I'm new to this forum but for the last couple of weeks I've taken a slight interest in the evolution vs. creation debate. I don't know if this topic has already been covered extensively on here before, but I searched and found nothing. Although I do not know very much about evolution/creation, something recently occurred to me and if I'm correct and not being naive, then surely it would be a huge blow to the young Earth view. People who believe in a global flood 4500 years ago contend that the "kinds" aboard the Ark genetically diversified very rapidly following the flood, but that the mechanism of this diversfication was not mutation but other genetic mechanisms like recombination, crossing over, chromsome translocations, etc. In other words, alleles are shuffled around and swapped among chromsomes, but no "new" alleles are created during these processes. We all know that each individual has two alleles per gene in their genome; one from mom and one from dad. If a genetic bottleneck actually occurred some 4500 years ago, this would reduce the number of possible alleles to 4 for each "kind" since there were only two representatives of each kind aboard the Ark. Today, obviously there are much more than just four alleles per gene in the gene of pool of any given "kind" . For example, among the human "kind", 240 different alleles have been identified for for the HLA-B locus. Where did these new alleles come from if not from mutations? If young Earthers deny the ability of mutations to create new alleles, they must present some alternative mechanism by which new alleles can be generated, or accept the ability of mutations to do so. If they accept mutations, then they must admit that mutations can in fact createnew "information" (because as far I can see, a new allele would be new "information"). And if they go so far as the admit this, then what is to stop evolution from changing one kind into another?
Edited by tyler121515, : typo
™ Version 4.2