I see that glipsnort is much too courteous to point at the extreme disparity in understanding of these issues between the two of you. But, let me tell you: every time you condescend to him, you remind everyone ELSE of that disparity.
6 Likes
Yes I agree. These alternative alleles (in the same DNA site) in the same human, are those âcommonâ variants that Carter wrote about? You probably also know how recombination processes can produce new variations (new combinations) of these variations? You probably also know that it is this process that makes each individual genetically unique compared to his parents, because recombination and gene conversion âreorganizeâ parental combinations. This can lead to completely new combinations of those that do not occur in the older ones.
So why should we forget recombination processes? Why should we forget the biggest cause of diversity? It seems that most human diversity comes precisely from recombination and not from mutations. Carter wrote that due to mutations, individuals may have 15 to 20 thousand mutations (variants), but several million variants (alternative alleles at the same DNA site) are explained by the created heterozygosity and recombination of these regions. So I donât understand the problem youâre building, because I donât see that there is and by no means can we forget about recombination when we talk about variants
Because the quantity Iâm talking about is unaffected by recombination. If your model canât explain single-site statistics, looking at multisite statistics is not going to save it.
Yes. And what I wrote is that Carter is wrong. Completely wrong.
I suggest you read some posts in an old Biologos thread here. Start with my post #31 and read my additional posts through the 30s.
3 Likes
What does this mean? I canât catch your point. After all, I explained that our model (created heterozygosity and recombination + gene conversion) can specifically explain the observed variants in human populations.
And donât forget that our model also takes into account mutations. There are 15-20 thousand of them in every human being and they are (rare) variants.
You are building a problem that is not in the creationist model. Because evolutionists think that basically all variants are the result of mutations, they therefore construct theories that take long times for these variants to form. But that is the problem with your theory!
We creationists do not have that problem, because according to our model, most of the diversity (variations) was created in the beginning for Adam and Eve. Of that diversity, recombination + gene conversion + mutations has then produced everything we now see. This does not take much time, as even one generation can produce great diversity from this starting point.
And I told you that your model cannot explain the frequency at which the observed variants are present in human populations. Did you read my posts in the other thread?
No. I am allowing there to be as much created genetic diversity as you like in Adam and Eve. The basic problem: how does your model produce a large number of variants that are present in 5% of the population?
Look, I really donât have time to teach you population genetics right now. If you read my other posts and have specific questions, Iâll try to answer them, but I have two papers and a grant (all covid-related) that I have to be working right now.
1 Like
That doesnât work, even to the extent of explaining observed diversity for chromosomes that donât recombine. In humans, those are the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes. It gets even worse when you look at the entire families you claim are the result of single creations.
And of course you are entirely ignoring @glipsnortâs point about the frequencies, not the mere existence, of genetic variants.
Carter wrote: "With an average (modern) generation time of 30 years, there have only been about 150, perhaps as many 200, generations in all of human history. Assuming a conservative modern estimate of 100 new mutations per person per generation, that gives us between 15 and 20 thousand mutations per person. This is a huge number when added up across the world population, and now of these should be unique. " https://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos
Why are these mutations unable to explain it? I encourage you to read that Carter article in its entirety, it explains these things in more detail.
The conditions may also have an effect on what variants occur under those conditions. I understand the genome has the ability to sense conditions and even the ability to turn regions on and off accordingly. This can also affect why a small population in one place has variations that are not found elsewhere.
In addition, because recombination is capable of producing new combinations (variants), rare variants can easily form into small populations that do not spread from there to elsewhere if the population is relatively closed, like some in Africa. That problem you suggest doesnât just show up in our model. You should read more creationist literature on the subject. Hereâs a good book outlining the creationist model. Replacing Darwin - Replacing Darwin (Hardcover) | Answers in Genesis
Carter teaches well about recombination in the following article: Can mutations create new information? - https://creation.com/mutations-new-information
"The in-built alternatives God put into Adam and Eve are scrambled over time, and new traits (even many good ones not previously in existence) might arise during this process. How? One way is through a process called âhomologous recombinationâ. People have two sets of chromosomes. Letâs say a certain portion of one of Adamâs chromosome #1 reads âGGGGGGGGGGâ and codes for a green-colored something-or-other. The other copy of chromosome 1 reads âbbbbbbbbbbâ and codes for a blue something-or-other, but blue is recessive. Someone with one or two copies of the all-G chromosome will have a green something-or-other. Someone with two copies of the all-b chromosome will have a blue something-or-other. In the early population, about three quarters of the people will have the green version and about one quarter will have the blue version.
Homologous chromosomes are recombined from one generation to the next through a process called âcrossing overâ. If a crossing over event occurred in the middle of this sequence, we might get one that reads âGGGGGbbbbbâ that causes the production of a purple something-or-other. This is a brand new thing, a new trait never seen before. This is the result of a change in the DNA sequence and we will not be able to tell the difference between this crossing over event and a âmutationâ until we can sequence the piece of DNA in question. Thus, new traits (sometimes incorrectly or colloquially referred to as âgenesâ) can arise through homologous recombination. But this is not mutation. Recombination is part of the intelligently-designed genome and usually only reveals information that was previously packed into the genome by the Master Designer (it can also reveal new combinations of mutations and designed diversity). Also, recombination is not random, so there is a limit to the amount of new traits that can come about in this way."
@Toni_Torppa, you are really missing the point here. @glipsnort is notable for being a scientist that has taken Sanford and Carterâs genetic work seriously. Back in 2016, he engaged there work by doing experiments, and that is what he is trying to explain to you.
I suggest you check it out: Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos? - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum.
Since then, Carter and Sanford have engaged with @glipsnort too. I highly recommend you adopt a more respectful posture to him. He has treated YEC scientists with respect, engaging directly with their ideas, and Iâve never seen him insult them or attack them with ad hominems. I suggest you adopt the same respectful approach to him that he adopts towards you and your scientists.
6 Likes
And to be 100% clear,
-
This is precisely the article that @glipsnort engages here: Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos? - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum.
-
BioLogos is not currently a reliable source on population genetics pertaining to Adam and Eve. Carter were responding to Dennis Venemaâs work, but there is much better and more convincing scientific work out now, and other errors identified in his work.
2 Likes
Honor him, yes, but I disagree with him. I think the debate has been in a good tone. Although he wrote like this, (glipsnort): âAnd what I wrote is that Carter is wrong. Completely wrong.â however, I do not take it as an insult.
Thanks â Iâd forgotten about that thread.
2 Likes
You have not treated with him respect in this thread. Please respect him by seeking understanding, asking his reasoning on specific points and refraining from assessments and dismissals you are wholly unqualified to make.
If he gets something wrong, we will call him out and I certainly will. I invite YEC scientists also to call him out, and I personally will publicly acknowledge when there is legitimacy to their objections.
Please follow Proverbs 4:7 going forward. Before anything else, seek understanding. There is value even in understanding that which you respect.
5 Likes
Why would you? You are not Carter. If you were in a position to render judgments on the competence of the PhD scientists here, you would not have to constantly ask if others have read what Jeanson and Carter wrote, as if that settles anything.
Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Nothing there about created heterozygosity and recombination + gene conversion, or proto-kinds. I find it ironic that YEC is so fixated on a 6,000 year old earth that they build this super edifice far removed from the plain language of the Genesis they seek to protect. This creationist hyper evolution model is supported by neither science or scripture.
2 Likes
The idea is that all humans came from a first couple. Many people donât think this is possible, but Dr C demolishes one common argument against Adam and Eve: the thought that you canât get millions of rare variations in the genome if you start with just two people a few thousand years ago. In fact, not only are Adam and Eve an excellent fit for the real-world data, but computer modeling tells us the biblical scenario is a better fit to the data than the evolutionary one.
Here:
Carter is using data combining all human populations sampled by the 1000 genomes project, as though they all have the exact same demographic history. Thatâs begging the question, donât you think?
According to the evolutionary model non-Africans underwent a bottleneck during the out of Africa migration that would skew the frequency spectrum, so itâs more appropriate to assess Africans and non-Africans separately and simulate different demographic histories.
The âevolutionary modelâ Carter simulates ignores all this, and just assumes a constant human population size. Combined with his inappropriate selection of data, itâs not surprising he found a mismatch between the data and his âevolutionary modelâ.
Yeah, thatâs bad. Worse is that they stop showing the total number of alleles in their simulations and only show the relative number at different frequencies. Thatâs critically important, since itâs easy to get a realistic allele frequency spectrum with a small population or through bottlenecks â genetic drift operates quickly. Whatâs hard is getting the right frequency shape from a combination of created diversity and new mutations while also getting the right overall level of diversity.
I only gave the paper a quick read, but spotted multiple other problems: highly selective reference to prior work, inventing out of whole cloth a âconventionâ that only the folded spectrum is shown since geneticists donât know what the ancestral allele is (are they aware that weâve sequenced the chimpanzee genome and why we did so?), and, most damning of all, they misspelled my name.
8 Likes
âThe genomic position of allelesâ is gibberish. You clearly donât know the meaning of âallele.â
This is redundant, as an âalleleâ is DEFINED as being both alternative and at the same site in the chromosome. There are no alleles that do not meet those criteria.
Really, until you grasp the meaning of this term and can use it coherently, the discussion is pointless.
2 Likes