Glenn Morton writes:
>I have been corrected. I messed up on the Diploid/Haploid definition here.
>Walter is correct that the 2 copies of each chromosome can mutate
>separately.
I don't have a problem with people making mistakes, it happens to everyone.
>I would like to ask some of the biologists on the reflector to get involved
>here. We have me, a geophysicist, arguing ... about genetics.
>Surely some biologist on this reflector took at
>least one course on population dynamics and can lend an air of experience in
>answering the very basic question which gave rise to this whole discussion:
I don't have a problem with people asking for help, everyone needs it from
time to time.
My problem with Glenn is that he takes an aggressive posture and persists in
assaulting other people's worldviews via a subject where he doesn't know
what he's talking about. It's not just that his arguments are wrong, it's
that he persists in making them (and obfuscating them) long after they are
shown incoherent, undocumented, and groundless.
It's fine for Glenn to be calling out for help. But in the mean time he
should be retracting his unfounded claims about genetic variation.
******
>Is there time for the abundant genetic variation we see, to have arisen in
>the past 5,000 years, the past 100,000 years or do we need more time than
>that?
>
>I read things like
>
>"Hence, assuming a past effective population size of 10,000 individuals and a
>mean generation time of 20 years, the mean coalescence time of two neutral
>genes now present in the human population is 400,000 years." - Klein,
>Takahata and Ayala, MHC Polymorphism and Human Origins, Scientific American
>Dec. 1993. p. 80.
>
>and
>
>"The antiquity of MHC allelic lineages contradicts the coalescence theory's
>conclusion that all human alleles date back no further than 400,000 years.
> One of us (Takahata) suggested in 1990 that the difficulty lies in the
>theory's main premise, namely, that the genes in question are not neutral but
>subject to balancing selection-a form of selection that keeps two or more
>alleles in a population longer than would be expected if they were drifting in
>random manner." IBID.
>
>These, while not necessarily supporting my math, do support the main problem
>I have been discussing, That there has not been enough time to generate the
>genetic variability. This is what I see experts in the field saying. The
>math I, or Jim, used in general supports the proposition that the most recent
>genetic bottle neck was far before the period of time most Christians place
>the flood or place the creation of man.
I have yet to see evolutionary geneticists maintain a sustained presence in
the creation/anti-creation debate. Nonetheless I understand that Glenn
'sees' tantalizing support for his position in the statements of
evolutionary experts. But he is mistaken. Those evolutionary experts are
NOT making a case against the creation model, and it is a mistake to
immediately cast their statements into an anti-creation argument. Why?
Because they are discussing the EVOLUTIONARY model, and their discussion is
saturated with unstated, silent assumptions of macroevolution. Those hidden
assumptions taint the calculations and "data" in ways that are often not
obvious to the reader. In fact, when reading evolutionary genetics texts it
can be quite difficult to separate the real fundamental data and theory from
"data" and "theory" that has been contaminated by macroevolutionary
assumptions.
For example, evolutionary geneticists assume (usually without saying so)
that mutation and selection are in equilibrium, that they are in balance.
This assumption of mutation-selection balance silently assumes away the
issue of error catastrophe (which is one of the trade secrets of
evolutionary genetics).
(Note: Remember by Glenn's own figures of mutation rate we calculated that
each progeny receives 2x3.5e9x1e-7 = 700 new mutations. That's 700 new
mutations IN ADDITION TO THOSE RECEIVED FROM IT'S PARENTS! If merely one
percent of those are expressed, that makes for 7 new expressed mutations in
each progeny, each generation -- and most expressed mutations are harmful.
This situation, according to the standard model of genetic evolution, would
place the population into severe error catastrophe, where a steady genetic
deterioration occurs generation to generation. To avoid error catastrophe,
evolutionary geneticists assumed that a high proportion, 97% or more, of the
human genome is TOTALLY INERT and unavailable to suffer harmful mutation.)
In other words, harmful mutation (and perhaps even error catastrophe) is a
plausible way to rapidly originate genetic variation. And evolutionists
assume it off the table.
As another example, evolutionists assume macroevolution and the "antiquity
of MHC allelic lineages". Those assumptions impact the calculations and
statements that evolutionists make about MHC genes. They assume a common
ancestor for man and rodent MHC genes, and evolutionary timescales. Then
they calculate the "mutation rate" necessary to explain the present MHC
genes within that evolutionary model. Their calculations and statements
cannot legitimately be placed into the creation model.
In fact, the cited quotation above, reveals a contradiction in the
EVOLUTIONARY model, not creation. Here it is again, with my clarification
inserted:
>"The antiquity of MHC allelic lineages
>[in other words, the existing data on MHC alleles
>together with the assumption of macroevolution]
>contradicts the coalescence theory's conclusion that all
>human alleles date back no further than 400,000 years."
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128