Real Science Friday: Christianity Today's Search for Adam

[Fred Williams]

Two, actually. Each individual can only have two. The problem is that hundreds of them in each of tens of thousands of genes, is incompatible with a human race coming from 2 individuals only 6,000 years ago. As I pointed out, the evidence shows diffusion of alleles well over 25,000 years ago.

Yes, two for an individual, but what I was repeating was the claim that there can be a max of 4 allele possibilities in each of Adam's offspring, which isn't true.

I had a chance to look at your citation and it does not help your position, quite the contrary it pretty much seals the deal for the creationist position. Let’s remember what is being debated here - whether or not it is reasonable for current allele distribution to occur within 4000 years from Adam & Eve (Alate_One claimed it would take "miracles"). You cited this study as evidence against this possibility, yet if we use the 10-fold higher pedigree mutation rate, which I have a citation below strenuously advocating it is more reliable, it would easily accommodate a Y chromosome distribution within 4000 years:

"Dr Bandelt again takes the opportunity to dismiss the discrepancy between mtDNA rate estimates from pedigree analyses and those from phylogenetic analyses. We disagree that the pedigree rate is not well defined. It has an explicit operational definition and is, in fact, more empirical and less model-dependent than phylogenetic rate estimates (Howell et al., 2003). Dr Bandelt also makes the unsubstantiated charge that pedigree analyses '...seem to suffer from ascertainment bias and...sequence errors...'. We cannot find evidence for either and the issues he raises have been addressed previously (Howell et al., 2003). On the other hand, it is Dr Bandelt who has concluded that many mtDNA sequence sets, often used for phylogenetic analyses, contain a high proportion of errors." - Molecular clock debate: Time dependency of molecular rate estimates for mtDNA: this is not the time for wishful thinking N Howell et al. http://dnaconsultants.com

Your study actually does warn of this discrepancy:

"Many factors confound the estimation of the ages of binary mutations based on Y chromosome microsatellites. First, the mutation rate of microsatellites is uncertain, especially because it is not uniform for all microsatellites (30). Moreover, there is a difference between the mutation rate measured in pedigrees and the mutation rates measured indirectly through phylogenetic analysis (31)."

So, would you agree to either 1) admit the debate is over on this point (that it is possible for observed allele distributions to have occurred within 4000 years), or 2) acknowledge your study contradicts your position, especially if we rely on a mutation rate that isn't borne on the assumption of human/chimp common ancestry (which makes your argument circular)?

Let's at least agree with this study: "The chief recommendation arising from the current state of knowledge in the field is for a movement away from reliance on the human-chimpanzee calibration". Evaluating the mitochondrial timescale of human evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution Volume 24, Issue 9, September 2009 pg 520

 

[Fred Williams]

Not a canard. Are you assuming that EVERY gene in every child (of the 200) will mutate once? That's a crazy rate of mutation and would likely cause all kinds of damage, unless you're assuming supernatural changes to DNA, in which case you're conceding the point.

No, I am not assuming any mutation rate, I am just pointing out that in one generation, you can get many new alleles depending on the mutation rate and the number of offspring in that generation. Obviously this growth can be exponential as the population size increases.

I'm sure you'd have a problem with any disease causing alleles actually originating in Adam and Eve. The sickle cell allele is a classic example.

Why would I need to believe any disease-causing allele had to start in Adam & Eve? What part of creation science requires this? All I need to prove is that this can happen in 6000 years (or 4000 years if you want to start with the flood bottleneck), which is very easy to do. As you are probably aware, it could have occurred in Adam's first generation of offspring.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, two for an individual, but what I was repeating was the claim that there can be a max of 4 allele possibilities in each of Adam's offspring, which isn't true.

Actually, two. Each of us can have at most, two alleles for each gene locus. But evolution does produce new alleles from time to time. Millions of them in a few thousand years is much, much, much faster than any evolution we know about.

I had a chance to look at your citation and it does not help your position, quite the contrary it pretty much seals the deal for the creationist position.

Odd that you think so; it clearly shows that transfer of genes in a regional population like Europe takes tens of thousands of years.

Let’s remember what is being debated here - whether or not it is reasonable for current allele distribution to occur within 4000 years from Adam & Eve (Alate_One claimed it would take "miracles").

Or a heretofore unknown process for speeding up evolution far beyond anything we have seen.

You cited this study as evidence against this possibility, yet if we use the 10-fold higher pedigree mutation rate, which I have a citation below strenuously advocating it is more reliable, it would easily accommodate a Y chromosome distribution within 4000 years:

Show us the numbers. That seems to be completely unrealistic.

Am J Hum Genet. 2000 July; 67(1): 182–196.
A Short Tandem Repeat–Based Phylogeny for the Human Y Chromosome
Human Y-chromosomal short tandem repeat (STR) data provide a potential model system for the understanding of autosomal STR mutations in humans and other species. Yet, the reconstruction of STR evolution is rarely attempted, because of the absence of an appropriate methodology. We here develop and validate a phylogenetic-network approach. We have typed 256 Y chromosomes of indigenous descent from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, and highland Papua New Guinea, for the STR loci DYS19, DXYS156Y, DYS389, DYS390, DYS392, and DYS393, as well as for five ancient biallelic mutation events: two poly (A) length variants associated with the YAP insertion, two independent SRY-1532 mutations, and the 92R7 mutation. We have used our previously published pedigree data from 11,000 paternity-tested autosomal STR-allele transfers to produce a two-class weighting system for the Y-STR loci that is based on locus lengths and motif lengths. Reduced-median-network analysis yields a phylogeny that is independently supported by the five biallelic mutations, with an error of 6%. We find the earliest branch in our African San (Bushmen) sample. Assuming an age of 20,000 years for the Native American DYS199 T mutation, we estimate a mutation rate of 2.6×10-4 mutations/20 years for slowly mutating Y STRs, ∼10-fold slower than the published average pedigree rate.

So, would you agree to either 1) admit the debate is over on this point (that it is possible for observed allele distributions to have occurred within 4000 years), or 2) acknowledge your study contradicts your position, especially if we rely on a mutation rate that isn't borne on the assumption of human/chimp common ancestry (which makes your argument circular)?

See above. Your assumption is not supported by the evidence.


Human Y Chromosome Base-Substitution Mutation Rate Measured by Direct Sequencing in a Deep-Rooting Pedigree
Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 17, 1453-1457, 27 August 2009

Yali Xue1 , Qiuju Wang2, Quan Long1, Bee Ling Ng1, Harold Swerdlow1, John Burton1, Carl Skuce1, Ruth Taylor1, Zahra Abdellah1, Yali Zhao2, Asan1, Daniel G. MacArthur1, Michael A. Quail1, Nigel P. Carter1, Huanming Yang3 and Chris Tyler-Smith1,
Summary
Understanding the key process of human mutation is important for many aspects of medical genetics and human evolution. In the past, estimates of mutation rates have generally been inferred from phenotypic observations or comparisons of homologous sequences among closely related species [1,2,3]. Here, we apply new sequencing technology to measure directly one mutation rate, that of base substitutions on the human Y chromosome. The Y chromosomes of two individuals separated by 13 generations were flow sorted and sequenced by Illumina (Solexa) paired-end sequencing to an average depth of 11× or 20×, respectively [4]. Candidate mutations were further examined by capillary sequencing in cell-line and blood DNA from the donors and additional family members. Twelve mutations were confirmed in ∼10.15 Mb; eight of these had occurred in vitro and four in vivo. The latter could be placed in different positions on the pedigree and led to a mutation-rate measurement of 3.0 × 10−8 mutations/nucleotide/generation (95% CI: 8.9 × 10−9–7.0 × 10−8), consistent with estimates of 2.3 × 10−8–6.3 × 10−8 mutations/nucleotide/generation for the same Y-chromosomal region from published human-chimpanzee comparisons [5] depending on the generation and split times assumed.

To simplify:


Xue et al. (2009) did the experiment [Human mutation rate revealed]. They sequenced the Y chromosomes of two men who were separated by 13 generations. After eliminating repetitive regions, the relevant region of comparison was 10.15 × 106 nucleotides (base pairs, 10.15 Mb). The men differ at four confirmed sites. This gives a mutation rate of 3.0 × 10-8 per generation or 0.75 × 10-10 per nucleotide per DNA replication.

The agreement is remarkable. What this means is that we have a good handle on the mutation rate in humans and we have growing evidence that most mutations are neutral
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/08/human-y-chromosome-mutation-rates.html

 

[Alate_One]

No, I am not assuming any mutation rate, I am just pointing out that in one generation, you can get many new alleles depending on the mutation rate and the number of offspring in that generation. Obviously this growth can be exponential as the population size increases.

We've measured current mutation rates and you get a few hundred point mutations across a genome of 3 billion every generation. 4000 years isn't enough time.

Why would I need to believe any disease-causing allele had to start in Adam & Eve?

Many of them are common in the population. If they start too late, they won't spread.

What part of creation science requires this? All I need to prove is that this can happen in 6000 years (or 4000 years if you want to start with the flood bottleneck), which is very easy to do. As you are probably aware, it could have occurred in Adam's first generation of offspring.

The flood bottleneck is actually the bigger problem. As I said it's not only the genetic diversity of humans you're dealing with but every animal on earth. Every animal (and most plants) should be in as bad of shape genetically as the cheetah, but they're not. The Tazmanian devil is another example of the situation, they are so close that cancers can actually be transmitted between them.

MHC molecules are a crucial part of the immune system in vertebrates, as they are responsible for recognising foreign invaders and mounting an immune response. MHC molecules are also an important part of the process of self/non-self recognition that prevents the immune system attacking the body’s own cells. MHC genes are normally highly variable in populations, with a large number of different alleles (or variants) for each gene. This variability allows for a wide array of foreign pathogens to be resisted and accounts for differences in disease resistance among individuals. Thus, populations with low or no variation at MHC genes are potentially susceptible to disease epidemics, as all individuals in the population will be equally susceptible to novel diseases.

And it is impossible for organisms with low genetic variation (as any population starting with 2-8 individuals would be) to evolve into multiple species or lots of variation in much of any period of time at all with such a loss of genetic diversity.

You are asking for miracles.

 

[Stripe]

And it is impossible for organisms with low genetic variation (as any population starting with 2-8 individuals would be) to evolve into multiple species or lots of variation in much of any period of time at all with such a loss of genetic diversity.

No, it's not. The first axiom of biology is that genetic diversity is inversely related to epigenetic complexity - thus the less diverse the population, the more capable it is of change.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it's not. Genetic diversity is inversely related to epigenetic complexity

Show us some examples, Stipe. With the associated numbers, from a checkable source. This sounds suspiciously like the "complexity is a matter of the number of cell types" thing we see from Shi Huang. He's having some trouble with that, too.

thus the less diverse the population, the more capable it is of change.

We can test that. There are genetically pure lines of rats. Take them and some wild rats that are much more genetically diverse. Put them each in a new environment that is similar to their old ones, but with a new selective pressure. See which changes most rapidly.

If you have the understanding of an 8th grader, you already know the answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it's not. Genetic diversity is inversely related to epigenetic complexity

Show us some examples, Stipe. With the associated numbers, from a checkable source. This sounds suspiciously like the "complexity is a matter of the number of cell types" thing we see from Shi Huang. He's having some trouble with that, too.

thus the less diverse the population, the more capable it is of change.

We can test that. There are genetically pure lines of rats. Take them and some wild rats that are much more diverse. Put them each in a new environment that is similar to their old ones, but with a new selective pressure. See which changes most rapidly.

If you have the understanding of an 8th grader, you already know the answer.

 

[Jukia]

.

You are asking for miracles.

But isn't that the whole point? If you buy Genesis as historically accurate it requires miracles, meaning occurrences outside of what naturally happens. But if you allow miracles, god could have made all the needed genetic changes instantly after the ark landed. He could have moved all the kangaroos and other marsupials miraculously to Australia. Prior to that, he put all the light in place between distant stars and galaxies and the earth.
For all we know, he could have done it all a week ago last Thursday. Nothing else matters. Goddidit cause he is omnipotent.

 

[Fred Williams]

Actually, two. Each of us can have at most, two alleles for each gene locus. But evolution does produce new alleles from time to time. Millions of them in a few thousand years is much, much, much faster than any evolution we know about.

OK, I guess I'm guilty of not making this clear, this is twice-in-a-row you have misunderstood what I am saying; hopefully my third attempt will be a charm. I have always agreed with you that “each of us can have at most, two alleles for each gene”. The question is, how many possibilities exist for those two alleles for some given gene? If dad has allele A & B, and mom C & D, any one of their offspring can have at most 4 possible allele combinations (AC, AD, BC, or BD). True or False? (answer is false, yet some evos state, or imply, the answer is true).

Show us the numbers.

This is not rocket science here, it’s a direct relationship. A 10-fold increase in mutation rate changes your number from 25,000 years to 2500 years. I found a paper that is stating almost exactly what I am claiming below.

“Recently, it was attempted to date the pre-Columbian peopling of the New World using chromosome Y haplotypes based on a newly identified C→T transition and the tetranucleotide microsatellite DYS19. From this study it was concluded that this specific haplotype was introduced in the New World at least 30 000 years ago (15). This estimate assumed a (autosomal) microsatellite mutation rate of 0.015% (16) because no estimate for chromosome Y microsatellites was available. Recalculating the above, but now using the Weber and Wong estimate of 0.21% (17) the authors derived a date of entry of only 2147 years which they regarded as an obvious underestimate (15). Our empirically derived Y-tetranucleotide mutation rate of 0.20% evidently results in almost the same, quite recent estimated age of introduction. Even when our lowest 95% CIL (0.05) is used, entry of the haplotype of interest to the New World will not be dated earlier than -7500 years ago.” - Estimating Y chromosome specific microsatellite mutation frequencies using deep rooting pedigrees, Human Molecular Genetics, 1997, Vol. 6, No. 5

The problem is even worse than this! Note:

“As explained above, our estimate of 0.20% is most likely an underestimate since it is based only on those pedigrees in which only one mutation event was observed.” Ibid.

Now, if you complain about its date of publish, I can refer you back to the prior recent citations that support that 1) low mutation rate is based on human/chimp common ancestry (circular reasoning), 2) pedigree rate is considered less-prone to error.

What was their conclusion?

“In conclusion, our results seem to suggest that, because of their relative high mutation frequency, chromosome Y microsatellites offer little help in tracing back our ancient genetic history. At most, they would be useful in historical, rather than evolutionary studies.” Ibid.

I couldn’t’ agree more. Next! :Wamba:

 

[Fred Williams]

We've measured current mutation rates and you get a few hundred point mutations across a genome of 3 billion every generation. 4000 years isn't enough time.

In the one example I have been provided by Barbarian (Y chromosome alleles), I have proven from the technical journals that 4000 years is more than enough time! :banana:

Fred: Why would I need to believe any disease-causing allele had to start in Adam & Eve?
AO: Many of them are common in the population. If they start too late, they won't spread.

This is just a statement. Do you have a trait or disease you can offer as an example that you believe could not be accounted for within 4000 years?

As I said it's not only the genetic diversity of humans you're dealing with but every animal on earth. Every animal (and most plants) should be in as bad of shape genetically as the cheetah, but they're not. The Tazmanian devil is another example of the situation, they are so close that cancers can actually be transmitted between them. And it is impossible for organisms with low genetic variation (as any population starting with 2-8 individuals would be) to evolve into multiple species or lots of variation in much of any period of time at all with such a loss of genetic diversity.

This is based on HUGE, unprovable assumptions, most notably that all the animals on the ark, and Noah’s family, had an inordinately high genetic load. You have zero evidence this is the case. On the other hand, creationists can make a case (different topic) that the genetic load was small before the flood, and that mutation rates increased after the flood.

 

[Alate_One]

But isn't that the whole point? If you buy Genesis as historically accurate it requires miracles, meaning occurrences outside of what naturally happens. But if you allow miracles, god could have made all the needed genetic changes instantly after the ark landed. He could have moved all the kangaroos and other marsupials miraculously to Australia. Prior to that, he put all the light in place between distant stars and galaxies and the earth.
For all we know, he could have done it all a week ago last Thursday. Nothing else matters. Goddidit cause he is omnipotent.

He could have, but it wouldn't be consistent with what else we find in the Bible since it would falsifying information. Basically God would be making it look exactly as if the world is 4 billion years old and evolution happened, for no particular reason.

 

[Alate_One]

In the one example I have been provided by Barbarian (Y chromosome alleles), I have proven from the technical journals that 4000 years is more than enough time! :banana:

No you didn't. You found a journal from 1997 (eleven years is AGES) which talks about the Y chromosome. ANY mutation in the Y chromosome will generally be preserved. Mutation rates were recently re-calculated using modern *whole genome* sequence data.

This is just a statement. Do you have a trait or disease you can offer as an example that you believe could not be accounted for within 4000 years?

The problem isn't any one single trait or disease, it is ALL of them and the diversity of them.

This is based on HUGE, unprovable assumptions, most notably that all the animals on the ark, and Noah’s family, had an inordinately high genetic load. You have zero evidence this is the case. On the other hand, creationists can make a case (different topic) that the genetic load was small before the flood, and that mutation rates increased after the flood.

Define "genetic load" please because I've never seen it anywhere outside of creationist diatribes and I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what it could be.

As I tried to point out to you in my last post, MHC genes are not necessarily "good" or "bad" it's just every organism needs a lot of DIFFERENT ones. And you can't have lots of different ones in a population of 2.

OK, I guess I'm guilty of not making this clear, this is twice-in-a-row you have misunderstood what I am saying; hopefully my third attempt will be a charm. I have always agreed with you that “each of us can have at most, two alleles for each gene”. The question is, how many possibilities exist for those two alleles for some given gene? If dad has allele A & B, and mom C & D, any one of their offspring can have at most 4 possible allele combinations (AC, AD, BC, or BD). True or False? (answer is false, yet some evos state, or imply, the answer is true).

The answer is true but the problem is you still only have A B C and D in your population. For a population of organisms to be healthy they may require HUNDREDS of different MHC genes, as mentioned earlier. Alleles like: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . . . . etc. etc.

So your two people can have exactly four of those between them and their kids will have the same 4 unless a mutation happens in one of those genes!

To just *have* 100 different alleles you'd need a *reproducing* population of 50. In general you need a much larger population than the absolute minimum to maintain the alleles of any particular trait because if one of those members failed to reproduce or was killed, bye bye alleles.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, I guess I'm guilty of not making this clear, this is twice-in-a-row you have misunderstood what I am saying; hopefully my third attempt will be a charm. I have always agreed with you that “each of us can have at most, two alleles for each gene”. The question is, how many possibilities exist for those two alleles for some given gene? If dad has allele A & B, and mom C & D, any one of their offspring can have at most 4 possible allele combinations (AC, AD, BC, or BD). True or False? (answer is false, yet some evos state, or imply, the answer is true).

That's better.

Show us the numbers.
This is not rocket science here, it’s a direct relationship. A 10-fold increase in mutation rate changes your number from 25,000 years to 2500 years. I found a paper that is stating almost exactly what I am claiming below.

As you saw, that rate was measured in individuals over 13 generations, and the rate was the expected one, not a ten-fold number.

Now, if you complain about its date of publish, I can refer you back to the prior recent citations that support that 1) low mutation rate is based on human/chimp common ancestry (circular reasoning), 2) pedigree rate is considered less-prone to error.

And, of course, there's the direct evidence from two individuals of known descent that showed it didn't happen at such rapid rates.
http://www.fr.sott.net/articles/show/192342-Mutation-Rate-in-Humans-Measured-by-Direct-Sequencing

Reality counts more than anyone's reasoning. Part of the error is in assuming that the Y chromosome follows the same rates as other chromosomes. Alate_one has already pointed this out to you.

 

[voltaire]

Alatone. Explain why the diversity of nuclear DNA proves the impossibility of two human ancestors from 200,000 years ago...noah and his wife. I know you said 6,000 but i figure you disagree with this as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alatone. Explain why the diversity of nuclear DNA proves the impossibility of two human ancestors from 200,000 years ago...noah and his wife.

It's quite possible that we had a last common female ancestor about 200,000 years ago. The likelihood of a male at that time also being the last common male ancestor is not so good.

 

[badp]

Define "genetic load" please because I've never seen it anywhere outside of creationist diatribes and I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what it could be.

That's because Creationists usually beat everyone else to these discoveries. Remember when Darwinists ranted and raved about "junk DNA" being the nail in the coffin for Creationists? The Creationists said it wasn't junk and that it had a purpose. Guess who was right.. again?

 

[The Barbarian]

That's because Creationists usually beat everyone else to these discoveries.

Hmm... no, I can't think of one major advance in biology that was made by a creationist after the 1900s. Tell us about one of these.

Remember when Darwinists ranted and raved about "junk DNA" being the nail in the coffin for Creationists?

No, I don't, and I was an undergraduate when non-coding DNA (that's what real scientists call it in the literature) became known, and people started to find that some of it had other functions. That was in the early 70s. Don't remember any creationists even talking about it then.

The Creationists said it wasn't junk and that it had a purpose.

About fifteen years after scientists discovered that, they became aware of it. But that was long, long after scientists realized some non-coding DNA had a function.

Guess who was right.. again?

Scientists. The people who fed you that story know better, too, but they correctly guessed that you were too ignorant to know better.

Much of DNA does nothing we can detect:

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.
Source

DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA.
Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496924


However, it became apparent that much of the non-coding DNA had other functions:

Gene control in eukaryotes and the c-value paradox "excess" DNA as an impediment to transcription of coding sequences.
Zuckerkandl E.
J Mol Evol. 1976 Dec 31;9(1):73-104. Review.


Note the date. You've been played again, it seems. Learn to check your facts. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

 

[Fred Williams]

No you didn't. You found a journal from 1997 (eleven years is AGES) which talks about the Y chromosome. ANY mutation in the Y chromosome will generally be preserved.

As mentioned in my post to Barbarian, I had previously given him more recent citations to prove the debate continues to rage on the Y chromosome rate (the reasons are obvious to us creationists, given the implications of a 2500-3500 year old “Adam”). The 1997 citation above as much as anything was to provide him the direct correlation between mutation rate and age (he requested “show us the numbers”).

Mutation rates were recently re-calculated using modern *whole genome* sequence data.

I’m not sure if you realize this citation only supports Howell’s (and by extension creationist’s) contention that the mutation rate is variable! What was your point in citing this?

BTW, you claim we have 200 mutations per generation - how many of these are harmful or just slightly harmful? I hope you realize that even just 3 of this type makes human/chimp common ancestry highly improbable. You have to put a lot of faith in junk DNA, despite powerful and constantly growing data that there is very little “junk” in the DNA.

Define "genetic load" please because I've never seen it anywhere outside of creationist diatribes and I don't think you have the slightest clue as to what it could be.

The term genetic load is hardly a creationist term. I never said I knew what the actual genetic load is, it’s pretty much impossible without knowing what the wild type of every gene is as a starting point. At the very least we can use it as a comparative, for example it seems clear that poodles have a higher genetic load than Alaskan Malamutes because of all their diseases. Your cheetah example is another case of an animal with a severe load problem.

As I tried to point out to you in my last post, MHC genes are not necessarily "good" or "bad" it's just every organism needs a lot of DIFFERENT ones. And you can't have lots of different ones in a population of 2.

What would make you think Adam would not have lots of different MHC genes??? For any particular MHC gene, why couldn’t Adam have the most ideal two alleles for that particular MHC gene?

So far I have yet to be given any evidence that supports your claim that it requires a “miracle” for all existing alleles to have arisen in 4000 years. If this is true, it should be easy to point me to a specific allele. Barbarian tried (much to his credit), but obviously his Y chromosome citation has clearly shown that it easily falls within the necessary timeframe depending on the evolutionist you talk to.

You’ve tried to dismiss this by stating “The problem isn't any one single trait or disease, it is ALL of them and the diversity of them.” This dog won’t hunt, because it’s never been about the sum of all genes and their allele differences. Even in light of polygenic traits, epistasis or other inter-gene-dependent phenomenon, each gene still serves as its own entity subject to mutation over 4000 years. Each gene across the population is subject to a potential new allele – mechanisms such as genetic drift, heterozygote advantage, purifying selection, etc, over time can accentuate some and remove others. Show me a gene allele that can’t be accounted for mathematically in 4000 years. If you can’t, it’s OK to say so. :wave:

Fred
PS. I haven’t yet asked you and Barbarian to explain the discrepancy between 25K year Adam, and 200K year Eve; I guess Adam liked older women? :sheep:

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a couple of misunderstandings we should probably clear up here:

Fred writes:

Your cheetah example is another case of an animal with a severe load problem.

Actually, cheetahs likely don't have any greater "load" than humans do. The real problem is a severe lack of genetic diversity. They are so alike that apparently, they can all serve as tissue donors for each other.

What's wrong with that? Well, all organisms have large numbers of harmful recessives. Because they are recessive, they aren't much of a problem unless you marry close relatives, or live in highly endogamous castes where there isn't any new genetic material coming in.

In those cases, the likelihood of being homozygous for one of those harmful alleles becomes quite significant. The cheetahs lack genetic diversity, so they are all carrying pretty much all the same harmful alleles. It doesn't look good for them, no matter what we do.

Severe bottlenecks can do that. Sometimes a population lucks out, but usually not.

Fred asks:

I haven’t yet asked you and Barbarian to explain the discrepancy between 25K year Adam, and 200K year Eve; I guess Adam liked older women?

Understand that "mitochondrial Eve" is not represented to be the first woman. She would merely be the last woman who is the ancestor of all living humans. Likewise with "Y Adam." But that isn't a sure thing for reasons that are probably obvious to you. Mostly it's like a town with lots of Joneses and Murpheys. One generation, the Joneses happen to have only females. So, if we go just by the "allele" for last names, then we'd suppose that the Joneses all died out. I blame the publicists who coined the "Eve" thing; it invites misunderstanding.

Does that help?

 

[Fred Williams]

Actually, cheetahs likely don't have any greater "load" than humans do. The real problem is a severe lack of genetic diversity. They are so alike that apparently, they can all serve as tissue donors for each other.

That's not unreasonable, I'm no cheetah expert, plus there probably is not enough data to really make a determination. I guess you needed a soft ball after the thrashing you've taken.

You won't get off this easy though, I would like to see you or Alate-One deal with the 200 mutation problem I mentioned. As you probably remember from past articles I have written on this, this is a huge and devastating problem for human/chimp common ancestry. It has rendered this alleged ancestry completely invalid. Either you make all those mutations completely neutral and deny the growing evidence against junk DNA (and also deny a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution), or you accept reality that many of these are slightly deleterious, which would force you to reject your worldview and admit human/chimps don't share a common ancestry. Quite a bind you are in!

Understand that "mitochondrial Eve" is not represented to be the first woman. She would merely be the last woman who is the ancestor of all living humans. Likewise with "Y Adam." But that isn't a sure thing for reasons that are probably obvious to you. Mostly it's like a town with lots of Joneses and Murpheys. One generation, the Joneses happen to have only females. So, if we go just by the "allele" for last names, then we'd suppose that the Joneses all died out. I blame the publicists who coined the "Eve" thing; it invites misunderstanding.

The point is, it's a big inconvenience for evolutionists that the Y chromosome appears to be so young. I predict we'll continue to see attempts by evolutionists to push the Y Adam date back in time by picking and choosing data. Its already what has happened over the last 15 years since this big problem for evos reared its head.

Both Y-Adam and M-Eve are completely consistent with the Biblical account; the only way evolutionists have been able to get Adam & Eve outside the Biblical account is by either assuming human/chimps share a common ancestor, or ignoring parts of the genome, to slow the mutation clock down. Aka, circular reasoning.