Creationism / Intelligent design

[innominate]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

There is some reason to it for the vast majority of western gods having a human shape. It'd be good to ask ourselves about it... I wonder if there's some sort of paper or something that talks about that.

Hmm haha I wrote something about this in my previous post I think. Man finds himself an egoistical species I guess; =/

[WanderingKnight]

The "it's just another set of beliefs" excuse is fine when the two sets are not mutually exclusive, this is not the case with monotheism and polytheism.

Just in case, every set of religious beliefs is mutually exclusive... or at least as far as the major religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam go. I don't know about Buddhism, but if you claim Christianity isn't mutually exclusive with monotheistic religions... well, as far as I was taught in religious schools, it isn't quite so. In fact, I might go as far as to say it's even more exclusivist, since for Christianity there is a single God, and that is the Christian God; for Islam, there is a single God and that is Allah; and for Judaism, there is a single God and that is the Judaic God (was it Yahweh?). Each of these fails to recognize any other religions' gods, whatever their stance might be.

But, setting that aside, you're getting confused. It doesn't matter, you don't need to believe in polytheism--you just need to understand it and the people who believe in it. That's what I was saying. Don't automatically dismiss it only because your faith is monotheistic. Accept it as another valid religion, respect it, and more importantly, don't judge it. But it's not necessary to believe in it, I never said that.

And going by my premise of God's omniscience, it would be illogical for me to think that God can be deceived.

That is the Christian God's omniscience you are applying to the heathen gods' "humanity" of sorts. There's where you're getting confused. You're applying a premise of your religious system to another one, which is completely different. When analyzing another religion, you need to strip from whatever base your own religion provides you, since 99% of times it'll be incompatible with it.

This'll be my last post on the subject, since what I just wrote is a repetition of my last 3 posts.

[monster]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Just in case, every set of religious beliefs is mutually exclusive... or at least as far as the major religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam go. I don't know about Buddhism, but if you claim Christianity isn't mutually exclusive with monotheistic religions... well, as far as I was taught in religious schools, it isn't quite so. In fact, I might go as far as to say it's even more exclusivist, since for Christianity there is a single God, and that is the Christian God; for Islam, there is a single God and that is Allah; and for Judaism, there is a single God and that is the Judaic God (was it Yahweh?). Each of these fails to recognize any other religions' gods, whatever their stance might be.

Isn't that what I just said about polytheism and monotheism? All you're doing is taking it further into individual religions.

But, setting that aside, you're getting confused. It doesn't matter, you don't need to believe in polytheism--you just need to understand it and the people who believe in it. That's what I was saying. Don't automatically dismiss it only because your faith is monotheistic. Accept it as another valid religion, respect it, and more importantly, don't judge it. But it's not necessary to believe in it, I never said that.

I do understand them; I can understand why people would want to believe the way they do, including you. But I also do have to dismiss their beliefs (not they themselves) exactly because my faith and theirs are mutually exclusive (talking specifically about polytheistic religions now, although it can be expanded).

I just don't know how you can't understand that. You say I don't need to believe in these other sets of faith, yet you imply that I need to entertain the idea of other gods' existence as just as valid as mine own. Well faith doesn't work like that.

Anyways I do hope you can understand that I have always been talking from my point of view, since the original question that I was replying to was:

"why the concepts of monotheism are embraced."

Therefore,

You're applying a premise of your religious system to another one, which is completely different.

Of course I am, like I said before:

Originally Posted by monstert

I'm stating the reason why I believe in monotheism as opposed to polytheism.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Just in case, every set of religious beliefs is mutually exclusive... or at least as far as the major religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam go. I don't know about Buddhism, but if you claim Christianity isn't mutually exclusive with monotheistic religions... well, as far as I was taught in religious schools, it isn't quite so. In fact, I might go as far as to say it's even more exclusivist, since for Christianity there is a single God, and that is the Christian God; for Islam, there is a single God and that is Allah; and for Judaism, there is a single God and that is the Judaic God (was it Yahweh?). Each of these fails to recognize any other religions' gods, whatever their stance might be.

Well, technically Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all recognize the same God, but believe different things about him. Proper Christianity and Judaism are theologically identical with the exception of their interpretation of the promised Messiah. Christianity came from the Jews who believed that Messiah was Jesus of Nazereth, and modern Judaism continues from those who didn't follow him as the Messiah. Islam claims that Christians and Jews throughout the ages perverted their doctrines and that the only truth about God is found in the writings of Mohammad.

They actually recognize that the different gods other people worship may exist in certain cases, but that they aren't beings that should be worshipped (which is something reserved for God alone).

Buddhism is a bit trickier to tack down. It does not recognize a deity, but is a general set of beliefs about life, spirituality, and the afterlife and somehow they've taken to reverencing and worshipping Siddhartha Gautama (who I've read specifically asked his followers to NOT do so) or others they've believed have achieved enlightenment. Hypothetically, it doesn't exclude other religions, but its spiritual doctrines and figures of reverence place it at odds with most every other religion. It's gotten along beside Taoism, Shinto, and Hindu, but even they often are at odds with it, depending on what practitioner you ask.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by escimo

Once you've kinked the facts into the model there's no need to question the premise of it, ever? As you said the science has progressed a couple of light-years from Darwin's days. When has it progressed enough to consider questioning the model, that's been conceived in times when only a fragment of the data we have today was available, a viable option?

This happens every day in biology. As new evidence comes in, Darwin's theory is constantly refined and updated to accomodate these new facts. For example, when the phenomenon of mutations was discovered, it was used to explain one of the puzzles brought up by evolution. In addition, the mapping of different genomes has contributed to a huge degree in our understanding of the mechanisms involved. The reason Darwin's model hasn't been modified to any huge extent is largely because of the strength of the original explanations. Perhaps there will be new observations that will completely overturn evolution, but so far, all of the new data have served to strenghten it instead.

This isn't unique to evolution either; there's plenty of other scientific theories that have survived largely intact over long stretches of time - I don't expect the heliocentric model of the solar system to ever be overturned, regardless of how much science progresses.

[Kyuusai]

If we're going to split the threads like this, I'd like to express some gentle reminders for debaters to hopefully head off some circular arguments:

Creationism and Intelligent design are very muddy terms these days. They can refer to the beliefs that a higher power is responsible for setting the world in motion and also possibly that it had a hand in shaping its progression. They can also refer to varying schools of thought in speculating natural history or interpreting scientific evidence in the context of religious belief, with a range going from quite plausible to utter nonsense.

Evolution is a very broad term, covering many theories, hypotheses, and speculations from several schools of science and supported by varying types of evidence. People who have objections to "evolution" generally have objections to only some very specific concepts, such as humans and apes sharing a common ancestor (instead believing that humans were a unique creation), or varying ideas on the origin of species and/or life itself.

If you use these as blanket terms or assume that one group on a particular side of an argument speaks for all, you are bound to cause confusion, arguments, and offense.

[escimo]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

This happens every day in biology. As new evidence comes in, Darwin's theory is constantly refined and updated to accomodate these new facts. For example, when the phenomenon of mutations was discovered, it was used to explain one of the puzzles brought up by evolution. In addition, the mapping of different genomes has contributed to a huge degree in our understanding of the mechanisms involved. The reason Darwin's model hasn't been modified to any huge extent is largely because of the strength of the original explanations. Perhaps there will be new observations that will completely overturn evolution, but so far, all of the new data have served to strenghten it instead.

This isn't unique to evolution either; there's plenty of other scientific theories that have survived largely intact over long stretches of time - I don't expect the heliocentric model of the solar system to ever be overturned, regardless of how much science progresses.

I don't think that evolution and heliocentric nature of the solar system are exactly comparable.
I fear that this is pouring gasoline into a campfire but...
Genetics were mentioned in the other thread and you briefly referred to mutations. I find the latest discoveries in genetics quite interesting. For example very strong defense-mechanism being discovered within genome itself against mutation. And basically all the genetic mutation recorded in occurrence being degenerative. Of course the time-span that we're talking about here is really short so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

The quality of human gene pool has been improving in the past few centuries but not through mutation but widening of the genetic base on a more local level. World has become smaller thus people don't have to find their procreative partners within the same village, so does speak. It's very interesting to see what happens when this development reaches it's saturation point. Human genome becoming practically uniform and degenerative (or generative) mutations being finally able to run wild. Naturally this is something that we won't witness in our lifetime but it's an interesting concept none the less.

Any aggressive modification of the genome through for example cross-breeding results in sterile offspring. Take mules for example. Same thing has been documented numerous times in other kind of significant fast genetic mutation as well. Some scientists have theorized that this is part of the defense-mechanism mentioned. Haven't found actual facts being posted to support it but that doesn't really make it any less interesting. This doesn't exactly disprove evolution as a concept but as someone who's somewhat skeptical about it makes me interested what genetics has in store for us in the future as repetition and inbreeding are quite generally considered degenerative aspects in genetics. And appearance of a new uniform mutation in large numbers required to support the mutated genome in the long run just seems a bit implausible.
I don't think that we can leave evolution to be even on a conceptual level just yet. Naturally genetics may be the field that eventually fortifies the evolution theory to extent that it becomes comparable with the heliocentric nature of the solar system. Then I'll have a lot of words to eat. Just not going to do it just yet.

Edit: One more point, then I'm going to sleep.
In majority of the cases that I'm aware of any smaller genetic mutation occurring it has created recessive allele, significantly decreasing the probability of it causing any significant change in the bulk of the genome. Or practically being in a singular case inheritable in the first place.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by escimo

I find the latest discoveries in genetics quite interesting. For example very strong defense-mechanism being discovered within genome itself against mutation.

This might be although I doubt that you know the "latest discoveries in genetics" any better than I do. What I know however is that the fact that there are good error-correction mechanisms involved in the DNA copy process is certainly not a "latest discovery". Error correction is exactly as good as necessary to let mutations happen and spread at the rate they do. Your argumentation is like saying that scientists have discovered safety belts in cars and therefore the statistics that says that there are 1000 deaths/year in car accidents in country X must be doubted. All you can say is that there would be more deaths if there weren't safety belts.

And basically all the genetic mutation recorded in occurrence being degenerative.

I wouldn't call lactose tolerance a degeneration. The fact that my ancestors lost their ability to produce large amounts of melanin in their skin is also a useful adaption to a world region where the sunlight is weak enough such that skin cancer becomes less of an issue than vitamin D production. It is of course a no-brainer that a random change in a complex network is more often negative than positive.

Of course the time-span that we're talking about here is really short so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Time is relative in more than one way. We study bacteria for quite long in terms of bacteria generations and they are doing an excellent job in adapting. Often much to the dismay of physicians. You can also learn a lot of former times by comparing genomes. You just have to be willing to actually look into the matter.

The quality of human gene pool has been improving in the past few centuries but not through mutation but widening of the genetic base on a more local level. World has become smaller thus people don't have to find their procreative partners within the same village, so does speak. It's very interesting to see what happens when this development reaches it's saturation point. Human genome becoming practically uniform and degenerative (or generative) mutations being finally able to run wild. Naturally this is something that we won't witness in our lifetime but it's an interesting concept none the less.

Most of our genes are the same. Others vary wildly literally from door to door. To distinguish races via the DNA you have first to know where exactly to look in you soup of As, Cs, Gs, and Ts. So our genome was always both globally homogeneous and locally inhomogeneous, depending on which gen you're talking about. Our genome does also not become more uniform because it doesn't work that way that when daddy has a blue gene and mommy has a yellow gene the kid will have a green gene. The only thing can be achieved through global cross-breeding is that all genes that already vary from human to human will vary locally without any correlation to place or other genes. And those that are the same everywhere will still be the same everywhere, notwithstanding new mutations of course. The only way to achive a more uniform genome is to kill most humans off, except 100-1000 or so.

And even if our genome was more uniform. How does that make mutations "run wild". A mutation is not a contagious disease!

Any aggressive modification of the genome through for example cross-breeding results in sterile offspring. Take mules for example. Same thing has been documented numerous times in other kind of significant fast genetic mutation as well.

Again a no-brainer and irrelevant because natural mutation is a point-wise process and has nothing to do with cross-breeding between horses and donkeys.

Some scientists have theorized that this is part of the defense-mechanism mentioned.

I can hardly believe that. To call something a defense-mechanism there must be processes to identify and counteract other processes that are unwanted. A massive change in your gametes will kill any offspring by itself. It's like saying death is the defense mechanism against aging.

Haven't found actual facts being posted to support it but that doesn't really make it any less interesting. This doesn't exactly disprove evolution as a concept

The fact that you or I find something interesting doesn't prove or disprove anything, that is true.

And appearance of a new uniform mutation in large numbers required to support the mutated genome in the long run just seems a bit implausible.

There are no "uniform mutation in large numbers" and they aren't needed to "support" a mutated genome. When you have a mutated gene half of your children will carry it on average. If you don't have any children, or if they die early, the mutation will die too. But if you have four children, two will carry the mutation. If the mutation is useful the chance that more children will pass on the mutated gene to the next generation is higher. That's the very definition of "useful" and all what evolution is about.

Edit: One more point, then I'm going to sleep.
In majority of the cases that I'm aware of any smaller genetic mutation occurring it has created recessive allele, significantly decreasing the probability of it causing any significant change in the bulk of the genome. Or practically being in a singular case inheritable in the first place.

Your statistics being? First, "recessive" and "dominant" are simplifications, the reality isn't black or white. Otherwise, see the safety belt example above.

Then I'll have a lot of words to eat.

Bon appétit.

[Vexx]

I recommend a subscription to Nature magazine if anyone really want to know whats going on in science (evolution, geology, cosmology, genetics, natural sciences, etc).
Warning - one has to be able to think and may have to consult a dictionary or Google to appreciate some articles. I consider myself fairly literate in the sciences and I've found some articles that I had NO idea what they were talking about til I looked some words up.

But if you really want to get an appreciation for basic science, research, and testing of theories and hypotheses, that's a pretty good start.

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Time is relative in more than one way. We study bacteria for quite long in terms of bacteria generations and they are doing an excellent job in adapting. Often much to the dismay of physicians. You can also learn a lot of former times by comparing genomes. You just have to be willing to actually look into the matter.

I was simply making a point that if we've been able to actually watch mutations in single genes as they happen some 10 years or so in terms of evolution these discoveries can be considered irrelevant just because of the time-span.

Most of our genes are the same. Others vary wildly literally from door to door. To distinguish races via the DNA you have first to know where exactly to look in you soup of As, Cs, Gs, and Ts. So our genome was always both globally homogeneous and locally inhomogeneous, depending on which gen you're talking about. Our genome does also not become more uniform because it doesn't work that way that when daddy has a blue gene and mommy has a yellow gene the kid will have a green gene. The only thing can be achieved through global cross-breeding is that all genes that already vary from human to human will vary locally without any correlation to place or other genes. And those that are the same everywhere will still be the same everywhere, notwithstanding new mutations of course. The only way to achive a more uniform genome is to kill most humans off, except 100-1000 or so.

And even if our genome was more uniform. How does that make mutations "run wild". A mutation is not a contagious disease!

As genes can be roughly split into dominant and recessive ones and for someone to produce traits typical for recessive ones you have to receive the gene from both parents I don't see how you can rule out the possibility of dominant genes in an extremely long time-span overrunning recessive traits.

Mutation isn't indeed contagious disease. Some mutations are considered hereditary diseases though.

Again a no-brainer and irrelevant because natural mutation is a point-wise process and has nothing to do with cross-breeding between horses and donkeys.

True. Simplification of results of genetic manipulation in it's most aggressive form. Seen in other fast massive shifts in genome due to outside influence as well.

I can hardly believe that. To call something a defense-mechanism there must be processes to identify and counteract other processes that are unwanted.

This is exactly what makes it interesting as I've heard the idea of just such mechanisms being posed. (sorry couldn't find the reference)

The fact that you or I find something interesting doesn't prove or disprove anything, that is true.

That's a divine trait.

There are no "uniform mutation in large numbers" and they aren't needed to "support" a mutated genome. When you have a mutated gene half of your children will carry it on average. If you don't have any children, or if they die early, the mutation will die too. But if you have four children, two will carry the mutation. If the mutation is useful the chance that more children will pass on the mutated gene to the next generation is higher. That's the very definition of "useful" and all what evolution is about.

Just the inbreeding factor may a possible problem. As everyone carrying this mutated gene will have a singe progenitor. There are many examples of at least possible negative results of this in animal breeding. Of course the process is practically always forced to produce desirable genetic traits in short time-span which distorts the outcome.

Your statistics being? First, "recessive" and "dominant" are simplifications, the reality isn't black or white. Otherwise, see the safety belt example above.

Yes it's not black and white but it sure as hell isn't 50% gray either.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by escimo

As genes can be roughly split into dominant and recessive ones and for someone to produce traits typical for recessive ones you have to receive the gene from both parents I don't see how you can rule out the possibility of dominant genes in an extremely long time-span overrunning recessive traits.

It's not like dominant genes keep recessive ones from being transmitted. Just expressed. And even then, it's not quite that clear cut.

So imagine some guy has a recessive allele. He passes it on to half his kids. A generation or two later, married cousins get children with both genes that particular allele, and it'll be expressed. If it's advantageous (as in producing more offspring, not necessarily what we'd recognize as advantageous), that recessive allele will spread. Before you know it, most of the concerned genes will be it. And even if you only need one gene being the dominant, chances are, most couples will have all four genes being it, which means that all of their children will be it, too.

Now, I can, offhand, think of a particular gene where a recessive trait is shared by the majority of the population, but all it means is that I didn't study the subject. I can, however, think of O-type blood. Recessive trait, but still quite a few people have it.

Just the inbreeding factor may a possible problem. As everyone carrying this mutated gene will have a singe progenitor. There are many examples of at least possible negative results of this in animal breeding. Of course the process is practically always forced to produce desirable genetic traits in short time-span which distorts the outcome.

Inbreeding? If an allele is recessive, it can spread without anyone knowing about it for generations and resurface, expressed, without needing anyone closer than fifth cousins to have kids together. (Though, considering how likely it is for people more closely related than that to marry, back when people were born, lived, and died with a few square kilometers, it can't have happened very often...)

And if it's dominant - well, then. You don't even need that.

Yes it's not black and white but it sure as hell isn't 50% gray either.

I really don't see the relevance of it.




One more word about the anti-mutation mechanisms: they don't work as well in times of stress (meaning, when we need to change). Funny, that.

[IHaveCrayons]

I've been through Catholic school since middle school and now go to college. I have never met a person during that time period that has not believed in evolution (note that Darwin's theory does not encompass the entirety of evolution) or, at least, when discussing it in or out of class had no objection. The only time I had someone remotely close was while talking about the Big Bang in one of my introductory classes freshman year of college a student said "I think the universe was just there", I immediately explained how the universe is constantly expanding and the professor concurred that this was generally accepted theory. The matter was settled quite quickly.

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not like dominant genes keep recessive ones from being transmitted. Just expressed. And even then, it's not quite that clear cut.

So imagine some guy has a recessive allele. He passes it on to half his kids. A generation or two later, married cousins get children with both genes that particular allele, and it'll be expressed. If it's advantageous (as in producing more offspring, not necessarily what we'd recognize as advantageous), that recessive allele will spread. Before you know it, most of the concerned genes will be it. And even if you only need one gene being the dominant, chances are, most couples will have all four genes being it, which means that all of their children will be it, too.

Now, I can, offhand, think of a particular gene where a recessive trait is shared by the majority of the population, but all it means is that I didn't study the subject. I can, however, think of O-type blood. Recessive trait, but still quite a few people have it.

True. I've heard of studies though of number of recessive genetic traits decreasing. For example blue eyes and blond hair. Nothing conclusive but can be taken as an indication of a trend.

Inbreeding? If an allele is recessive, it can spread without anyone knowing about it for generations and resurface, expressed, without needing anyone closer than fifth cousins to have kids together. (Though, considering how likely it is for people more closely related than that to marry, back when people were born, lived, and died with a few square kilometers, it can't have happened very often...)

And if it's dominant - well, then. You don't even need that.

Inbreeding factor to be exact. Commonly used in animal breeding. It's used to determine how much of the theoretical genome an animal is carrying is from a single progenitor. True enough recessive traits can remain hiding for an extended period of time but still if a genetic mutation or mutated genetic trait to be more exact has manifested in a singular entity all of the holders of this trait can eventually be traced to this singular source. Not necessarily a problem but a possible one. Problems are seen clearly in many highly bred animals with generally high IBF. In these cases naturally aggressiveness in breeding plays a big part as manifestation of (surprisingly often) recessive traits is forced often by inbreeding animals with their siblings in multiple generations causing inevitably highly increased risk of genetic disorders.

As genetics for one is not a case of black or white and interaction between single genes and their actual effects are still very much unknown not very definite conclusions can be drawn. But generally narrow genetic base is never considered a good thing. And especially in the case of recessive alleles the possibility of them disappearing in these single source cases is relatively high if the genetic base remains wide.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by escimo

True. I've heard of studies though of number of recessive genetic traits decreasing. For example blue eyes and blond hair. Nothing conclusive but can be taken as an indication of a trend.

Trend? Trend of what? A trend of blue eyed people marrying dark eyed ones? So? How is that relevant to the issue of evolution?

Inbreeding factor to be exact. Commonly used in animal breeding. It's used to determine how much of the theoretical genome an animal is carrying is from a single progenitor. True enough recessive traits can remain hiding for an extended period of time but still if a genetic mutation or mutated genetic trait to be more exact has manifested in a singular entity all of the holders of this trait can eventually be traced to this singular source.

Yeah, and we can all be traced back to the Y-chromosome Adam, only 85000 years back. So?

Not necessarily a problem but a possible one. Problems are seen clearly in many highly bred animals with generally high IBF. In these cases naturally aggressiveness in breeding plays a big part as manifestation of (surprisingly often) recessive traits is forced often by inbreeding animals with their siblings in multiple generations causing inevitably highly increased risk of genetic disorders.

Yes, we inbreed animals because we like well defined breeds. So? How is that a case against evolution?

As genetics for one is not a case of black or white and interaction between single genes and their actual effects are still very much unknown not very definite conclusions can be drawn. But generally narrow genetic base is never considered a good thing. And especially in the case of recessive alleles the possibility of them disappearing in these single source cases is relatively high if the genetic base remains wide.

What link do you make between the existence of a recessive allele and people - and animals and plants, for that matter - inbreeding?

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Trend? Trend of what? A trend of blue eyed people marrying dark eyed ones? So? How is that relevant to the issue of evolution?

If the dark eyed party is carrying blue eye allele the possibility (at least theoretical) of blue eyed offspring is 50% if I'm not mistaken.
Blue eye allele is recessive, dark eye is dominant. Blue eyed party carries practically inevitably two blue eye alleles but the dark eyed party can basically carry any with the dark eye allele. Thus two dark eyed people can still get offspring with for example blue eyes. So this indication of a trend is not directly related blue eyed people marrying or at least multiplying with dark eyed ones. Quite basic genetics...

Yeah, and we can all be traced back to the Y-chromosome Adam, only 85000 years back. So?

Well. Go an tell...

Yes, we inbreed animals because we like well defined breeds. So? How is that a case against evolution?

Inbreeding animals causes a lot of genetic disorders. It could be considered artificial evolution though the official term I think is artificial selection. I just used it as an example of possible problems caused by narrow genetic base. Doesn't exactly need much research to find many examples of hereditary genetic disorders going out of control within highly inbred animals. Basically the mechanism is the same as in evolution through genetic mutation with a truncated time-span which naturally can distort the outcome.

What link do you make between the existence of a recessive allele and people - and animals and plants, for that matter - inbreeding?

Actually to some very remote extent, yes. Considering they are genetic mutations that have appeared in single entity.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by escimo

If the dark eyed party is carrying blue eye allele the possibility (at least theoretical) of blue eyed offspring is 50% if I'm not mistaken.
Blue eye allele is recessive, dark eye is dominant. Blue eyed party carries practically inevitably two blue eye alleles but the dark eyed party can basically carry any with the dark eye allele. Thus two dark eyed people can still get offspring with for example blue eyes. So this indication of a trend is not directly related blue eyed people marrying or at least multiplying with dark eyed ones. Quite basic genetics...

OK, fine, if you want to get needlessly technical, it's a trend of populations with a high proportion of blue eyed genes mingling more than they did in the past with populations with high proportion of brown eyed genes.

But you dodged the question of what it had to do with your contention on evolution.

Well. Go an tell...

Tell what?

Inbreeding animals causes a lot of genetic disorders. It could be considered artificial evolution though the official term I think is artificial selection. I just used it as an example of possible problems caused by narrow genetic base. Doesn't exactly need much research to find many examples of hereditary genetic disorders going out of control within highly inbred animals. Basically the mechanism is the same as in evolution through genetic mutation with a truncated time-span which naturally can distort the outcome.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not denying that inbreeding is bad, but what does it have to do with anything?

Actually to some very remote extent, yes. Considering they are genetic mutations that have appeared in single entity.

First, no. A mutation can appear in several separate individuals over a long period of time. Second, you didn't answer the question. You seem to say that a mutation causing a recessive allele to appear will suddenly make people want to have kids with their close relatives. How does that work?

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

OK, fine, if you want to get needlessly technical, it's a trend of populations with a high proportion of blue eyed genes mingling more than they did in the past with populations with high proportion of brown eyed genes.

But you dodged the question of what it had to do with your contention on evolution.

In this case actually nothing with evolution. What it has to do with is the theoretical uniforming of the human genome which this discussion drifted to at some point.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not denying that inbreeding is bad, but what does it have to do with anything?

Playing parrot... Basically the mechanism is the same as in evolution through genetic mutation with a truncated time-span which naturally can distort the outcome. I might specify a bit though. Genetic mutation in singular progenitor.

First, no. A mutation can appear in several separate individuals over a long period of time. Second, you didn't answer the question. You seem to say that a mutation causing a recessive allele to appear will suddenly make people want to have kids with their close relatives. How does that work?

Well yes a mutation can appear in several individuals over a long time-span but if this mutation produces a recessive allele the probability of similar or at least compatible recessive allele appearing somewhere else is quite astronomical. Considering that time is a factor as well if you wish to combine these two separate genetic lines as every time the possibility of an offspring possessing this recessive allele is 50%. Theoretically a recessive allele can be hidden for any period of time. But the odds are against it. Higher number of offspring increases the possibility of trait withstanding longer period of time but that's mathematics beyond my abilities. And yet there's a 50% chance that the trait is not passed on at all from it's very source. And I'm not claiming that holders of these recessive genes would develop an urge to start multiplying with their siblings. Just that longer a recessive gene form a singular source remains hiding the higher the possibility that it won't manifest itself at all. It's a crude oversimplification but if you consider genetic trait that's result of mutation in a singular progenitor any manifesting it could be considered a result of inbreeding in a very remote and coincidental way. But as said it's quite an extreme oversimplification.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by escimo

Playing parrot... Basically the mechanism is the same as in evolution through genetic mutation with a truncated time-span which naturally can distort the outcome. I might specify a bit though. Genetic mutation in singular progenitor.

Which doesn't explain your problem at all. Seriously, what is it? What do you mean by "truncated time span"? What mechanism are you talking about? Hell, I don't even want to speculate on it.

Well yes a mutation can appear in several individuals over a long time-span but if this mutation produces a recessive allele the probability of similar or at least compatible recessive allele appearing somewhere else is quite astronomical.

Not necessarily. Depends what the mutation is.

Considering that time is a factor as well if you wish to combine these two separate genetic lines as every time the possibility of an offspring possessing this recessive allele is 50%. Theoretically a recessive allele can be hidden for any period of time. But the odds are against it. Higher number of offspring increases the possibility of trait withstanding longer period of time but that's mathematics beyond my abilities. And yet there's a 50% chance that the trait is not passed on at all from it's very source. And I'm not claiming that holders of these recessive genes would develop an urge to start multiplying with their siblings. Just that longer a recessive gene form a singular source remains hiding the higher the possibility that it won't manifest itself at all. It's a crude oversimplification but if you consider genetic trait that's result of mutation in a singular progenitor any manifesting it could be considered a result of inbreeding in a very remote and coincidental way. But as said it's quite an extreme oversimplification.

Not being expressed doesn't mean it's disappearing. If everyone involved has two or three kids, every generation it spreads more, making it harder to disappear. And more likely that two individuals bearing that allele will reproduce together.

And as for the trait disappearing with its "source" - depends on the number of children it has. With four children, the chance is 1/16 - 6.25%. And of course, even with a 50% chance of disappearing - so what? Mutations occur all the time.

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not being expressed doesn't mean it's disappearing. If everyone involved has two or three kids, every generation it spreads more, making it harder to disappear. And more likely that two individuals bearing that allele will reproduce together.

Assuming that you would automatically inherit the trait (still considering it's recessive and of singular source). However the probability for this is in the individual level 25% as both parents carry 2 alleles out of which one form both is passed to a child. Only when the trait is expressed the probability of allele being passed to a child is 100%. As I said, higher number of offspring increases the possibility of trait remaining but offers absolutely no guarantees.

And as for the trait disappearing with its "source" - depends on the number of children it has. With four children, the chance is 1/16 - 6.25%. And of course, even with a 50% chance of disappearing - so what? Mutations occur all the time.

Well this is just what makes mathematics fun.
You flip a coin four times and get heads every time. What are the odds of you flipping heads again..?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by escimo

Assuming that you would automatically inherit the trait (still considering it's recessive and of singular source). However the probability for this is in the individual level 25% as both parents carry 2 alleles out of which one form both is passed to a child. Only when the trait is expressed the probability of allele being passed to a child is 100%. As I said, higher number of offspring increases the possibility of trait remaining but offers absolutely no guarantees.

What probability are you talking about? If both parents have one allele each, the probability of their kid getting it is 75%. (Including 25% of him getting it from both parents, thus expressing the gene.)