Incidentally, I see that there are 29 known genes in the pseudoautosomal region of the human Y chromosome. You (assuming you’re male) should be able to track your paternal grandmother using that. Not that you need genes; SNPs can happen anywhere.
1 Like
I didn’t know about the connection to age, but I did know that women have more crossovers as men (I had heard twice as much, but that seems to be overestimate). This explains why the map I showed displayed about one cross over per chromosome. Per this:
It’s about one crossover per chromosome in males, and about 1.5 in females. But remember that some crossovers are essentially invisible because they are very near the ends or there is a second crossover very nearby (though this is not terribly likely because of interference).
What’s really weird is that, in Drosophila, the organism in whom this has been studied in the most detail, crossing over doesn’t occur in males at all.
2 Likes
Could you explain this assertion? I am using providence in the way a Christian would use it. Why is such usage “non-sensical” to you?
An act of providence, strictly speaking, is not super-natural! So I don’t even understand your original objection.
Once again you restrict the term “Christian” to people who agree with you on the point under discussion. That would seem to leave out a number of people who post here and call themselves Christian.
From Wikipedia:
In theology, divine providence , or just providence , is God’s intervention in the Universe. A distinction is usually made between “general providence”, which refers to God’s continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the Universe, and “special providence”, which refers to God’s extraordinary intervention in the life of people. Miracles generally fall in the latter category.
What I’m saying is that “general providence” is not useful as a part of a scientific-based argument because it is not, strictly speaking, super-natural. It may be true, but it doesn’t help us distinguish competing hypotheses. @swamidass is saying he is limiting “special providence” to the one event he is trying to test, i.e. the de novo creation of Adam & Eve. More appeals to providence, general or special, only muddy the waters of the argument. That doesn’t mean they don’t occur in actuality, but it causes the scientific case he’s trying to build lose all power since he can then literally explain any outcome.
2 Likes
[sigh]
This is not a scientific explanation. It’s a religious explanation to religious people.
What’s the point of trying to make a scientific defense of theist miracles to people who reject theism?
GAE is, and always has been, a religious defense against the overly aggressive interpretation of science. And you are merely demonstrating this truth yet again.
The quote you provide does a nice job of distinguishing between “General Providence” and “Special Providence”.
I believe you have even “bull-dozed” @swamidass into a form of “confinement”. I am SHOCKED to see Joshua being embarrassed by discussions of General Providence [aka natural processes intended by God]… when that is perfectly legitimate in defending arguments of one-off miracles!
You got it entirely correctly @Jordan. Because I do not appeal to miracles or providence, my argument is clear and strong. This doesn’t deny miracles or providence, but I don’t appeal to them. My argument stands without them.
This is a category error. In the book, I say that evolution is a providentially governed process of common descent. That just isn’t part of the scientific argument.
I agree with your last 2 sentences.
And because it isn’t part of the scientific argument, events of “General Providence” are perfectly acceptable.
However, @jordan and I are discussing the scientific argument, which does not appeal to providence or miracles.
How can I be so bold as to say that “General Providence” is acceptable?
Because there is NO GUARANTEE that the Adam descendants will survive as part of the Universal Ancestral kindred. It is ASSUMED as a point of General Providence! - - as part of God’s arrangement for the Earth’s ultimate destiny.
I wonder that, too. I gather that the primary goal is to illustrate how one can have genealogical ancestors who are not genetic ancestors. Is that correct?
It wouldn’t incorporate crossover, but I wonder if a deck of cards might provide an illustration of that particular point. Pair cards of the same value and same color but different suits–e.g. 9 of diamonds with 9 of hearts, Jack of clubs with Jack of spades, etc. A single deck could provide 8 such pairs to represent your great-grandparents. Choose one card from each pair to make 4 pairs representing your grandparents, repeat again for parents, and one more time for you. Along the way, some values will fall away, then some suits, and possibly even an entire color (red or black).
Obviously crossover complicates this analysis, but the cards could represent a locus rather than an entire chromosome. And I presume the point is to help the students develop the right intuition, rather than fully master molecular inheritance.
4 Likes
That’s a great idea. I teach Biology for non-majors. We do talk about linkage and crossing over, but I have to keep things simple. I don’t want to complicate things too much by talking about how crossing over could impact genetic ghosts. I really like the idea of using playing cards because they could run several trials and discover the principle themselves, rather than me telling them.
3 Likes