No you didn’t explain anything. You claimed it with zero evidence just like all your other unsupported claims.
I’ll accept your admission your front-loaded super heterozygosity claim has been falsified.
1 Like
"Another common objection made by critics who misunderstand the biblical model of ancestry has to do with alleles. Critics have put forth the argument that the highly variable positions found within the genome is a contradiction to the created heterozygosity hypothesis. Dr. Robert Carter addresses this objection in his article titled “Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics” :
“ Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.
There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions. 3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.”
Source: Robert W. Carter , “Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics,” Creation Ministries (May 11, 2010), www.creation.com/noah-and-genetics.
As we can see, mutations can clearly occur after the flood and after Babel. These mutations would create additional versions of the original created alleles. There is no contradiction to the hypothesis that suggests God would have encoded Adam and Eve with front-loaded DNA diversity."
I also posted a paper above by Dr. Sanford and Dr. Robert in regard to allele frequencies and designed variation. Have you read it?
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has made numerous testable predictions that are falsifiable in regard to the created heterozygosity hypothesis. I wonder how up to date you are on the creationist literature. Can you reiterate just 2 of those predictions here for everybody please? Thanks!
It is possible that not a lot of heterozygosity would be lost, but this shouldn’t be conflated with genetic diversity in terms of the number of alleles, which is what @SFT seems to be doing.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/zoo.1430050212
You like this subject a lot, why don’t you present a full bullet-pointed list of them for everyone’s convenience, and then tell us which ones have been confirmed since he made them?
1 Like
@sft,
You really need to read the entire discussion between Professors Bugg, Venema, @swamidass and a few others (compliments to BioLogos archives).
Your explanation for the diversity found in the current human population is wishful thinking. Prof. Bugg, ardently supporting Intelligent Design, rejects scenarios that you are proposing, and he goes right to the scientific limit of when the noise in the regression becomes sufficient to allow for a single mating pair bottleneck.
Until you know as much as Prof. Bugg knows, you are just going to make things pretty awkward for yourself.
You’re new here so you missed last month when Jeanson’s human MtDNA nonsense was beaten into the proverbial fine pink mist by actual geneticists. You still haven’t explained how the single mating pairs of unclean “kinds” on the Ark managed to have all the supposed super-heterozygosity. That’s in addition to the single mating pairs having all the genetic information for the multiple different species (dog “kind” → domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc.) hyper-evolved into. Face it, your ad hoc super heterozygosity claim is deader than fried chicken.
1 Like
I think the best way to falsify the model in my opinion is to demonstrate sufficiently that the majority of the genome is the result of evolutionary leftovers reflective of descent with modification and deep-time evolution (Junk DNA, genomic fossils, vestigial DNA, etc). I think that would demonstrate that Adam and Eve were not front-loaded with pre-existing beneficial genetic variety including functional DNA elements.
Please don’t forget to answer my very first question to you before the subject gets too far away.
That has nothing to do with my comment.
1 Like
Remember SFT is talking about a population being reduced to a single mating pair of unclean “kinds” which survived on the Ark. That’s 4 alleles max.
4 Likes
Please seethe comment thread in the video Dr. Swamidass posted above where we sufficiently addressed those arguments without any real convincing response from Dr. Swamidass. I pinned the thread in order that you can find it easily. It currently has 19 comments.
“I already answered, go look elsewhere” is one of the lamest and sadly most common Creationist dodges. The video has nothing to do with the single mating pairs of unclean "kinds’ supposedly saved on the Ark.
1 Like
I know, allelic diversity is the issue, not the level of heterozygosity. I just wanted to clear that up.
1 Like
That’s just the problem … your treatment of the problem of the missing source of human diversity was completely bungled by you. You need to read Prof. Bugg’s postings in the BioLogos archives discussing Venema’s book.
You have to understand, when SFT says he’s “sufficiently addressed” something, he usually means “I’ve repeated Jeanson’s original claim without understanding the rebuttal I’m supposed to be addressing”.
It’s best not to get your hopes up for engaging discussions.
5 Likes
“2) Yes, most mutations are bad, but why would the current human population be limited to the number of alleles per locus that were on the Ark? Mutations since the Flood have added to the diversity. Please note, I take exception to the statement that creationists believe “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”. In fact, I have submitted an article to the Journal of Creation on the subject that will hopefully make it through peer review and appear there within the year (after revision, for our reviewers are very thorough) [Editor’s note: This article has since appeared in print1]. I believe mutation can corrupt information, scramble information, and change it horizontally, but that it is utterly unable to account for the changes necessary for long-term evolution. Also, evidence is accumulating for the existence of genetic algorithms designed to facilitate changes to the DNA sequence. Dr. Peer Terborg has coined the term “variation inducing genetic elements” (VIGEs) and we happily incorporate them into the creation model. Since these changes would be caused by pre-programmed genetic modules, it is hard to call these changes “mutations”. The HLA genes in particular, as a vital part of the immune system, are pre-programmed to scramble, so using them as proof for your beliefs is an error on your part.”
The HLA genes.
Plus do you disagree with mutational hotspots and rapid adaptive events via environment? This is all pretty well known and basic.
“4) Given that some places in the genome do have high diversity, you still failed to account for the distribution of those variations worldwide. In fact, most variations come in two main flavors (Adam and Eve could have given us up to four) and these are generally found in all populations. When we find more variation than this, almost always the third, fourth, fifth, etc., versions are restricted to one subpopulation or another. These are mutations that have occurred since the Tower of Babel, and the exceptions (e.g., the ABO blood type locus,2 with three main alleles found across the world, one of which [O] is a broken version of another [A]) could have been due to mutations between Adam and Babel. Interestingly, deletion mutations, which are common within all people, are generally not shared among the various subpopulations. This is evidence of a young genome in rapid decay.”
Sadly I have to agree. I looked at a few of his “debate” videos. Looks like another Kent Hovind wanna-be. Long on empty hand-waves and woefully short of factual scientific knowledge.
1 Like
Except I think this thread has proven sufficiently you are an expert at dogeball since you dodged 99.99999% of what I had to say. My challenge remains. Join me or any of the creationists who regularly debate on my channel for a discussion on this.
Actually I challenge anybody to go back and read through this comment thread to see just who is dodging 99% of everything. You guys ignore most of what is said and then cherry pick one small detail that you THINK you can address while ignoring all the other empical data presented. I have yet to see any response to any of the data and facts I have presented in both this thread and the video thread.