Peppered moth genetics

[RonO]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46250/title/Gene-Behind-Black-Peppered-Moth-s-Color-Change-Identified/

They have finally identified one of the mutations involved in the
changing color of the peppered moth. Surprisingly it was a novel
mutation that happened around the time that it was selected for during
the polluted times of the industrial revolution. So it was not
segregating for a long period of time in the population, but happened
and was selected for.

Apparently it is difficult to breed these moths in captivity so it has
taken a while to figure out the genetics and identify the causative
mutation.

A mutation happened and it had a selective advantage and mutation
increased in the population. Verification is likely to be lost on
IDiots in such denial that nothing penetrates.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:njbjlj$c24$1...@dont-email.me...

"A" mutation happened?

"Parallel evolutionary changes in the incidence of melanism are well documented in widely geographically separated subspecies of the peppered moth (Biston betularia). The British melanic phenotype (f. carbonaria) and the American melanic phenotype (f. swettaria) are indistinguishable in appearance, and previous genetic analysis has established that both are inherited as autosomal dominants. This report demonstrates through hybridizations of the subspecies and Mendelian testcrosses of melanic progeny that carbonaria and swettaria are phenotypes produced by alleles (isoalleles) at a single locus. The possibility of close linkage at two loci remains, but the simpler one-locus model cannot be rejected in the absence of contrary evidence."
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/2/97

What'r the odds?

[jillery]

I know what you mean. Rather than admit to such well-documented and
straightforward facts, it's as if they would rather be seen as stupid
and so raise their Faith to scorn.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

According to some, like those who support the Discovery Institute, the
odds are so astronomically low, that such a mutation could not have
happened without intervention by some kind of Intelligence.

Is that your point here? If not, what is your point here?

[RonO]

I'll wait until Glenn makes up his mind on what he thinks that he is doing.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

The pertinent question here is:
What is the scientists' point here?
Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
LOL!
The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
of the Creator's engineering foresight.
Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?
LOL!
You Darwinists would promote the Tooth Fairy if you thought it would promote your philosophy.

[jillery]

Nope. Care to guess again?


>LOL!


So that's a "no".

>The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
>of the Creator's engineering foresight.

So where's your evidence of your Creator's intervention? For that
matter, where's your Creator?

>Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
>available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?

Does anybody honestly believe what you say they believe? Have you
learned nothing about random mutations since the Hawaiian crickets
topic? What have you been doing with all of your spare time since
then?

Nobody but you claims this particular mutation happened only once, or
it's the only mutation that would produce darkened moths.

>LOL!
>You Darwinists would promote the Tooth Fairy if you thought it would promote your philosophy.

OTOH IDiots *do* promote the Tooth Fairy, or close approximations
thereof.

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b2cc88f6-4b14-46f2...@googlegroups.com...

At least they put error bars around 1819. Wouldn't want to come off too unbelievable.

[solar penguin]

On Saturday, 11 June 2016 02:59:05 UTC+1, Steady Eddie wrote:

>
> The pertinent question here is:
> What is the scientists' point here?
> Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
> LOL!
> The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
> of the Creator's engineering foresight.
> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
> available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?

So, in other words, you're saying your Creator works by using mutations,
natural selection, evolution, etc. and not by special creation. Right?

So presumably s/he used evolution to shape the rest of the natural world
as well?

> LOL!
> You Darwinists would promote the Tooth Fairy if you thought it would promote your philosophy.

Let's wait and see if they actually do that!

[jillery]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:44:36 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
is unbelieveable and why. Failing that...

[Glenn]

"solar penguin" <solar....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cfdc5fd6-2597-478a...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, 11 June 2016 02:59:05 UTC+1, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
>>
>> The pertinent question here is:
>> What is the scientists' point here?
>> Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
>> LOL!
>> The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
>> of the Creator's engineering foresight.
>> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
>> available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?
>
> So, in other words, you're saying your Creator works by using mutations,
> natural selection, evolution, etc. and not by special creation. Right?
>

If you read oh so carefully you may have seen that Eddie put scare marks around mutation, and called what happened a "genetic mechanism at work", not a mutation that allegedly (and fortuitously for atheists) originated in 1819.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:38:52 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Apparently you and Steadly think there was a paucity of genetic
mutations in English moths around 1819, attributed to your Creator, no
doubt.

[eridanus]

Yeah. And when god decided it is time for this poor moths to change its
genetics so they would not be so visible to the eyes of predators. Then
the moths, with the new mutations implemented by good, were saved of a
total extermination.
More or less what happened with WWI in Europe. Many European people were
not doing their night prayers and often missed to go to Mass on Sundays.
Then god made a mutation in their genes to punish them starting a
murderous war as punishment. Some years later occurred something similar,
during the roaring 20's people were dancing and playing roulette, and do
often forgot to say his night prayers. So, god gave them the crash of Wall
Street and terrifying economic depression. Thus, all ended in WWII. Because
god was tired of them, and gave them murderous instincts and wishes of
killing each other and even nearly exterminated the "chosen people".
That all. Changes in the DNA provided by god to punish unbelievers and
people that do not go on Sundays to the Mass.
eri

[solar penguin]

Thanks, but I asked Eddie because I was interested in his own explanation
for what he thought happened. If I'd wanted someone else's personal
interpretation of what Eddie might have thought happened, I would've made
do with my own interpretation and not bothered asking in the first place.

[eridanus]

he would not be so kind as to tell you so candidly as I did.

God felt pity for the poor white moths and came to the earth with some
microscopic instrumental to change the genes of the white moth, making
it black. So, the poor moth would be saved of a pitiless extermination.

Since the times of the Flood, god has changed a lot. Now is more tender
and loving. Even he cried for the poor Jews that Hitler was killing
with Cyclone gas and burned later in the Gas Chambers. At least they were
descendants from his favorite chosen people.

But this modern creationist are ignorants of current theology.

Eri

[solar penguin]

Thanks Eri.

I'm used to creationists saying the "microevolution" of peppered moths is
the maximum limit to what mutation and selection can achieve. It's odd to
find one now saying it's not even microevolution but special divine
intervention.

The one time they choose to change their beliefs, and they do it like this!

[eridanus]

of course, god came here and send us the Nazis to punish the Germans,
by example. And to exterminate the Jews that were becoming too atheists
and do not respected the Sabbath.
Everything nasty and evil that happens in this planet is the work of
"god did it".
eri

[ramat...@gmail.com]

As usual you don't understand the practice of science and thus make laughably stupid observations that you think are devastating. Keep up the good work though, you and Silly Eddie make IDiocy an entertaining pastime with your pompous bloviations. Your good work will not go unrewarded.

[RonO]

The point is that Glenn doesn't want to tell anyone what his point was.
Your point seems to be pointless. The mutation could have occurred at
any time, and similar mutations in terms of function likely occurred
many times in all lineages that have existed for a reasonable length of
time. The mutation was caused by a transposable element. If you look
into the literature you will see that transposable element mutagenesis
has a highly variable rate of occurrance even within a lineage.
Specific genes under certain genetic backgrounds can have mutation rates
of up to 10-5 or higher for specific genes (about 1 in 100,000). These
types of mutations are usually more common than single nucleotide
mutations. 10% of your genome consists of just one type of transposable
element (ALU) and it is just one of many that you have in your genome.
These transposable elements are parasitic and jump around your genome to
make more copies of themselves. Retrovirus are a type of transposable
element that can cause viral diseases when they become active. So these
types of mutations are happening all the time.

In the current human population everyone has on the order of 100 new
mutations that they have inherited from their parents. There are over 7
billion people alive so that would be around 700 billion new mutations
in our current population. The human genome is only 3 billion total
base-pairs, so nearly every site in the human genome has been hit by a
new mutation multiple times in just the current generation. There is
nothing magical or mystical about mutation. A lot of these new
mutations are lost to the next generation because a lot of humans do not
reproduce. Half of your new mutations are lost if you only have one
child. If that child does not reproduce all are lost.

If the mutation is neutral (doesn't do anything bad enough to be
selected against) it will be lost or increase in frequency just by
chance. If a mutation has a selective disadvantage it will be selected
against and has little chance of increasing in frequency in the
population. The current hypothesis is that melanistic moths were
selected against in the environment that existed before we polluted the
planet, and would have been at a selective disadvantage. The fact that
this was a recent mutation that had not been segregating in the
population for a long period of time, likely means that it was selected
against because we expect such mutations to occur routinely. Where do
you think that melanistic mice, dogs, cats, chickens etc came from? If
you wait long enough these mutations obviously occur. This is no big deal.

Really, similar mutations in terms of function likely have occurred many
times in the history of this species. The one that they have identified
just happened to appear and be selected for. The previous ones were
lost. Even a mutation with a high selective advantage can be lost due
to chance. A lot of moths get eaten or die from parasites or disease.
In a few generations a similar mutation is likely to occur.

So what is your point, or do you realize that you didn't have one?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Point? POINT?? He don' need no steenkin' point!!

That's Steadly's shtick, reprising the only role he knows how to play;
have no idea what he's talking about, spew a lot of noise, and then
claim victory with a lot of hooting. One can only wonder why so many
other posters in T.O. use the same technique.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 11 June 2016 01:49:04 UTC-6, solar penguin wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 June 2016 02:59:05 UTC+1, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> >
> > The pertinent question here is:
> > What is the scientists' point here?
> > Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
> > LOL!
> > The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
> > of the Creator's engineering foresight.
> > Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
> > available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?
>
> So, in other words, you're saying your Creator works by using mutations,
> natural selection, evolution, etc. and not by special creation. Right?

I don't know about mutations per se, but natural selection and evolution, yes.
Special creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
> out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period
> around 1819"? LOL!

Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.

Firstly, moths have not been around for billions of years. But that's
just a side note.

There is no suggestion that this mutation was the only occurrence of
that mutation, or of mutations with a similar effect, in the history of
the species. Only that the particular instance of that mutation that
"took" - that was selected for and spread through the population.

If it had happened at other times, which seems likely, it may have been
actively selected against, or at least not selected for, and died out.

[Steady Eddie]

Excellent.
That indicates that this is a case of simple Mendelian genetics - the gene (or allele) for both
shades was always in the genome, and the appropriate shade was selected as the environment
changed.

[Greg Guarino]

How does it "indicate" that?

[Steady Eddie]

Why would anybody suppose otherwise?

[Steady Eddie]

Or do you still believe the dark allele mutated into existence just in time for the industrial revolution in England?
I guess you think DNA reads the newspaper - keeps up on current affairs - and decided it better get mutatin' something to survive the smog.

[Greg Guarino]

Again, you only make yourself look foolish by being so willing to
believe that scientists are stupid.

Mutations are very very common. Every individual in a population has a
number of them. Depending on the size of the population, the size of the
genome and the mutation rate, you might even have every possible point
mutation (except for the fatal ones) in the population at the same time.

I hear different numbers, but each human being is said to have somewhere
between 60 and a 100 new mutations. But the most likely outcome for any
new mutation is for it to die out in just the first few generations.

I do not know any of the numbers for this species, plus, this is a
different (but still common) sort of mutation. But if the mutation
happened in, say, the year 800, the dark coloring would not confer an
advantage. In fact, it might be a disadvantage, making it even more
likely that the mutation would fail to make it into future generations.

The mutation they think happened in the early 1800s probably happened
any number of times before, along with millions of other mutations. Most
of those never spread through the population, including the "dark" one,
until the "dark" one became advantageous.

[jillery]

Where did you get the inane idea that Mendelian genetics assumed all
genes were always in the genome?

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 11 June 2016 01:49:04 UTC-6, solar penguin wrote:
>> On Saturday, 11 June 2016 02:59:05 UTC+1, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The pertinent question here is:
>> > What is the scientists' point here?
>> > Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
>> > LOL!
>> > The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
>> > of the Creator's engineering foresight.
>> > Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
>> > available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?
>>
>> So, in other words, you're saying your Creator works by using mutations,
>> natural selection, evolution, etc. and not by special creation. Right?
>
>I don't know about mutations per se, but natural selection and evolution, yes.
>Special creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

As I pointed out every time I saw you raise this point before, if you
really allow for both Special Creation and evolution, then you really
need to identify a method that distinguishes those species which were
specially created from those species which evolved. Failing that,
you're just blowing smoke out of your ass again.

>> So presumably s/he used evolution to shape the rest of the natural world
>> as well?
>>
>> > LOL!
>> > You Darwinists would promote the Tooth Fairy if you thought it would promote your philosophy.
>>
>> Let's wait and see if they actually do that!

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 20 June 2016 15:39:45 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 11 June 2016 01:49:04 UTC-6, solar penguin wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 11 June 2016 02:59:05 UTC+1, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The pertinent question here is:
> >> > What is the scientists' point here?
> >> > Because they're Darwinists, their research automatically provides evidence for Darwinism? Is that it?
> >> > LOL!
> >> > The fact that this genetic mechanism is also at work in butterflies indicates that this is just another facet
> >> > of the Creator's engineering foresight.
> >> > Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur, out of the "billions" of years
> >> > available, "within a ten-year period around 1819"?
> >>
> >> So, in other words, you're saying your Creator works by using mutations,
> >> natural selection, evolution, etc. and not by special creation. Right?
> >
> >I don't know about mutations per se, but natural selection and evolution, yes.
> >Special creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
>
>
> As I pointed out every time I saw you raise this point before, if you
> really allow for both Special Creation and evolution, then you really
> need to identify a method that distinguishes those species which were
> specially created from those species which evolved. Failing that,
> you're just blowing smoke out of your ass again.

As I point out every time this topic comes up, if you want to try to talk me into a corner on this, you
really have to decide what a species is.
LOL

[John Harshman]

As someone either does or ought to point out every time this topic comes
up, under evolutionary scenarios it may be hard to tell what are
separate species and what are not, since one species gradually
transforms into two. Anyway, jillery isn't even arguing with you about
species but about "kinds". She wants you to explain how to recognize
"kinds", whether those "kinds" encompass one species or many. Of course
you are incapable of that. But if there really were separate kinds, it
ought to have been easy.

And "LOL" is a stupid response to just about anything.

[RonO]

Eddie, it was a relatively new mutation. They know this because they can
look at the DNA of white moths and dark moths and see that other
mutations have not accumulated around the melanistic mutation in any
numbers that would mean that it had been around for a long time, and the
haplotype has not been broken up by genetic recombination. Really, they
can look at white moths and see that the sequence that the transposon
inserted into is nearly identical to the sequence with the transposon.
This means that other mutations have not had time to occur around the
transposition event. If the surrounding sequence was divergent it would
mean that enough time had passed so that new mutations could accumulate
around the melanistic mutation event. How do you think that they dated
the mutation?

Just think for a moment and lightning might strike, but I doubt it. Did
you look at the moth and butterfly paper that I put up? The moth
lineage has been around for over 200 million years, this species likely
for only a few million because a lot of speciation has occurred in the
last 200 million years. The DNA keeps changing. Even in your model
where a day can be billions of years long, moths were rapidly diverging
when dinos were evolving. Their DNA accumulates mutations over time.
This new mutation happened so recently that not enough time has elapsed
for other new mutations to accumulate around it. The sequence that the
transposon inserted into still exists in moths without the new mutation.
We expect recombination to occur, but there hasn't been enough time
for recombination to disrupt the sequence.

If the mutation had occurred millions of years ago there would be many
mutations and recombination events around the transposon and the dasrk
moth sequence would be very different from the white moth sequence that
does not have the mutation. Do you get it now?

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Note that similar mutations have probably occurred many, many times in
that lineage over the past several million years, but because of strong
selection against them they all became extinct before reaching any
appreciable frequency, soon after they happened, and so we don't know
about them. We only know about the one that happened not too long before
the industrial revolution because it ended up being advantageous and so
was selected for, not against. For a while.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

As I pointed out every time I saw you used that obvious evasion, I'm
flexible. I stipulate species are whatever you say they are. Now
stop tapdancing and tell us how you distinguish between created
species and evolved species.

[jillery]

I wrote species. Don't speak for me You only obfuscate the issues
when you do.

Steadly resurrected his idea that there exist created and evolved
<insert favorite noun here>. I don't really care what he calls them,
or how he defines them; a rose by any other name... I just want him
to explain how he tells the difference.

>And "LOL" is a stupid response to just about anything.

Steadly types "LOL" because he has trouble typing "I don't know what
I'm talking about", which is what he really means.

[Steady Eddie]

Good thing the creator had the foresight to build-in monitoring and repair systems to deal with mutations.

[Steady Eddie]

It seems that you believe that the light allele is a product of mutation, rather than a built-in variation
which can be selected for as necessary to give the moth adaptability.
How do you justify this conclusion?

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 20 June 2016 08:14:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:

> On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> > Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
> > out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period
> > around 1819"? LOL!
>
> Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
> that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
> than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.

Here's a bit of advice:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain

[Steady Eddie]

Actually, I was referring to Mo's "definition" of evolution: simple change within a population over time.
In other words, species were created to evolve (more commonly, adapt) to their environment to survive
intact as a species.

I know you are thinking of Mo's ACTUAL meaning of evolution: Darwinism.
That's why I use the term Darwinism - to side-step the whole equivocation issue.

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 20 June 2016 18:54:45 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

BTW, in your vast knowledge of the peppered moth genome, do you happen to know which allele for color
is dominant and which recessive?

[John Harshman]

Your second paragraph directly contradicts your first by more or less
repeating what I said. You're welcome.

[John Harshman]

Three problems:

1. None of that addresses the matters at hand.
2. It's incoherent.
3. It accuses Mohammed Noor of gross dishonesty.

Try again. Read what I wrote (or what jillery wrote, if you prefer) and
respond to it. Why can't you recognize created kinds?

[jillery]

I have no idea how you got the impression that RonO thinks the light
allele is the relevant mutation here. He could not have been more
clear that the article shows the dark allele originated from a
transposable element.

In either case, why would your Creator build in an allele from the
moth's creation that would be useless until people burned enough coal
to darken enough trees to make said allele beneficial, when your
Creator could just as easily have done as RonO describes, by causing a
moths gene to mutate when needed?

[jillery]

Too bad your creator's systems for dealing with mutations doesn't work
very well.

>> Every individual in a population has a
>> number of them. Depending on the size of the population, the size of the
>> genome and the mutation rate, you might even have every possible point
>> mutation (except for the fatal ones) in the population at the same time.
>>
>> I hear different numbers, but each human being is said to have somewhere
>> between 60 and a 100 new mutations. But the most likely outcome for any
>> new mutation is for it to die out in just the first few generations.
>>
>> I do not know any of the numbers for this species, plus, this is a
>> different (but still common) sort of mutation. But if the mutation
>> happened in, say, the year 800, the dark coloring would not confer an
>> advantage. In fact, it might be a disadvantage, making it even more
>> likely that the mutation would fail to make it into future generations.
>>
>> The mutation they think happened in the early 1800s probably happened
>> any number of times before, along with millions of other mutations. Most
>> of those never spread through the population, including the "dark" one,
>> until the "dark" one became advantageous.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:37:16 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Since you raised the equivocation issue, your defense is obviously
untrue. In the meantime, you continue to use said equivocation to
avoid answering my question. Why is that?

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:48:23 -0700, John Harshman

My second paragraph neither contradicts my first paragraph, either
directly or indirectly, nor does it repeat what you said. What part of
"speak for yourself" do you not understand?

That Steadly has already used your post to evade answering my question
demonstrates a consequence of your obfuscation. Way to go, Harshman.

[John Harshman]

I'm just glad to help. You may not understand that you're talking about
"kinds", but the fact that you claim not to care what he calls them does
suggest that you might.

> That Steadly has already used your post to evade answering my question
> demonstrates a consequence of your obfuscation. Way to go, Harshman.

Oh, please. He will evade answering your question regardless of what you
or I or anyone else posts. He used my post to evade answering *my*
question. Which was rather like your question, just stated clearly
rather than confusingly.

[Steady Eddie]

Because I haven't spent my life examining and categorizing creatures.

[John Harshman]

If there really were separate kinds, that shouldn't be necessary.
Simple, intuitive recognition is even one of the criteria used by
baraminologists. No more excuses.

[RichD]

On June 9, jillery wrote:
>> What'r the odds?
>
> According to some, like those who support the Discovery Institute, the
> odds are so astronomically low, that such a mutation could not have
> happened without intervention by some kind of Intelligence.

"rrrring!"
Lottery ticket official: "May I help you?""
Ticket holder: "Hi, I have the winning Powerball ticket!
I'm here to claim my prize!"
Official: "What?!? Give me a break, pal! The odds
are 20 million to 1 against you. I wasn't born last
night, this is obviously some kind of desperate con.
Now beat it, before I call the cops and charge you
with fraud and forgery!"



--
Rich

[jillery]

Bingo!

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:47:48 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Then you have no basis for believing in created kinds, or that they
contained from creation all of the different alleles they would need
into perpetuity. So stop pretending that you do.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:48:20 -0700, John Harshman

That I wrote I don't care what label Steadly uses makes it emphatic
that I don't care what label Steadly uses. That I wrote "species"
makes it emphatic that I am *not* talking about kinds. Is English not
your native language?

>> That Steadly has already used your post to evade answering my question
>> demonstrates a consequence of your obfuscation. Way to go, Harshman.
>
>Oh, please. He will evade answering your question regardless of what you
>or I or anyone else posts. He used my post to evade answering *my*
>question. Which was rather like your question, just stated clearly
>rather than confusingly.

Your original post didn't even ask a question. And there's nothing
confusing about the question I wrote. And there's no way your
obfuscating introduction of "kinds" made anything more clear.

Finally, like a compulsive arsonist, Steadly does what he does, but
you don't have to hand him the matches.

[John Harshman]

Dark is dominant. Light is recessive. Why do you ask?

[RonO]

Why would I believe that the white allele is product of mutation
relative to the dark allele? The white allele existed first. This is
documented by collectors before the 19th century. It is the dark allele
that is the product of new mutation, and they identified the causative
mutation. It is a mutation that ocurred within the region that the
white allele exists. We can examine the light and dark alleles
(different variants of the same gene) and see that they are nearly
identical to each other except for the transposon change. If this was
preexisting variation then the two gene variants would be expected to
have new mutations happen around this region at random. You couldn't
keep it from happening. The two versions of the gene would become more
and more different over time. What do you not get? How do you think
that they determined that the dark mutation was relatively recent? If
it had occurred millions of years ago the surrounding sequence would be
expected to be very different.

Look at the difference between chimps and humans for any part of the
genome. They are about 1 to 2% different (around 1 in 100 base pairs)
in single nucleotide substitutions. The separation between chimps and
humans occurred only around 5 to 8 million years ago. In coding regions
the difference is only around 0.7% because amino acid substitutions are
often selected against and most of the variation is silent DNA
substitutions that do not change the protein product.

If there was built in variation it would have accumulated multiple
substitutions by now. This is why Behe's notion of front loading was
stupid. You can't keep the sequence from mutating until it is needed
and any sequence that wasn't being used for anything would be mutated to
random sequence before it could ever be used. Life got started over 3
billion years ago. If 1% change can occur in less than 10 million
years, how much change can occur in a hundred million or a billion?
Remember how long your days are? When were moths created? How much
change would have occurred between the light and dark variants in that
time? Moths were created before angiosperm (fruit trees, and wheat etc)
plants existed. What day was that and how long ago was it in your model?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Dark is dominant, this just means that when it occurred it was
immediately visible to selection. It could have been neutral or
selected for or against. It is a type of change that likely occurred
many times in that lineage and other lineages, but it looks like it is
usually selected against. The same gene is mutated in butterflies to
get dark variants. No mystery here. Have you come to grips with the
fact that every site in the human genome has likely been mutated
multiple times just in the existing human population? Over 500 billion
new mutations in the human population and only 3 billion base-pairs in
the human genome. That is more than 100 possible mutations for every
position in the human genome just in the existing population.

So what argument do you think that you have? It doesn't look like you
have any argument at all.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 6/21/2016 7:31 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2016 08:14:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
>>> out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period
>>> around 1819"? LOL!
>>
>> Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
>> that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
>> than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.
>
> Here's a bit of advice:
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
> Mark Twain

I'm not Mark Twain, but it is just a fact of life that if you don't know
what you are talking about it is best to try to learn something about it
instead of exposing your ignorance and making an utter jackass of
yourself like you usually do.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Do you know that?

[Steady Eddie]

Do you know that?

> Simple, intuitive recognition is even one of the criteria used by
> baraminologists. No more excuses.

Even simple, intuitive recognition is informed by deep study of biology among baraminologists.

[John Harshman]

The alternative is that whoever created the kinds is aiming for
deception. Is that your claim?

>> Simple, intuitive recognition is even one of the criteria used by
>> baraminologists. No more excuses.
>
> Even simple, intuitive recognition is informed by deep study of biology among baraminologists.

How would you know? You don't appear to know anything about
baraminology. Or much of anything else. I, on the other hand, actually
have spent my life examining and categorizing creatures. Which of us
would you expect to be more likely to be correct on this?

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

It's a logical deduction. You admit that you can't recognize created
kinds. So you have no basis to believe created kinds exist. You
admit you haven't spent your life examining and categorizing
creatures, so you have no basis for refuting the conclusions of those
who have, including your claim that the genomes of created kinds
contained from their creation all of the different alleles they would
need into perpetuity.

Others may have a basis, but you don't cite them. So all that matters
here is that *you* have no basis for your claims. So stop pretending

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/21/2016 8:29 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2016 15:39:45 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 6/20/2016 1:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Monday, 20 June 2016 10:19:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:

>>>> On 6/20/2016 10:34 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 20 June 2016 08:14:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
>>>>>>> out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period

>>>>>>> around 1819"? LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
>>>>>> that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
>>>>>> than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Firstly, moths have not been around for billions of years. But that's
>>>>>> just a side note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no suggestion that this mutation was the only occurrence of
>>>>>> that mutation, or of mutations with a similar effect, in the history of
>>>>>> the species. Only that the particular instance of that mutation that
>>>>>> "took" - that was selected for and spread through the population.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it had happened at other times, which seems likely, it may have been
>>>>>> actively selected against, or at least not selected for, and died out.
>>>>>

>>>>> Excellent.
>>>>> That indicates that this is a case of simple Mendelian genetics - the gene (or allele) for both
>>>>> shades was always in the genome, and the appropriate shade was selected as the environment
>>>>> changed.
>>>>>
>>>> How does it "indicate" that?
>>>
>>> Or do you still believe the dark allele mutated into existence just in time for the industrial revolution in England?
>>> I guess you think DNA reads the newspaper - keeps up on current affairs - and decided it better get mutatin' something to survive the smog.
>>>

>> Again, you only make yourself look foolish by being so willing to
>> believe that scientists are stupid.
>>
>> Mutations are very very common.
>
> Good thing the creator had the foresight to build-in monitoring and repair systems to deal with mutations.

Non-responsive. Are you suggesting that we do not in fact have new
mutations? What about the rest?

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/21/2016 8:31 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2016 08:14:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
>>> out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period
>>> around 1819"? LOL!
>>
>> Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
>> that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
>> than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.
>
> Here's a bit of advice:
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
> Mark Twain

Cute quip, but unrelated to what I wrote. Your zeal to see your
opponents as idiots really clouds your judgment. I very much doubt that
anyone thinks that a "dark" mutation only happened one time, just in
time to be useful. More likely it happened many times, but before the
1800s, it was selected against.

Oh, and by the way, the majority believes in God.

[eridanus]

good post.
eri

[eridanus]

El martes, 21 de junio de 2016, 13:34:45 (UTC+1), Steady Eddie escribió:
> On Monday, 20 June 2016 08:14:47 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
> > On 6/10/2016 9:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >
> > > Does anybody honestly believe that this "mutation" happened to occur,
> > > out of the "billions" of years available, "within a ten-year period
> > > around 1819"? LOL!
> >
> > Here's a bit of advice: When you find yourself asking a question like
> > that, consider that it is much more likely that you have misunderstood
> > than that every biologist is an idiot or a charlatan.
>
> Here's a bit of advice:

> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
> Mark Twain
>

> > Firstly, moths have not been around for billions of years. But that's
> > just a side note.
> >
> > There is no suggestion that this mutation was the only occurrence of
> > that mutation, or of mutations with a similar effect, in the history of
> > the species. Only that the particular instance of that mutation that
> > "took" - that was selected for and spread through the population.
> >
> > If it had happened at other times, which seems likely, it may have been
> > actively selected against, or at least not selected for, and died out.

as you, as creationist, are on the side of the majority of planet population,
it is time for you to shut up. People that believe in Evolution is a minority
at least in the US and in the "bible belt".
eri