Human alleles from "noah's flood" time show info increase?

[ilkhani'tus]

Stop me if you've all heard this one:

From Lenny Frank and a few others I've talked to:

YECs figure that we all came from just the 8 people who came off of Noah's ark.

Those 8 people would have had at most, 16 alleles for each genetic loci (physical location on the chromosome, if I remember correctly!)

Ol' Lenny points out though, that there are some genetic loci (such as the HLA genes) which have well over 400 different alleles.

So, if as YEC groups like AIG et al figure that mutations cannot produce new genetic information, then where did then 384 extra alleles (for the HLA genes anyway) come from?

He elaborates

his feedback comment to Panda's Thumb

Well, a few years ago, AIG heard about my “where did the alleles come from” routine and griped about it on their website, offering the “explanation” given above —— the new alleles appeared after the Flood through “microevolution”. I immediately sent them my new list of observations. For some odd reason, I never got any answer …

See, here’s the problem as I see it … . .

Going from 16 alleles to, say, 400 alleles, in the space of the 4,000 or so years since the Flood, means an average of one beneficial mutation every ten years, or, assuming humans breed at age 20, two beneficial mutations per generation. Hmmmm, since creationists keep telling us that beneficial mutations are, if not nonexistent, then very very rare, then they have some explaining to do.

But wait, there’s more … . .

Let’s assume that just one out of a thousand mutations is indeed beneficial, and the rest are deleterious and eliminated (a pretty conservative assumption). That means we must have *two thousand* mutations per generation to produce 400 beneficial alleles in the years since the flood. Heavens to Betsy, this “no beneficial mutations” thingie is getting dicier and dicier …

© source where applicable

So, has this been discussed before? I don't know a lot about genetics so could somone more knowledgeable let me know if this is a significant problem for YECists?

It looks like on to me, anyway...

[Meh_Gerbil]

If you've expressed the case accurately, then yes, that might be a problem -- although I'm struggling because I've not had a genetics class in 20 years so I'm not sure.

[The Barbarian]

You can put a sharper point on it. If we started with Adam and Eve, they could have had, at most, four alleles for each locus.

All the rest must have evolved. Since many of them are useful and even improved over the others, there is no question that information is produced by evolution.

[Barry Desborough]

You can put a sharper point on it. If we started with Adam and Eve, they could have had, at most, four alleles for each locus.

Even worse if Eve was a clone of Adam (presumably with a duplicated X chromosome and no Y). 2 alleles per locus.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

his feedback comment to Panda's Thumb

Well, a few years ago, AIG heard about my “where did the alleles come from” routine and griped about it on their website, offering the “explanation” given above —— the new alleles appeared after the Flood through “microevolution”. I immediately sent them my new list of observations. For some odd reason, I never got any answer …

See, here’s the problem as I see it … . .

Going from 16 alleles to, say, 400 alleles, in the space of the 4,000 or so years since the Flood, means an average of one beneficial mutation every ten years, or, assuming humans breed at age 20, two beneficial mutations per generation. Hmmmm, since creationists keep telling us that beneficial mutations are, if not nonexistent, then very very rare, then they have some explaining to do.

But wait, there’s more … . .

Let’s assume that just one out of a thousand mutations is indeed beneficial, and the rest are deleterious and eliminated (a pretty conservative assumption). That means we must have *two thousand* mutations per generation to produce 400 beneficial alleles in the years since the flood. Heavens to Betsy, this “no beneficial mutations” thingie is getting dicier and dicier …

© source where applicable

So, has this been discussed before? I don't know a lot about genetics so could somone more knowledgeable let me know if this is a significant problem for YECists?

It looks like on to me, anyway...

I have used this argument myself, but this is the first time I have seen someone put it in terms of 'beneficial mutations'. Why does he presume the alleles must be beneficial? It is definitely a problem for the 'no new information' crowd, and that's how I have used this argument. I also use the argument that Creationists believe a pair of wolves gave rise to 400 breeds of dog, but somehow this doesn't amount to an increase of information. In this context, their concept of information is pretty much meaningless, isn't it?

FK

[Higon]

Those 8 people would have had at most, 16 alleles for each genetic loci (physical location on the chromosome, if I remember correctly!)

A sincere question: How do we know that?

[ilkhani'tus]

A sincere question: How do we know that?

You can read up on the generalized answer here. Though not an actual science text, it matches what I remember...basically, going from what it says, since there were supposed to be 8 people on the ark, and a human is a diploid organism (having paired chromosomes in their body cells), there'd be 2 alleles (form of a gene that would be occupying the same physical location on the chromosome) in their cells. Each person can therefore only have 2 alleles of a gene themselves.

2 copies * 8 people gives at most 16 possible alleles that they'd have, all together. Thing is, as Frank had pointed out, some genes, like the HLA gene have about 400 forms! Each human can have only 2 of the 400 forms. The problem for global flood believers who don't believe that "information increases" in the genome is to explain where all those extra forms came from.

Maybe someone else can do a better job of explaining this.

[Jugulum]

Thing is, as Frank had pointed out, some genes, like the HLA gene have about 400 forms! Each human can have only 2 of the 400 forms. The problem for global flood believers who don't believe that "information increases" in the genome is to explain where all those extra forms came from.

A question occurs to me. How many of those 400 forms are functionally equivalent? How many could arise from neutral mutation?

[rmwilliamsjr]

A question occurs to me. How many of those 400 forms are functionally equivalent? How many could arise from neutral mutation?

this is just one gene.
there are thousands of genes with dozens to a hundred alleles each.
then the high end with genes like hemoglobin with hundreds of different alleles at several different genes all potentially producing variant chains. Then there are pseudogenes of the same chains with their own set of variant DNA.

it is a big problem to posit that all this has micro-evolved in 6K years since either the flood or from the Garden of Eden.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

this is just one gene.
there are thousands of genes with dozens to a hundred alleles each.
then the high end with genes like hemoglobin with hundreds of different alleles at several different genes all potentially producing variant chains. Then there are pseudogenes of the same chains with their own set of variant DNA.

it is a big problem to posit that all this has micro-evolved in 6K years since either the flood or from the Garden of Eden.

I think he was getting at the comment "since creationists keep telling us that beneficial mutations are, if not nonexistent, then very very rare, then they have some explaining to do".

This was my point also. There is no way that they can argue that this isn't new information, but there is no evidence that this has anything to do with beneficial mutations, unless a particular allele is shown to be beneficial over another version. Even then, we would have to show that the beneficial allele is the mutant.

FK

[Jugulum]

There is no way that they can argue that this isn't new information

Why?

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Why?

Any meaningful definition of information will be dependent upon the number of genes in a population. When we speak of information and evolution, when the Creationist argues that information can't increase, what he is really arguing is that new genes can't arise in the population and end up drastically modifying that population over time. Therefore, an increase in the number of alleles in the population is necessarily an increase in the amount of genetic information in the population. In fact, I always define genetic information in these terms: The amount of genetic information is directly proportional to the number of unique genes in the population.

Of course, this is all dependent on getting some kind of consistent definition from Creationists on information, and that has proven to be difficult:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=21995

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=18173

FK

[Jugulum]

Any meaningful definition of information will be dependent upon the number of genes in a population.

I disagree, if the alleles are functionally equivalent. A "meaningful" definition of information could regard "I own a color television" and "I own a color T.V." as the same.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

I disagree, if the alleles are functionally equivalent. A "meaningful" definition of information could regard "I own a color television" and "I own a color T.V." as the same.

You will have to be a bit more specific on what you mean by 'functionally equivalent'. If 2 alleles code for different eye color, are they functionally equivalent? I presume your answer is "yes", but I want to be sure I am clear on what you mean. Can you give an actual example of 2 alleles that are functionally equivalent so that I am sure we are on the same page?

In general, alleles will make some modification to the protein product, meaning that they may appear functionally equivalent, but actually are not. The protein may still do the same job, but the new allele has now provided new genetic material for evolution to work with.

FK

[Jugulum]

You will have to be a bit more specific on what you mean by 'functionally equivalent'. If 2 alleles code for different eye color, are they functionally equivalent? I presume your answer is "yes", but I want to be sure I am clear on what you mean. Can you give an actual example of 2 alleles that are functionally equivalent so that I am sure we are on the same page?

Not really. There's a fair chance I'm just talking out my alimentary canal.

Nothing to see here; move along.