Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 31 of 161 (705107)
08-23-2013 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
04-20-2013 12:48 PM


Re: Another example
The global flood is generally placed around 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
We have examples of Native American mtDNA types that are the same both before and after that date.
At On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska a skeleton was dated to 10,300 years ago, and a rare mtDNA type was found. This is D4h3.
In a publication a couple of years back, it was noted that 47 living individuals had been found with that same haplotype. They were found along the west coasts of North and South America.
If a flood had occurred that haplotype would have been wiped out and replaced by Near Eastern mtDNA types.
That this didn't happen is another example of genetics disproving the YEC flood belief.
Coyote if you think about the logic of this argument of yours, the whole point is based on dating methods. Which is a separate argument to Bluegenes genetic argument.
I would say that man is post-flood, and due to incorrect dating methods was erroneously dated to 10300ya and instead was less than 4500ya. If you let me know how the fossil was dated we can delve into that aspect of it to see if I could be right. But you would have to open another thread for that because its irrelevant to this thread. Let me know if you do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2013 12:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 08-23-2013 12:05 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 161 (705127)
08-23-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mindspawn
08-23-2013 5:07 AM


New thread started.
New thread started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 5:07 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 161 (705131)
08-23-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mindspawn
08-23-2013 4:52 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
2) Isn't it true that sun exposure has an effect on mutations?
Well, yeah, the ones that cause skin cancer. If you have some evidence that it affects the rate of germ-line mutations, then this would be an excellent time for you to produce the evidence.
4) If the y-chromosome evolved, is it possible that the base substitutions found therein are representative of millions of years of mutations since the y-chromosome's alleged introduction over 200 million years ago? ie doesn't the small number of mutations found put doubt on evolution, rather than the large number of mutations disproving creation?
I didn't follow that at all, could you clarify your point? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 4:52 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 34 of 161 (705238)
08-25-2013 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
08-23-2013 12:32 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
Well, yeah, the ones that cause skin cancer. If you have some evidence that it affects the rate of germ-line mutations, then this would be an excellent time for you to produce the evidence.
Increases in germline mutations are related to higher temperatures and also UV damage. both are more prevalent in lower latitudes.
Temperature affects on germline mutations:
Hotspots for evolution - Understanding Evolution
Just a moment...
UV exposure causes increases in mutation rates, I'm still looking into the inherited effects though :
Ask a Geneticist | The Tech Interactive
Mutation - Wikipedia
Ultraviolet radiation (nonionizing radiation). Two nucleotide bases in DNA — cytosine and thymine — are most vulnerable to radiation that can change their properties. UV light can induce adjacent pyrimidine bases in a DNA strand to become covalently joined as a pyrimidine dimer. UV radiation, particularly longer-wave UVA, can also cause oxidative damage to DNA.[27]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2013 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 2:59 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 08-25-2013 11:31 PM mindspawn has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 35 of 161 (705254)
08-25-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mindspawn
08-25-2013 6:33 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
Increases in germline mutations are related to higher temperatures and also UV damage.
Whoa dude. You are getting ahead of what you can demonstrate on the UV part. UV radiation has very low penetrating power and it is counter-intuitive that it would have an effect on the mutation rates of complex animals. If you want to link sunlight to inheritable mutations either you need to take some kind of Lamarkian approach or you should consider something other than visible and ultraviolet light.
UV exposure causes increases in mutation rates, I'm still looking into the inherited effects though :
And what kind of human mutations are discussed in the article? Skin cancer. The article also talks about mutations in single celled organisms like yeast. You haven't even begun.
Besides that, changes in mutation rate by a factor of 2 or so really aren't all that helpful to your argument are they?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:33 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:50 PM NoNukes has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 36 of 161 (705274)
08-25-2013 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 2:59 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
Whoa dude. You are getting ahead of what you can demonstrate on the UV part. UV radiation has very low penetrating power and it is counter-intuitive that it would have an effect on the mutation rates of complex animals. If you want to link sunlight to inheritable mutations either you need to take some kind of Lamarkian approach or you should consider something other than visible and ultraviolet light.
And what kind of human mutations are discussed in the article? Skin cancer. The article also talks about mutations in single celled organisms like yeast. You haven't even begun.
Besides that, changes in mutation rate by a factor of 2 or so really aren't all that helpful to your argument are they?
Could you kindly discuss the temperature effects on germline mutations. I did say that I'm still looking into inherited UV mutations, but I did provide links that show temperature affects mutation rates to a significant extent. Which in itself puts doubt on the claims of the opening post because these two Chinese are not based in a warm area, and as such are not representative of average mutation rates for mankind. But even the sample size of just two individuals is insufficient for any generalized claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 2:59 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 8:21 PM mindspawn has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 37 of 161 (705284)
08-25-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mindspawn
08-23-2013 4:52 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
mindspawn writes:
Nice thread Bluegenes. Due to my lack of knowledge about genetics, I would like to ask you some questions:
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first study focussed on only two Chinese individuals, surely this is not enough to be representative of standard mutation rates across world populations?
The pedigree study covers thirteen generations (the two individuals are 6 and 7 generations from a common ancestor). The resulting 4 mutations over thirteen generations is in keeping with other studies, but we can certainly consider a wide possible margin of error when dealing with such low numbers, and that the true average for 13 generations could reasonably be anything from 1 to 8 if we only consider that one study. Your YEC model requires there to be more than 40 mutations over an average 13 generations.
mindspawn writes:
2) Isn't it true that sun exposure has an effect on mutations? If so the "Middle East" biblical theory would necessitate a higher mutation rate for all ancestry, and yet slowing down in recent times for northern hemisphere populations of high latitudes (including the Chinese).
We would know if tropical groups have significantly higher germ line mutation rates than high latitude groups because of the higher number of genetic conditions that we could observe. Your required mutation rate of more than 10 times would mean so many detrimental mutations that the tropical populations would surely be extinct before they got to high latitude, anyway!
mindspawn writes:
3) Does the second study focus only on base substitutions as per the first study? ie are we comparing apples with apples between the two studies?
It gives the number of SNPs, and the tree I put in post 8 (see below) is constructed on SNPs only. Apples with apples, except that the second paper only covers one fifth of the chromosome, so remember to multiply the figures on the tree by 5!
mindspawn writes:
4) If the y-chromosome evolved, is it possible that the base substitutions found therein are representative of millions of years of mutations since the y-chromosome's alleged introduction over 200 million years ago? ie doesn't the small number of mutations found put doubt on evolution, rather than the large number of mutations disproving creation?
It isn't variations on the earliest mammalian Y-chromosome we're talking about! Those are far greater if we look at all other mammals! What we're talking about is variations on the last Y-chromosome that went to fixation across our entire ancestral population group, probably about 300,000 years ago, according to this recent surprise find. Message 7

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 4:52 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 5:52 AM bluegenes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 161 (705285)
08-25-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mindspawn
08-25-2013 6:50 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
I did say that I'm still looking into inherited UV mutations, but I did provide links that show temperature affects mutation rates to a significant extent.
Isn't it time to quit doing that? That was the point of my post.
But I did provide links that show temperature affects mutation rates to a significant extent
More than the factor of two that I mentioned in my post?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:50 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 8:16 AM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 39 of 161 (705296)
08-25-2013 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mindspawn
08-25-2013 6:33 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
mindspawn writes:
and also UV damage. both are more prevalent in lower latitudes.
Temperature affects on germline mutations:
Page not found
Your link is self-defeating, surely, as it assumes common descent in order to demonstrate the higher mutation rate in tropical plants. Have you converted to common descent?
However, if you're interested in climate related changes in human metabolic rates, here's a paper on the subject. There's a mild but significant increase in the rate in Arctic climates.
Climatic influences on basal metabolic rates among circumpolar populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mindspawn, posted 08-25-2013 6:33 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 8:04 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 40 of 161 (705313)
08-26-2013 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by bluegenes
08-25-2013 7:57 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
The pedigree study covers thirteen generations (the two individuals are 6 and 7 generations from a common ancestor). The resulting 4 mutations over thirteen generations is in keeping with other studies, but we can certainly consider a wide possible margin of error when dealing with such low numbers, and that the true average for 13 generations could reasonably be anything from 1 to 8 if we only consider that one study. Your YEC model requires there to be more than 40 mutations over an average 13 generations.
You are confirming that the mutation rate you are using was established from the comparison between just two Chinese individuals. Your sample is not large enough to make a convincing scientific conclusion. I feel you need to post your other studies to get more support for your mutation rate.
We would know if tropical groups have significantly higher germ line mutation rates than high latitude groups because of the higher number of genetic conditions that we could observe. Your required mutation rate of more than 10 times would mean so many detrimental mutations that the tropical populations would surely be extinct before they got to high latitude, anyway!
You have based my so-called "required rate" on your rates that are based on two Chinese guys. For the moment you haven't got enough evidence to support your claimed mutation rates. And I have posted evidence that in fact the tropics do have higher mutation rates.
It gives the number of SNPs, and the tree I put in post 8 (see below) is constructed on SNPs only. Apples with apples, except that the second paper only covers one fifth of the chromosome, so remember to multiply the figures on the tree by 5!
Reading through that study, I couldn't find where only one fifth of the y-chromosome was mentioned? Kindly point this out, I got the impression they deliberately used "high coverage" individuals when analyzing those 36 y-chromosomes.
It isn't variations on the earliest mammalian Y-chromosome we're talking about! Those are far greater if we look at all other mammals! What we're talking about is variations on the last Y-chromosome that went to fixation across our entire ancestral population group, probably about 300,000 years ago, according to this recent surprise find. Message 7
I don't see why the y-chromosome would have only been collecting SNPs for 300 000 years, when its been allegedly "evolving" for 200 million years and collecting SNPs in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by bluegenes, posted 08-25-2013 7:57 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by bluegenes, posted 08-27-2013 12:52 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 41 of 161 (705315)
08-26-2013 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by bluegenes
08-25-2013 11:31 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
Your link is self-defeating, surely, as it assumes common descent in order to demonstrate the higher mutation rate in tropical plants. Have you converted to common descent?
1) If you do believe in common descent you should acknowledge that mutation rates are higher in lower latitudes. How then can you claim that high latitude rates are normal if you do not believe that yourself?
Just a moment...
2) I'm not sure that the studies were based on the assumption of long term common descent, they seemed to be studying species with only recent variation from definite nested hierarchies. (not assumed long-term hierarchies as per evolutionary theory)
3) The theory behind it makes perfect sense whether you believe in long-term common descent or not, there is no reason to doubt that mutation rates would increase in the tropics:
"This is a reasonable hypothesis since warm-weather organisms likely have higher metabolic rates, and some substances involved in metabolic reactions can cause DNA damage, potentially leading to a mutation. Mutations, in turn, increase genetic variation, the raw material of evolution"
Conclusion: this all puts doubt on your usage of two high latitude Chinese guys to establish a universal mutation rate across all areas of the globe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 08-25-2013 11:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 42 of 161 (705316)
08-26-2013 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 8:21 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
Isn't it time to quit doing that? That was the point of my post.
I don't really understand your point here. It just seems we are both agreeing I need to research the UV angle more.
Regarding temperature effects on Mutation rates , I believe once Bluegenes and I have reached better consensus on SNP mutation rates, the factor of 2 will become more significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 8:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2013 2:28 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 43 of 161 (705430)
08-27-2013 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 5:52 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
mindspawn writes:
You are confirming that the mutation rate you are using was established from the comparison between just two Chinese individuals. Your sample is not large enough to make a convincing scientific conclusion. I feel you need to post your other studies to get more support for your mutation rate.
When I tell you that the Y chromosome is relatively small, and is about 1.5% of the genome, you can make some calculations yourself. What was the low mutation rate you were promoting on another thread, when you claimed it was impossible for humans and chimps to have diverged over the last 7 million years? Do you now want it to be much higher?
mindspawn writes:
You have based my so-called "required rate" on your rates that are based on two Chinese guys.
Not at all. Your required rate is based on your model, and its need to explain the observed modern diversity. I'll explain.
In your model, we are all about 180 generations from Noah, whose Y-chromosome all men have inherited on a direct male line. The required rate for your model is x/180, with "x" being the average number of mutations that separate modern individuals from Noah. If "x" seemed to be about 1800, for example, then your rate would be about 10 mutations per. generation transfer (about like a rate of 600 or 700 across the whole genome).
mindspawn writes:
For the moment you haven't got enough evidence to support your claimed mutation rates. And I have posted evidence that in fact the tropics do have higher mutation rates.
Your paper is about differences between related species of plants, not differences within a species of animal. However, I know very well that mutation rates vary, even within species. Look at the tree I've posted above. You can count up mutations and see that they vary with some lineages having accumulated up to 20% above or below the average. There doesn't seem to be any strong correlation to latitude, but as you've developed an interest in the subject, the individual with the slowest rate is from a tropical lineage.
mindspawn writes:
Reading through that study, I couldn't find where only one fifth of the y-chromosome was mentioned? Kindly point this out,.....
Second sentence. They say that they restrict themselves to just under 9 Mb, and I know that the total is about 54 Mb.
mindspawn writes:
I don't see why the y-chromosome would have only been collecting SNPs for 300 000 years, when its been allegedly "evolving" for 200 million years and collecting SNPs in the process.
I didn't say it had only been collecting SNPs since the last one went to fixation. The point is, once you've got a "Noah" situation, and everyone in the population has the same Y-chromosome, any differences between individuals must have accumulated since. So, do you now understand the problem for your model?
There are far too many differences for 4,500 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 5:52 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 4:51 AM bluegenes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 161 (705466)
08-27-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 8:16 AM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
I don't really understand your point here. It just seems we are both agreeing I need to research the UV angle more.
If you are going to do some research, I hope you don't use the reading skills you are displaying in this forum. I gave you reasons why your research is unlikely to be fruitful, and suggested some alternative approaches. UV radiation simply does not get into human gonads.
the factor of 2 will become more significant.
You clearly have not thought this through.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 8:16 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 08-27-2013 2:48 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 45 of 161 (705468)
08-27-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
08-27-2013 2:28 PM


Re: The Y-chromosome falsification.
NoNukes writes:
You clearly have not thought this through.
To put it mildly.
Mindspawn needs the mutation rate on the Y-chromosome to be about 20 times higher than it is in order for a 4,500 year old Noah to be the founder of the super-haplogroup that it was thought covered all humans until this year. The recent discovery that a tiny minority is not actually in that group, and the data on their Y-chromosomes, means that he needs a mutation rate about 60 times the current estimates in order for Noah to be our Y-chromosome "Adam".
As I said in the O.P., modern genetics on its own falsifies the standard YEC model without any reference to any other field, and without the assumption of common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2013 2:28 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 5:30 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024