******
Glenn Morton wrote:
>... I will let your sudden change of definition for an allele
>... speak for itself.
Steve Clark wrote:
>... [Walter] earlier used inaccurate science regarding the
> definition of alleles
I did not change my use of the definition of allele. I consistently used
the correct one, and, by the way, the same definition that Glenn gave in his
post. Re-read my posts and see.
******
My frustration with Glenn, which I have had on previous occasions, is that
despite abundant discussion nothing seems to resolve, it just goes on and
on, without resolution. It's an exercise in endless chasing around the
bush. I do not experience that with other reflectorites. Am I wrong for
speaking my mind here?
The frustration is enhanced for another reason. The particular arguments we
have been discussing are easy, basic population genetics. THESE aren't
heavy lifting. This is a field whose theoretical and mathematical
complexity can quickly make one's head swim. But not the arguments Glenn
and I are making, they're simple -- embarrassingly so. Yet still there is
no resolution.
Glenn claimed to refute creation theory, and offered genetic variation as
his most compelling argument. Can he object if we scrutinize it closely?
Yet we can't scrutinize his argument closely. Why? Because, despite his
bold claims, he states his argument vaguely, and makes it a moving target.
So I must then clean up his argument. I must read through the confusion and
imagine the many things he MIGHT have intended by his argument. I must then
supply the missing parts for him, clarify it, -- and only then refute it.
I did that several times, using various interpretations of his argument. And
I repeatedly called on him to supply clarity of his own. Despite my
prodding he still hasn't done that.
So let me clarify his argument into three steps:
1) Observe (using some measure) the amount of genetic variation today.
2) Estimate (using the same measure as above) the amount of genetic
variation present in the original population.
3) Calculate the ability (or inability) of known processes to produce the
observed genetic variation within a limited time.
There were various interpretations:
Interpretation A: The ONLY time Glenn tackled steps 1, 2, 3 was his
requirement that a modern gene have 59 alleles when the population began
with only 10. I showed how this could easily be accomplished in ONE
generation. My argument was exceedingly simple and used only Glenn's
starting assumptions, nonetheless he didn't withdraw his claims.
Interpretation B: At that point Glenn changed how he wanted to measure
genetic variation, and spoke now of alleles for European races, and alleles
for African races, etc. He ignored steps 1, 2, 3, and instead guessed that
100 alleles would be sufficient to make a racially distinct set of
characters. Using Glenn's estimate, I showed that the original population
already had enough genetic variation to define at least 10000 distinct races.
Interpretation C: Glenn claimed that modern alleles for a given gene
typically vary by more than 10 mutations each. He cited no observational
basis for that. He didn't realize that such a situation could easily have
been ALREADY PRESENT in the original population. Again he ignored steps 1,
2, 3. This was the most vague of his arguments.
******
Thus, we had three radically different interpretations of Glenn's genetic
variation argument, all of them inadequate to show any problem for
creationists. Did Glenn own up to any of these? Did he clarify them? Did
he retract any of them? Nope. Round and round the bush we go. Nothing
resolved. As that is the situation, the best I can do is warn other readers
of it.
I applaud Glenn on one point. I have never seen an evolutionist challenge
creationists on the genetic variation issue. Glenn deserves credit for
raising it.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128