Glenn is still wandering around, trying to find the issue. When he asks
for genetic variation, I can supply it in abundance.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128