Genesis Genetics, revisited

[tas8831]

I started a thread on this a few months ago, which almost immediately became an unsupported-assertion dump, and got nowhere.

Perhaps I broached too many issues? It was only 2, really, but still...

So, I will attempt to rekindle the initial 'debate' but only bring up 1 issue:

Background*: All living things were Created by God no more than 10,000 years ago. These original creationists were not necessarily the same creatures we see today, but were the original 'Created Kind' - the Dog-Kind, Elephant-Kind, Pig-Kind, etc. These original Kinds were imbued with all of the genetic diversity they would need to eventually give rise to a lot of diversity - the original Elephant-Kind giving rise to mammoths, Indian and African elephants, gomphotheres, etc. The bat-Kind giving rise to the 1000+ species alive today (or at least a sampling of them), etc.
The original Kinds had all of the alleles needed to produce these 'sub-Kinds. At some point, for no apparent reason, the Original Kinds produced offspring that were these other sub-Kinds. What happened to the alleles that were no longer needed?** They were lost - a more specific organism has less genetic information than a more generic Original Kind.

And then came the Flood.

Problem: The diversity somehow produced by the original creation was wiped out - leaving but a single breeding pair of everything but humans and 'clean' beasts after the flood. There is no biblical instruction as to which Kinds were brought on the ark - was it the Original Kind pairs? Don't know.
This brings us back to square one - this is all usually ignored, or the original wiped-out diversity is ignored to focus on the re-generation of diversity post-flood as if that lessens the problem in some way.

The Genesis genetics problems are compounded by those that insist that there were no mutations before the Fall, or that mutations play no role in diversity, etc.

So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?

Hybridization does not cut it, for that implies the existence of more than a single breeding pair in the first place.

Front-loaded genomes could cut it, if only there was actual evidence for this, and only if what we actually know about genetics didn't actually refute it.

Discuss.


*This background is pieced together from what I have read on the internet by advocates of these various claims.
**I have been told by creationists more than a dozen times over the years that a specific taxon - a species - has less "genetic information" than that from which they arose (not evolved, of course). Which is odd, since many of those same creationists, when discussing other issues, claim that an enzyme whose gene mutated to allow the enzyme to accommodate more than one substrate has also 'lost' information...

 

[Chinchilla]

Add to your argument how did people get different blood types might be revelant and i'm curious myself

 

[pitabread]

Creationism is magic. The end.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I started a thread on this a few months ago, which almost immediately became an unsupported-assertion dump, and got nowhere.

Perhaps I broached too many issues? It was only 2, really, but still...

So, I will attempt to rekindle the initial 'debate' but only bring up 1 issue:

Background*: All living things were Created by God no more than 10,000 years ago. These original creationists were not necessarily the same creatures we see today, but were the original 'Created Kind' - the Dog-Kind, Elephant-Kind, Pig-Kind, etc. These original Kinds were imbued with all of the genetic diversity they would need to eventually give rise to a lot of diversity - the original Elephant-Kind giving rise to mammoths, Indian and African elephants, gomphotheres, etc. The bat-Kind giving rise to the 1000+ species alive today (or at least a sampling of them), etc.
The original Kinds had all of the alleles needed to produce these 'sub-Kinds. At some point, for no apparent reason, the Original Kinds produced offspring that were these other sub-Kinds. What happened to the alleles that were no longer needed?** They were lost - a more specific organism has less genetic information than a more generic Original Kind.

And then came the Flood.

Problem: The diversity somehow produced by the original creation was wiped out - leaving but a single breeding pair of everything but humans and 'clean' beasts after the flood. There is no biblical instruction as to which Kinds were brought on the ark - was it the Original Kind pairs? Don't know.
This brings us back to square one - this is all usually ignored, or the original wiped-out diversity is ignored to focus on the re-generation of diversity post-flood as if that lessens the problem in some way.

The Genesis genetics problems are compounded by those that insist that there were no mutations before the Fall, or that mutations play no role in diversity, etc.

So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?

Hybridization does not cut it, for that implies the existence of more than a single breeding pair in the first place.

Front-loaded genomes could cut it, if only there was actual evidence for this, and only if what we actually know about genetics didn't actually refute it.

Discuss.


*This background is pieced together from what I have read on the internet by advocates of these various claims.
**I have been told by creationists more than a dozen times over the years that a specific taxon - a species - has less "genetic information" than that from which they arose (not evolved, of course). Which is odd, since many of those same creationists, when discussing other issues, claim that an enzyme whose gene mutated to allow the enzyme to accommodate more than one substrate has also 'lost' information...

Ask the Grants, they found out from reality how the diversity got there.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating. This is because recombining genomes at inception affects several loci at once, while your mutation affects one single loci. If it doesn't happen to be neutral, and if it doesn't happen to be harmful.

Just accept the reality found to be valid in the wild. And oh my how you all seem to always forget dogs and the extraordinary variance produced by breeding.....

 

[Jimmy D]

Ask the Grants, they found out from reality how the diversity got there.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating. This is because recombining genomes at inception affects several loci at once, while your mutation affects one single loci. If it doesn't happen to be neutral, and if it doesn't happen to be harmful.

Just accept the reality found to be valid in the wild. And oh my how you all seem to always forget dogs and the extraordinary variance produced by breeding.....

We are all aware that can hybridization occur, no one has denied it.

You need to actually respond to the points raised in the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's with this thread, when 68% voted they don't see a bottleneck in Genesis 1?

My Genesis 1 Bottleneck Event Challenge

Do you really want to rehash that thread?

If so, I'll me more than happy to accommodate you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?

Wow -- let's see how hard this is to explain.

We'll start here, and I'll try my best to get you to explain it for us.

Put your thinking cap on and give me the best answer, will you?

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

What was that blessing in the form of?

1. Money to bribe Egyptians & Chinese to claim they existed before the Flood.
2. A year's subscription to Scientific American.
3. Lab coats to walk around looking efficacious.
4. Fecundity and vitality to replenish the earth as instructed.

Let's see your best answer.

And remember -- you're representing academia here -- so let's see you shine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is magic. The end.

1. What does creationism have to do with the Flood, which came over 2300 years later?

2. Magic or miracles?

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to actually respond to the points raised in the OP.

Will do.

Gladly will do.

I could talk about and answer your objections to the Flood all day.

 

[Ophiolite]

Will do.

Gladly will do.

I could talk about and answer your objections to the Flood all day.

As JimmyD said, "You need to actually respond to the points raised in the OP."

 

[AV1611VET]

As JimmyD said, "You need to actually respond to the points raised in the OP."

Sure thing:

Background*: All living things were Created by God no more than 10,000 years ago.

Right on!

 

[pitabread]

Wow -- let's see how hard this is to explain.

Merely quoting Genesis isn't explaining anything.

 

[pitabread]

1. What does creationism have to do with the Flood, which came over 2300 years later?

It's part of the creationist mythology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Merely quoting Genesis isn't explaining anything.

Genesis is good enough to make me (and keep me) a creationist.

And seeing as how God says it's ...

2 Timothy 3:16b ... profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

... well ... you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's part of the creationist mythology.

Ya ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[pitabread]

Genesis is good enough to make me (and keep me) a creationist.

That's nice. It still doesn't explain anything.

 

[pitabread]

Ya ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

We've already established that Mr. Khan.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's nice. It still doesn't explain anything.

I guess you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

 

[Jimmy D]

Sure thing:

Right on!

No offence meant AV, but I was addressing justafinchseeker.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We are all aware that can hybridization occur, no one has denied it.

You need to actually respond to the points raised in the OP.

I did, you just didnt like the answer.

OP's Point.

"So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?"

Answer. Again:

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating. This is because recombining genomes at inception affects several loci at once, while your mutation affects one single loci. If it doesn't happen to be neutral, and if it doesn't happen to be harmful.

So the simple breeding of those pairs increases new additive genetic variance two to three times more than mutation.

Quit ignoring the answer because you don't like to hear the reality that mutation just isn't that important in producing variation....