Genesis genetics?

[tas8831]

Man, I love this stuff.

And just why would the different races of humans have different junk DNA if all descended from the same stock?
Only if they didn't would they have different junk DNA.

Wow...OK, let me see if I can explain your own position to you...


We have Perfect Genome Adam.

He mates with his partial identical twin - whom, according to you, has half his genome (where the other half came from is a mystery).

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Adam and Eve somehow had all of the alleles that would ultimately allow for Asians, Africans, Caucasians, Inuit, etc.

They inbreed, and produce 3 sons (although the third son isn't mentioned until later, and other parts of the bible say they had sons and daughters, so who knows...). These three sons somehow hook up with women that are not their sisters (but whose origin is not mentioned in Genesis - odd, huh?). Creationists have told me that either these women were daughters of Adam and Eve and it just wasn't mentioned, or these women came from other populations (which means that Adam and Eve were not actually the first and only humans created - oops!).

If they were their own sisters, then all of their offspring contain merely mixes and matches of their exceptionally NON-diverse gene pool, meaning that either all of their alleles were expressed (meaning that they had some odd dominance/recessive/penetrance/etc. mix going on) or they had some non-existent means of turning some alleles on and off.

If these women were from elsewhere, then your bible tale is shot, so no need to go into that (which wouldn't help your cause much anyway).

So, we have this inbreeding fest going on for some time, and according to you, at some point this nearly homogeneous population somehow started showing little pockets of diversity.

According to you, this means that some alleles were turned off or others on or whatever - it is hard to tell since you never offer anything but analogies and assertions, but since this is about junkDNA, I guess you think that junkDNA is these no longer needed alleles that have mutated?

Again, since you don't understand genetics, it is hard to tell what you actually think happened.

But IF Adam and Eve had this supergenomes, jammy-packed with all of the alleles required to later on produce every conceivable human variation, then it stands to reason that your favorite Asians would no longer need the alleles for an African or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate.

It therefore also it stands to reason that your favorite Africans would no longer need the alleles for an Asian or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate and become junk DNA.

And on down the line.

This means that an Asian would have different junkDNA than an African because they had different alleles that needed to be turned off.

Of course, we still don't know - and you have offered ZERO rationale, much less evidence, why we needed different 'races' in the first place, but hey - in the world of creationism, there is no rationale or evidence for anything, so...

You just supported my theory, not yours.

You don't have a theory, you have ad hoc and contradictory assertions.

Only if the changes were caused by RANDOM mutation, would the junk DNA that resulted from mutation be different and random. Since it isn't,

The only way you can say this is if you have the genetic analyses that support it.

So, if you cannot present the scientific analyses that demonstrate that all Africans have identical junk DNA, then I suggest you retract your baseless assertions.

If random mutations caused the separation of races, then they should have random junk DNA from those random mutations.

So, now you seem to be claiming that junk DNA is responsible for the 'racial' phenotypes?

Do you have NO idea what any of the things you claim mean?

But under my theory it is quite logical that mice, humans and apes should have different junk DNA, since they did not originated from the same stock, but vast appearing similarities too as they were created all from the same basic building blocks.

What a super convenience!

So it will be easy for you to prove that mice, humans, and apes have totally different junk DNA. Can't wait!

No, you just don't know what race bred with what race, so propose a silly theory that one evolves into another.

No, you never even try to explain where the different races came from in the first place, but simply assert the totally dopey and evidence-free notion that hybridization produces Asian-African. Or whatever you are claiming today.

Please show me an Asian that becomes anything other than an Asian without breeding with another race, or having done so in the past?

Please show me two Asians breeding and an African being born - after all, that is what YOU are claiming and you do not even seem to understand this.

I mean, how else did Asians arise in the first place?

You claim they came from some super-genome possessing first breeding pair, but by your own assertions, that is not what happens!

This is the sort of thing I have come to expect from retired engineers and 3D modelers and designer creationists.

Pity that they cannot recognize their own limitations. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution is supported by no single observation, it is pure theory, and a dead one at that.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."


Please tell us again, 3D modeler, about how we have no evidence and your made-up ad hoc gibberish is the truth!

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow, that some fancy dancing. Well let's consider the divergence as it stands right now, 35 million single base substitutions and another 90 million base pairs due to indels, some up to 3 million base pairs in length. That's just a starter.

Now the original gene pools would have been before the accumulation of mutations, that are overwhelmingly deleterious when they have an actual effect. Most adaptive evolution comes from large gene pools, which is why inbreeding is so dangerous to populations. Coming out of the Ark the first parents of all birds, reptiles and mammals would have had nearly pristine genomes and have since went through bottle necks on their way to the fixation of their traits.

Don't see the problem and this is the first time, in a long time, I've seen an evolutionist who thinks genetics is safe haven for common ancestry arguments. Who says these boards don't change.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mark I’ve read and reread your post and I don’t think I understand anything you’ve said . Both genetic novelty and Speciation sometimes happen in relatively small populations and not necessarily bad genes are concentrated either .

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Now I am not saying they don't believe that every other animal is magically different from dogs, but hey, the direct observational proof might be sitting right beside you as we speak.

It is why evolutionary supporters hate discussing dogs, they show the wide range of variation possible without the need for any mutation at all, just simple, everyday interbreeding.

I am stunned at the ignorance on show here, and the straw manning.

Evolutionists do not 'hate' dogs. They are an excellent example of how species can change dramatically over time.

Secondly, what a bizarre claim to say that there is no need for any mutation. There are plenty of mutations in dogs and selecting for mutations is a major part of developing new breeds. Best in show: Scientists pursue selected gene mutations bred into dogs

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Now the original gene pools would have been before the accumulation of mutations, that are overwhelmingly deleterious when they have an actual effect. Most adaptive evolution comes from large gene pools, which is why inbreeding is so dangerous to populations. Coming out of the Ark the first parents of all birds, reptiles and mammals would have had nearly pristine genomes and have since went through bottle necks on their way to the fixation of their traits.
.

Deleterious mutations do not just 'accumulate'. The vast majority of them are removed by natural selection such that beneficial mutations, though initially less frequent, accumulate more than deleterious ones.

You don't understand evolution if you do not understand that.

 

[tas8831]

Wow, that some fancy dancing. Well let's consider the divergence as it stands right now, 35 million single base substitutions and another 90 million base pairs due to indels, some up to 3 million base pairs in length. That's just a starter.

How about you apply your brand of argumentation to other pairs of animals, say pairs of animals claimed to be derived from a created Kind and see how your creationist beliefs compare.

Do you not realize that the exact same processes are occurring in the Giraffe Kind? And the Bear Kind? Do you not think that THEY experience indels, too?

Among the many problems with creationist claims is that they rarely, if ever, stop and think about what will happen when they take their "I ain't no monkey!" type of argumentation and apply it to OTHER groups of living things. Suddenly, they are left having to conjure up all manner of ad hoc escapes to rescue their bible tales. This is why they almost never actually DO that sort of thing.

 

[USincognito]

On 1. So the main objection is not that diversity cannot be front loaded, but that there is no mechanism to hold back diversification from starting earlier? Is that correct? I'm really just interested in front loading and whether there are any scientific objections to it being possible. Obviously you reject the presented conclusion, but I'm wanting to know if the premise itself (front loaded dna) is deemed impossible through scientific discovery.

(Genuine question, open to anyone, not rhetoric)

At the very least it's problematic for diploid animals. Each parent contributes one allele to offspring. I'm not sure how genetic "front loading" would work with that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Deleterious mutations do not just 'accumulate'. The vast majority of them are removed by natural selection such that beneficial mutations, though initially less frequent, accumulate more than deleterious ones.

You don't understand evolution if you do not understand that.

Oh please. It is impossible to fix a mutation into the population unless the population consists of only a few dozen individuals.

If you were to develop a mutation today that would benefit the entire human race, it would go nowhere, and would never fix in the population, unless your descendants became the entire population.

You all seem to forget this, so for every mutation that is fixed into a population, the population would have to come from a handful of individuals, each and every time a new mutation occurred.

Don't try that beneficial mutations accumulate more than deleterious ones do scam. Neither beneficial, nor deleterious mutations either one are going to fix in a population, unless the entire population comes from a mere handful of individuals. You require bottleneck after bottleneck in order to fix any mutation into the population.

You people are so blind to your own scam you actually believe your own junk theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How about you apply your brand of argumentation to other pairs of animals, say pairs of animals claimed to be derived from a created Kind and see how your creationist beliefs compare.

Do you not realize that the exact same processes are occurring in the Giraffe Kind? And the Bear Kind? Do you not think that THEY experience indels, too?

Among the many problems with creationist claims is that they rarely, if ever, stop and think about what will happen when they take their "I ain't no monkey!" type of argumentation and apply it to OTHER groups of living things. Suddenly, they are left having to conjure up all manner of ad hoc escapes to rescue their bible tales. This is why they almost never actually DO that sort of thing.

I dont know about you, but I never seen a bear be anything other than a bear, have you?

Seems you are the one in need of rescue with your ad-hoc make believe common ancestors that you cant find on any single tree where these made up ad-hoc splits are to have occurred...... yes, rescue your dead theory with imaginary non-existent common ancestors. Whatever it takes to rescue the theory, right?

But you see, the problem with indels, is that in order for something to be deleted, it must first exist. So basically the fact that every animal undergoes indels, just shows they were once more genetically diverse than they are now.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Oh please. It is impossible to fix a mutation into the population unless the population consists of only a few dozen individuals.

That's a strange claim which conflicts with actual science as to how mutations fix in populations.

How do you support your claim? Please note that if you are claiming this without evidence

If you were to develop a mutation today that would benefit the entire human race, it would go nowhere, and would never fix in the population, unless your descendants became the entire population.

That's how mutations fix in populations. Remember that you have two parents, four grandparents eight great-great grandparents, etc. While eventually the same people will turn up in a tree more than once, the number of your ancestors rapidly grows as you go back in time. It is easy for one individual to be the ancestor of an entire human population.

And yes, it would take quite a bit of time for a mutation to fix in a population of billions. But, for beneficial mutations, the fixing effect is exponential in nature. And hence, large population sizes are not a problem.

You all seem to forget this, so for every mutation that is fixed into a population, the population would have to come from a handful of individuals, each and every time a new mutation occurred.

No, this is not true. Please learn the first thing about population genetics before commenting on it. The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent

Don't try that beneficial mutations accumulate more than deleterious ones do scam. Neither beneficial, nor deleterious mutations either one are going to fix in a population, unless the entire population comes from a mere handful of individuals. You require bottleneck after bottleneck in order to fix any mutation into the population.

Mutations do fix in populations. Even big populations, provided that there is gene flow within the population. Please explain how this is a 'scam'. By a method more sophisticated than just stating it without support.

You people are so blind to your own scam you actually believe your own junk theory.

Given that you haven't actually produced any evidence that you understand population genetics nor that there is a 'scam', this is a completely vacuous statement.

 

[tas8831]

Oh please. It is impossible to fix a mutation into the population unless the population consists of only a few dozen individuals.

LOL!

time to fixation of beneficial alleles - Bing

 

[tas8831]

That's a strange claim which conflicts with actual science as to how mutations fix in populations.

How do you support your claim? Please note that if you are claiming this without evidence



That's how mutations fix in populations. Remember that you have two parents, four grandparents eight great-great grandparents, etc. While eventually the same people will turn up in a tree more than once, the number of your ancestors rapidly grows as you go back in time. It is easy for one individual to be the ancestor of an entire human population.

And yes, it would take quite a bit of time for a mutation to fix in a population of billions. But, for beneficial mutations, the fixing effect is exponential in nature. And hence, large population sizes are not a problem.



No, this is not true. Please learn the first thing about population genetics before commenting on it. The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent



Mutations do fix in populations. Even big populations, provided that there is gene flow within the population. Please explain how this is a 'scam'. By a method more sophisticated than just stating it without support.



Given that you haven't actually produced any evidence that you understand population genetics nor that there is a 'scam', this is a completely vacuous statement.

It is truly entertaining to watch creationists argue like this.

Again, we see arguments being made without regard to how they affect the creationist's other claims.


For example, this one likes to believe in his fairy-tale population genetics, wherein a mere mixing of already-present alleles produces all new species. That is, this new allele combination must spread through a population to produce a new species. Yet here he is shooting that notion down in flames, especially considering his preferred YEC timeline.

Can't decide if it is hilarious or pathetic.

Both?

 

[tas8831]

I dont know about you, but I never seen a bear be anything other than a bear, have you?

Nope - also not seen a Wolf-kind give birth to a Mastiff via the magical and inexplicable segregation and expression of some pre-determined group of alleles, but you like to pretend that happened.

The difference is we can look at the results of tested methods to determine phylogeny, whereas you are confined to just making crap up.

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh please. It is impossible to fix a mutation into the population unless the population consists of only a few dozen individuals.

If you were to develop a mutation today that would benefit the entire human race, it would go nowhere, and would never fix in the population, unless your descendants became the entire population.

You all seem to forget this, so for every mutation that is fixed into a population, the population would have to come from a handful of individuals, each and every time a new mutation occurred.

Don't try that beneficial mutations accumulate more than deleterious ones do scam. Neither beneficial, nor deleterious mutations either one are going to fix in a population, unless the entire population comes from a mere handful of individuals. You require bottleneck after bottleneck in order to fix any mutation into the population.

You people are so blind to your own scam you actually believe your own junk theory.

Type O blood is a mutation that spread possibly because of a now extinct parasite and most people have it. This happened so long ago that chimps and bonobos also have these ABO Blood types so this mutation happened before we split from them (approximately 6-7 million years ago iirc).
We’re not blind; we just understand science better than the average creationist

 

[USincognito]

del SRs.

 

[tas8831]

I am stunned at the ignorance on show here, and the straw manning.

I am not, sadly. Ignorance, deception, logical fallacies - these are the things that allow creationism to flourish.

 

[tas8831]

A shame that the 'hybridization all the way down' guy deemed only to reply to a couple of sentences out of this, then scampered off...

And just why would the different races of humans have different junk DNA if all descended from the same stock?
Only if they didn't would they have different junk DNA.

Wow...OK, let me see if I can explain your own position to you...


We have Perfect Genome Adam.

He mates with his partial identical twin - whom, according to you, has half his genome (where the other half came from is a mystery).

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Adam and Eve somehow had all of the alleles that would ultimately allow for Asians, Africans, Caucasians, Inuit, etc.

They inbreed, and produce 3 sons (although the third son isn't mentioned until later, and other parts of the bible say they had sons and daughters, so who knows...). These three sons somehow hook up with women that are not their sisters (but whose origin is not mentioned in Genesis - odd, huh?). Creationists have told me that either these women were daughters of Adam and Eve and it just wasn't mentioned, or these women came from other populations (which means that Adam and Eve were not actually the first and only humans created - oops!).

If they were their own sisters, then all of their offspring contain merely mixes and matches of their exceptionally NON-diverse gene pool, meaning that either all of their alleles were expressed (meaning that they had some odd dominance/recessive/penetrance/etc. mix going on) or they had some non-existent means of turning some alleles on and off.

If these women were from elsewhere, then your bible tale is shot, so no need to go into that (which wouldn't help your cause much anyway).

So, we have this inbreeding fest going on for some time, and according to you, at some point this nearly homogeneous population somehow started showing little pockets of diversity.

According to you, this means that some alleles were turned off or others on or whatever - it is hard to tell since you never offer anything but analogies and assertions, but since this is about junkDNA, I guess you think that junkDNA is these no longer needed alleles that have mutated?

Again, since you don't understand genetics, it is hard to tell what you actually think happened.

But IF Adam and Eve had this supergenomes, jammy-packed with all of the alleles required to later on produce every conceivable human variation, then it stands to reason that your favorite Asians would no longer need the alleles for an African or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate.

It therefore also it stands to reason that your favorite Africans would no longer need the alleles for an Asian or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate and become junk DNA.

And on down the line.

This means that an Asian would have different junkDNA than an African because they had different alleles that needed to be turned off.

Of course, we still don't know - and you have offered ZERO rationale, much less evidence, why we needed different 'races' in the first place, but hey - in the world of creationism, there is no rationale or evidence for anything, so...

You just supported my theory, not yours.

You don't have a theory, you have ad hoc and contradictory assertions.

Only if the changes were caused by RANDOM mutation, would the junk DNA that resulted from mutation be different and random. Since it isn't,

The only way you can say this is if you have the genetic analyses that support it.

So, if you cannot present the scientific analyses that demonstrate that all Africans have identical junk DNA, then I suggest you retract your baseless assertions.

If random mutations caused the separation of races, then they should have random junk DNA from those random mutations.

So, now you seem to be claiming that junk DNA is responsible for the 'racial' phenotypes?

Do you have NO idea what any of the things you claim mean?

But under my theory it is quite logical that mice, humans and apes should have different junk DNA, since they did not originated from the same stock, but vast appearing similarities too as they were created all from the same basic building blocks.

What a super convenience!

So it will be easy for you to prove that mice, humans, and apes have totally different junk DNA. Can't wait!

No, you just don't know what race bred with what race, so propose a silly theory that one evolves into another.

No, you never even try to explain where the different races came from in the first place, but simply assert the totally dopey and evidence-free notion that hybridization produces Asian-African. Or whatever you are claiming today.

Please show me an Asian that becomes anything other than an Asian without breeding with another race, or having done so in the past?

Please show me two Asians breeding and an African being born - after all, that is what YOU are claiming and you do not even seem to understand this.

I mean, how else did Asians arise in the first place?

You claim they came from some super-genome possessing first breeding pair, but by your own assertions, that is not what happens!

This is the sort of thing I have come to expect from retired engineers and 3D modelers and designer creationists.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

A shame that the 'hybridization all the way down' guy deemed only to reply to a couple of sentences out of this, then scampered off...



Wow...OK, let me see if I can explain your own position to you...


We have Perfect Genome Adam.

He mates with his partial identical twin - whom, according to you, has half his genome (where the other half came from is a mystery).

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Adam and Eve somehow had all of the alleles that would ultimately allow for Asians, Africans, Caucasians, Inuit, etc.

They inbreed, and produce 3 sons (although the third son isn't mentioned until later, and other parts of the bible say they had sons and daughters, so who knows...). These three sons somehow hook up with women that are not their sisters (but whose origin is not mentioned in Genesis - odd, huh?). Creationists have told me that either these women were daughters of Adam and Eve and it just wasn't mentioned, or these women came from other populations (which means that Adam and Eve were not actually the first and only humans created - oops!).

If they were their own sisters, then all of their offspring contain merely mixes and matches of their exceptionally NON-diverse gene pool, meaning that either all of their alleles were expressed (meaning that they had some odd dominance/recessive/penetrance/etc. mix going on) or they had some non-existent means of turning some alleles on and off.

If these women were from elsewhere, then your bible tale is shot, so no need to go into that (which wouldn't help your cause much anyway).

So, we have this inbreeding fest going on for some time, and according to you, at some point this nearly homogeneous population somehow started showing little pockets of diversity.

According to you, this means that some alleles were turned off or others on or whatever - it is hard to tell since you never offer anything but analogies and assertions, but since this is about junkDNA, I guess you think that junkDNA is these no longer needed alleles that have mutated?

Again, since you don't understand genetics, it is hard to tell what you actually think happened.

But IF Adam and Eve had this supergenomes, jammy-packed with all of the alleles required to later on produce every conceivable human variation, then it stands to reason that your favorite Asians would no longer need the alleles for an African or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate.

It therefore also it stands to reason that your favorite Africans would no longer need the alleles for an Asian or a Caucasian or a Polynesian or a Nordic person, so those alleles can be left turned off, and ultimately mutate and become junk DNA.

And on down the line.

This means that an Asian would have different junkDNA than an African because they had different alleles that needed to be turned off.

Of course, we still don't know - and you have offered ZERO rationale, much less evidence, why we needed different 'races' in the first place, but hey - in the world of creationism, there is no rationale or evidence for anything, so...



You don't have a theory, you have ad hoc and contradictory assertions.



The only way you can say this is if you have the genetic analyses that support it.

So, if you cannot present the scientific analyses that demonstrate that all Africans have identical junk DNA, then I suggest you retract your baseless assertions.



So, now you seem to be claiming that junk DNA is responsible for the 'racial' phenotypes?

Do you have NO idea what any of the things you claim mean?



What a super convenience!

So it will be easy for you to prove that mice, humans, and apes have totally different junk DNA. Can't wait!


No, you never even try to explain where the different races came from in the first place, but simply assert the totally dopey and evidence-free notion that hybridization produces Asian-African. Or whatever you are claiming today.



Please show me two Asians breeding and an African being born - after all, that is what YOU are claiming and you do not even seem to understand this.

I mean, how else did Asians arise in the first place?

You claim they came from some super-genome possessing first breeding pair, but by your own assertions, that is not what happens!

This is the sort of thing I have come to expect from retired engineers and 3D modelers and designer creationists.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh please. It is impossible to fix a mutation into the population unless the population consists of only a few dozen individuals.

You have an opportunity here to convert one who accepts evolutionary theory into one who believes in creationism. The first step in this opportunity is for you to provide appropriate support for your assertion. Acceptable support would be one of the following:
1. Material from peer reviewed research published in reputable science journals.
2. A well structured, evidence based, detailed, logical argument.

I look forward to the first step.