OK I found a video of a creationist, didn't catch his name despite straining but he's obviously vey legit, referred to some articles with names I've heard though I don't remember them at the moment, oh Wayland? something like that. I think his podcast might have been itled Biblical Genetics but I'm not even sure of that.
Anyway he's adamant that Neanderthals were human, descendancts of Noah, offered some genetic ideas about how they could have bdeveloped as a population whgich was peretty convincing erxcept fort the reliance on mutatatios which just doesn't cut it. Here's where I tyry to make my case of simple normal variation built inot the genome and how it can sometimes lead to dramatic differences in the apprearance of separated populations of that Species or Kind. That's really all it takes for great changes to coccur. It doesn't need mutations or anything added to the genome. It just needs the reporductive isolation of a small number of individuals who just happen to have a geneticx mix that when worked through the population down some number of genetations brings out some rather dramatic new characteristics compartred to the parent population. Such as, perhaps a hjeavy brow ridge and receding chin. Yes for sure that is somethig that could happen from simple migration of a small nmber of individuals whose set of genete frequencies just happens to contant the elemetns , propabably some increase in homozygosity in some combintatino of genes, randomly selected as it were, which in repeated combination ofver some umber of generations brings about a new race of beings. That's how the Neanderthals could have formed and this creationist is saying the same thing only he thinks mutations are needed to provide the variations.
Nope. All it took for the Pod Mrcaru lizards to acquire a dramatic new appearnacne in comparison to their parent population b, was repeated sexual recombination of their own set of gene frequencies, brought together in ten individuals on an isolated island. Over thirty years, and probably less than that I would surmise. It doesn't take mutations or any additions. God provided the stuff for great variation i the human genome. Evryone has a particular combination of alleles unique to the indivudal, that can make interesting combinations with that of other individauls to create a line of descendancts that doesn't look like th eoriginal individual much any more at all.
So I'll go with this for now, accept that Neandertheals were human, but I really don't like letting them represent the human race at large after Noah's family got off the ark.
faithswindow@mailc.com
Freiday
this is so frustrating. I find good videos but since I can't read I often can't find out who the people are doing them. I did, however, just find one that I think I may be able to find again if I want to. An interview by a guy whose name I didn't get, from God Questions which I know as a Crhristian site, of Rob Carter of Creationi international ministries, the one who talks about Biblivcal Genetis as I mention abofe.
In this interview he's going into more detail than I heard in the first one but then I didn't listen long because I got too tired. Haven't listented to much here either but still there's moe to talk aboutr.
Thew question is how could you bget so much diversity i the human opulation starting from our ancestors on Noah's ark only about 4500 years ago. He's rightly convinced it's not hard at all for that to have appened but I have a different point of view. Of course. But I've bgbeen giving my point of view here for a long time. It just happens to answer a lot of questions I nevr got around to untili fairly recently.
He thinks it takes some mutations even though I he criticizes the idea that mutations are necessary. He and the interviewer talk about how Amda and Eve could have been very diverse in themselves, and so of course could Noah's sons and their wives.
But no, here I go with my argument agaiub, and it's very simplistic. Simple. I got the idea in the first lace fro the book Creation Science with Morris and Parker as I recall and I can't find the book so can't check that out. Parker presents the punnet square showing two genes possessed by Adam and Eve that he says are enough to produce all the skin colr shaedes known to humanity. Just two genes.
As I've thought this through over and over and over it just came to seem to beme to be pretty clear that all you need for all the diversity we see and much much more for that matter is our genmore with I always forget how many thousands of genes but all composed of two alleles or two variants. That's all it takes and I wish I had the math ability to lay it out. It's all jumbled up in my head but not beyond enough clarity to convince me it would work out if someone better at the organization than I am, and the ability to see too of cousre would just work it out on paper.
You don't need Adam and Eve to have differfent genomes either as hese two men consider, or at tleast the Godt Questions guy does. They can ahave identical enomes except for the sex chromoseome, but all the variable genes need to start out as heterozygous, because from there you can get a zillion combinations of possibilititeles. Each gene in sexual recombination with the partner's will produce two heterozygous, one homozygous dominant and one homozygous recessive gene in the offprint, in four offspring I mean. Sorry, I can't see, my fingers are misbehaving badly and I'm tired.
It seems to me that Adam and Eve would have been in the middle of the color range for skin, medium brown. That's what the heterozygosity should give them. They could ahve a child who is homzygous dominant for goth skin color genes which would make that child black skinned, and one homozygous recessive which would make that child white skinned. Just as probabilities go they would proabably have mos of their choildren in the brown skinneed ranges, but the exremes are also possible, and given that they had an awful lot of children they no doubt showed up here and there.
If blacks paired up with blacks more than with others over time and then formed their own populations away from the parent population that's how you would get the blackl races, and so on. That's really all it takes.
THAT's REALLY ALL IT TAKES.
As slong as there was some heterozygosity on the ark for skin color the same range of color should have been avaialable from there too.
Ov er many generations VE BEEN A LOT OF ` `
Sorry I can tell this post is a horrific mess.
Over many generations populations tend toward greater homozygosity for their salient traits, or fixed loci as they are also called. It's a feature of purebred animals that they are homozygous for all their salient traits. They may or may not be able to breed with others of their kind for sometimes gthey can't when they get to that situation genetically. Anyway I've heard that we human beings have about seven percewnt homozygosity or fixed genes in our genome. that means we have no vairation possible for whatever those genes code for. You need both alleles for variability.
There are some genetic issues I don't kow how to answer, like how come adam and even with heterozygous genes for color wouldn't both be black raher than middling brown. That , is the dominant gene should determine the color of the ski but I don't think it dowes in this case for some reason, with getwo genes. That's one gquestion how to the two genes work together.
But Darswin'ns wexperiments with pgeons how that all you avhe to do to get a highly exaggerated characteristic or trait is keep breedig birds that have some degree of exaggeration i that trait startig with the slightest hint. From there simple addition of the same trait to the same trait continues to exaggerate it, and I don't know the genetic explanation for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment