Mutation Rates: A bigger problem for YECists

[shernren]

While a few of us tussle it out over whether or not evolutionary mutation rates can account for the observed human-chimp genetic divergence, let's not forget that mutation rates are even more a nightmare for the creationist than the evolutionist. Take the "dog kind" for example. Many creationists cite this "kind" as being very widespread:

"We have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock . . . This basic kind (which we may call the dog kind) includes not only all coyote species, but also the wolf (Canis lupus), the dog (Canis familiaris) and the jackals, also of the genus Canis, since they are all interfertile and produce fertile offspring." (Gish, 1978, p. 34)

from http://www.geocities.com/lflank/kinds.htm

Yet the very same creationists who seem reluctant to make that sort of admission would be quite happy to agree with the rest of us that the various species within what may be regarded as the ‘dog’ kind, including perhaps wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and the domestic dog, have arisen from a single ancestral kind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp

Also, central to the YEC belief of a recent global flood is the idea that Noah only took one (or seven, depending on clean or unclean) pair of each "kind" onto the ark, and that this happened approximately 4,500 years ago. But does this really match up to the genetic data?

From http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm, reformatted in http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199607/0099.html

chromosomes canidae family
Wolf-like canids common name geographic range
2n
small (5-10 kg

Canis aureus Golden jackal Old World 78
Canis adustus Side-striped jackal SubSahara Africa 78
Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal SubSahara Africa 78

Large (12-30 kg)

Canis simensis Simien jackal Ethiopia 78
Canis lupus Gray wolf Holarctic 78
Canis latrans Coyote North America 78
Canis rufus Red wolf Southern U.S. 78
Canis alpinus Dhole Asia 78
Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog Subsaharan africa 78

South American Canids

Speothos venaticus Bushdog Ne S. America 74
Lycalopex vetulus Hoary fox Ne S. America 74
Cerdocyon thous Crab-eating fox Ne S. America 74
Chrysocyon brachyurus Manes wolf Ne S. America 76

Red fox-like canids

Vulpes velox Kit fox Western U.S. 50
Vulpes vulpes Red fox Old and new world 36
Vulpes chama Cape fox Southern Africa not given
Alopex lagopus Arctic fox Holarctic 50
Fennecus zerda Fennec fox Sahara 64

other canids

Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Subsaharan Africa 72
Uocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox North America 66
Nycteruetes procyonoides Raccon dog Japan, China 42

The chromosome numbers are all over the place, but more importantly, the genetic difference is huge. Assuming all chromosomes are approximately equal length, and that say the maned wolf with 76 chromosomes originally came from a "created kind" ancestor with 78 chromosomes, the loss is (78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%. You're telling me that evolution can't account for 4%+ divergence between humans and chimps in a few million years ... so what mechanism explains a 2.5% loss between maned wolf and its ancestor in 4,500 years?

The "horse kind" is even worse off. A Prezwalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, a regular horse has 64, and a donkey 62. Thus taking each chromosome to be approximately equal length, the difference between a horse and a donkey is (64-62)/64 x 100% = 3.13%, which again has to occur within 4,500 years.

If mutation is happening too slowly for evolutionists ... then it's happening wayyyyyy too slowly for YECists.

 

[Poke]

A single mutation can change the chromsome count.

 

[XTE]

A single mutation can change the chromsome count.

What type of mutation is that called that influences the Chromosome count?

How important are Chromosomes? Does a high number of Chromosome signify more complexity?

Can you answers these Poke?

I'll answer a couple of your questions if you like.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Poke]

What type of mutation is that called that influences the Chromosome count?

How important are Chromosomes? Does a high number of Chromosome signify more complexity?

Can you answers these Poke?

I don't see the relevancy of your questions.

I'll answer a couple of your questions if you like.

No, you won't.

 

[XTE]

I don't see the relevancy of your questions.

No, you won't.

You bring up Chromosomes and can't tell us what you know of them? You are the one that thought mutation and chromosomes would have an impact. Why can't you back it up? In all my times on forums I have never seen a more clear case of dodging questions.

I said I would answer your questions, you are calling me a liar, no?

Come on Poke, I'd like to know why you are here.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What type of mutation is that called that influences the Chromosome count?

A fusion event.

Actually I made up the name, but somewhere in our history two of our chromosomes became fused together.

Pretty easy to check for too by comparing chromosomes. If you dig around you may find out whether this applies to the species cited.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What type of mutation is that called that influences the Chromosome count?

Oh yes and among plants you have Polyploidy which is the condition caused by doubling the chromosome count.

 

[XTE]

Oh yes and among plants you have Polyploidy which is the condition caused by doubling the chromosome count.

Poke, it was for Poke Robert. He is increasingly hostile and never supports his claims.

 

[jereth]

Shernren has made a darn good point.

According to YECist authorities, there were 8000 species of animals on board the ark. (Woodmorappe, 1997, ICR)

Today there are over 20,000 species of reptiles, birds and mammals on earth. There are an even greater number that are now extinct.

So, in a mere 4500 years, you expect us to believe that the number of animal species has increased at least threefold through evolution?

And YECists say they don't believe in evolution!

 

[Poke]

You bring up Chromosomes and can't tell us what you know of them?

I find it interesting that Evolutionists can make claims and offer arguments based on pure ignorance and their fellow Evolutionists, some of whom in this forum claim to have college science degrees, make no effort to educate their fellow Evolutionists.

 

[XTE]

I find it interesting that Evolutionists can make claims and offer arguments or offer arguments based on pure ignorance and their fellow Evolutionists, some of whom in this forum claim to have college science degrees, make no effort to educate their fellow Evolutionists.

Our claims are way better than your unsubstantiated smack-mouthing claims. Can't you see that? You offer NOTHING.

Anyways, for everyone else that actually adds to the conversation:

When is demonizing something good?

I mean, it seems someone here has "hardened their head" and won't even listen. To them it's not even productive. Could it be he's "hardened his head" or that his an age old Revivalist preacher that thinks we're just gonna respect his empiracle claims without question(ego)?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The chromosome numbers are all over the place, but more importantly, the genetic difference is huge. Assuming all chromosomes are approximately equal length, and that say the maned wolf with 76 chromosomes originally came from a "created kind" ancestor with 78 chromosomes, the loss is (78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%. You're telling me that evolution can't account for 4%+ divergence between humans and chimps in a few million years ... so what mechanism explains a 2.5% loss between maned wolf and its ancestor in 4,500 years?

First thing, I must claim ignorance on a point. The big issue here is information.

If we have blueprints for a building with 4 rooms, and a building with blueprints for 5 rooms, we wouldn't say that the latter has 20% more information than the former. This analogy probably isn't an apt fit though. I personally don't understand how mutations work on chromosomes as a whole. From an evolutionary perspective though, if a single mutation could eliminate an entire chromosome, then that is one step. Claiming "(78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%" to me doesn't seem to describe the situation. In terms of raw data, maybe it's 2.56% different. In terms of information, or steps to change it, it may be far more or less. This 2.56% that you claim I believe is quite different to the difference between a human and a chimpanzee, which measures the differences in coding sequences on genes - hundreds of thousands or more differences, I think.

As for what mechanism in the YEC view can account for these changes: Creationists see the kind beginning with great diversity. From there speciation occurred. Imagine a factory that can produce a toy with four different parts - legs, arms, body and head. For each of these it has two variations. So you have at each position two choices, effectively giving 16 combinations. This is roughly how YEC's see the original created kinds - they contained the raw material to see all the diversity we see today. From those original kinds the creatures have speciated.

So the mechanism a YEC would claim to explain these quick changes would be - an initially large gene pool that was decreased through speciation and loss of information (natural selection). We have more species today than at the beginning, but overall a less diverse gene pool.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

According to YECist authorities, there were 8000 species of animals on board the ark. (Woodmorappe, 1997, ICR)

Today there are over 20,000 species of reptiles, birds and mammals on earth. There are an even greater number that are now extinct.

So, in a mere 4500 years, you expect us to believe that the number of animal species has increased at least threefold through evolution?

Greetings fellow Aussie.

If you read my past post, you will see why this makes sense from a YEC perspective. When God created the initial kinds, He did so will the full diversity of the gene pool.

This is what we observe today - a species possesses certain qualities. Those qualities are selected for (through natural selection) under certain environmental pressures. As a result, more speciation takes place. We have more species, but a less diverse gene pool.

Darwinism requires an extra mechanism - the introduction of new information that provides the basis for selection and speciation. YEC's claim that genetic diversity was present at the point where God created the initial kinds. So what we see today is a regression: more speciation and a loss of genetic diversity. This fits the available data:
* We don't observe mutations of the kind that are necessary for Darwinism to explain the origin of life
* We observe a loss of diversity in the gene pool
* We observe rapid speciation under environmental pressures as the result of already existing genetic traits

Darwinism predicts an increase of genetic diversity, while YEC's predict a loss. The latter is our observation, while the former is an extrapolation beyond the evidence.

And YECists say they don't believe in evolution!

Well, YEC's specifically don't believe in Darwinism. They believe in evolution when it is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. That is observed and true.

They don't believe that mutations provide a sufficient mechanism to explain the genetic diversity observed today.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Our claims are way better than your unsubstantiated smack-mouthing claims. Can't you see that? You offer NOTHING.

What's better - a known false theory, or no theory?

I don't know what the truth is of the history of the world, but I do know that Darwinism isn't it.

Claiming that Darwinism is true because there is no better alternative is not a valid argument.

 

[shernren]

Definitions, definitions. I've just started on a book called The Evolution of the Genome, and the first chapter, very surprisingly, is on something called the "C-value enigma". And trust me, what evolutionists say is weirder than any proposed creationist problem with evolution (fact is stranger than fiction, huh? ). The "C-value" of a particular organism is the haploid nuclear content of genetic acids in picograms. And guess what the C-value enigma is? That primitive organisms have C-values that are too small, and complex organisms have C-values that are too big?

Nooo. It is the combination of two facts:

1. the correlation between C-values and "complexity" is very, very small
2. whatever correlation there is seems to indicate that C-values are larger for simpler organisms than complex organisms.

The mean C-value for mammals is 3.5pg with a maximum of 8.4. Guess what's the average for lungfishes? A whopping 90.4pg.

So, define information, and why do "less complex" organisms seem to have a lot "more information" than us?

If we have blueprints for a building with 4 rooms, and a building with blueprints for 5 rooms, we wouldn't say that the latter has 20% more information than the former. This analogy probably isn't an apt fit though. I personally don't understand how mutations work on chromosomes as a whole. From an evolutionary perspective though, if a single mutation could eliminate an entire chromosome, then that is one step. Claiming "(78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%" to me doesn't seem to describe the situation. In terms of raw data, maybe it's 2.56% different. In terms of information, or steps to change it, it may be far more or less. This 2.56% that you claim I believe is quite different to the difference between a human and a chimpanzee, which measures the differences in coding sequences on genes - hundreds of thousands or more differences, I think.

And yet there's a 7.56% (OTOH) difference between wolf and jackal mtDNA. Mitochondrial DNA produces mitochondria which practically drive a cell's energy production. How do you accumulate that level of change in 4,500 years? (This isn't a trick question.)

As for what mechanism in the YEC view can account for these changes: Creationists see the kind beginning with great diversity. From there speciation occurred. Imagine a factory that can produce a toy with four different parts - legs, arms, body and head. For each of these it has two variations. So you have at each position two choices, effectively giving 16 combinations. This is roughly how YEC's see the original created kinds - they contained the raw material to see all the diversity we see today. From those original kinds the creatures have speciated.

The Flood practically erased the genetic variability at Creation. Let's take the survivors of the Flood as the starting point of all modern genetic biodiversity. After all, you don't believe that any land-breathing animals off the Ark survived, so they couldn't have contributed anything to the gene pool.

Each animal has at most two variant alleles of the same genes. Each pair has two animals. So you have 4 variants at the same genes max for unclean animals and 14 variants max for clean animals. But there are genes observed today with what, 110 variant alleles? (Ask gluadys for exact numbers.) If mutation with selection "doesn't produce new information", where did these other variants come from?

 

[steen]

So the mechanism a YEC would claim to explain these quick changes would be - an initially large gene pool that was decreased through speciation and loss of information (natural selection). We have more species today than at the beginning, but overall a less diverse gene pool.

So how do you measure information? Esp when you say that the gene pool has diminished, contrary to what evidence shows?

 

[steen]

Darwinism predicts an increase of genetic diversity, while YEC's predict a loss. The latter is our observation, while the former is an extrapolation beyond the evidence..

Actually, we see more and more species with more and more genetic diversity. Your claim is not borne out in what can be directly observed in nature.

 

[RightWingGirl]

While a few of us tussle it out over whether or not evolutionary mutation rates can account for the observed human-chimp genetic divergence, let's not forget that mutation rates are even more a nightmare for the creationist
The chromosome numbers are all over the place, but more importantly, the genetic difference is huge. Assuming all chromosomes are approximately equal length, and that say the maned wolf with 76 chromosomes originally came from a "created kind" ancestor with 78 chromosomes, the loss is (78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%. You're telling me that evolution can't account for 4%+ divergence between humans and chimps in a few million years ... so what mechanism explains a 2.5% loss between maned wolf and its ancestor in 4,500 years?

If mutation is happening too slowly for evolutionists ... then it's happening wayyyyyy too slowly for YECists.

Could you please cite sources for your calculations on how long it would take for this diversity to appear?

 

[Robinsegg]

I'm a YEC kinda gal. I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. So, I believe that Darwin's initial observations are correct and valid, I just don't buy the rest of his conclusions. Yeah, I believe that species grew over time to include the diversity we see today. I don't believe that fish turned into amphibians, or that amphibians turned to reptiles, etc. I believe that God created each kind (family) and each kind evolved into the different types (genus, species) that we see today.

Rachel

 

[sfs]

The chromosome numbers are all over the place, but more importantly, the genetic difference is huge. Assuming all chromosomes are approximately equal length, and that say the maned wolf with 76 chromosomes originally came from a "created kind" ancestor with 78 chromosomes, the loss is (78-76)/78 x 100% = 2.56%. You're telling me that evolution can't account for 4%+ divergence between humans and chimps in a few million years ... so what mechanism explains a 2.5% loss between maned wolf and its ancestor in 4,500 years?

That isn't right. Chromosomes are gained and lost by splitting and joining (look up "Robertsonian fusion"); the content of the chromosomes is not changed (in general).