Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

Why do you refer to anyone who disagrees with you as 'macroevolutionists'?

It's the subject of this thread. I say that macroevolution doesn't exist, only microevolution. I present experimental evidence of microevolution and give a physical and mathematical explanation of how it works. And challenge believers in macroevolution to present experimental evidence of this process and give their explanation of how it works. No experimental evidence of macroevolution has been presented.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Quit trying to play moderator or MC.

Why not? Frank claims he knows something about microevolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

You also know nothing about microevolution even though you claim you do know something. You can't explain the simplest principles of the subject even though those principles are trivial. We know they are trivial because Hans said so.

Trivial I know. Nice guy btw.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am not going to touch the other bit because... wow, you are not good teacher, Alan. Not good at all. That was just a word salad.

That explains why biologists can't explain the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. You have to understand the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply them for that explanation.

Do you understand that physics is a whole different subset of science to biology, right? Like, if you want to link physics to biology, you would have to do a massive unified theory of physics and biology. All you seem to be doing is just going "Well... physics!" and leaving at that.

Macroevolution isn't incorrect, it just doesn't exist. There is only microevolution.

But why? Why isn't it that lots of microvolutionary stages can add up to one bit macroevolutionary stage and create a new species of animal?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's the subject of this thread. I say that macroevolution doesn't exist, only microevolution. I present experimental evidence of microevolution and give a physical and mathematical explanation of how it works. And challenge believers in macroevolution to present experimental evidence of this process and give their explanation of how it works. No experimental evidence of macroevolution has been presented.

Except that macrovolution is the emergence of a new species of animal. We have seen that happen. How do you explain that?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Alan gives me way too much credit but I admit that I am not worthy of it.

Sorry Hans, I thought Frank was going to give you that verbal explanation of microevolutionary adaptation to two simultaneous selection pressures. I guess you will have to study the math instead if you want to understand how evolutionary adaptation works under those circumstances. It's not quite as trivial as the single selection pressure situation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry Hans, I thought Frank was going to give you that verbal explanation of microevolutionary adaptation to two simultaneous selection pressures. I guess you will have to study the math instead if you want to understand how evolutionary adaptation works under those circumstances. It's not quite as trivial as the single selection pressure situation.

Only two selection pressures?

I think you read too much into these very controlled and regulated experiments done with bacteria. They are a far cry from selection pressures in the wild.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I am not going to touch the other bit because... wow, you are not good teacher, Alan. Not good at all. That was just a word salad.

The problem is that biologists don't get the correct prerequisite training. It takes more training in physics and mathematics than biologists get in their curriculum.

Do you understand that physics is a whole different subset of science to biology, right? Like, if you want to link physics to biology, you would have to do a massive unified theory of physics and biology. All you seem to be doing is just going "Well... physics!" and leaving at that.

Wow! What part of the science of biology is not physics?

But why? Why isn't it that lots of microvolutionary stages can add up to one bit macroevolutionary stage and create a new species of animal?

Warden, this is a common mathematical blunder made by believers in macroevolution. Microevolutionary adaptation steps (mutations) are random events. The joint probability of random events occurring is not computed by addition, it is computed by multiplying the probability of the individual events occurring.

Do you even understand that evolutionary adaptation is a different physical phenomenon from evolutionary competition?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem is that biologists don't get the correct prerequisite training. It takes more training in physics and mathematics than biologists get in their curriculum.

And the way you presented it was just non-readable. I could not make heads nor tails of it.

Wow! What part of the science of biology is not physics?

The part where the focus is purely on biological systems.

Warden, this is a common mathematical blunder made by believers in macroevolution. Microevolutionary adaptation steps (mutations) are random events. The joint probability of random events occurring is not computed by addition, it is computed by multiplying the probability of the individual events occurring.

Do you even understand that evolutionary adaptation is a different physical phenomenon from evolutionary competition?

But why can't numerous microevolutionary steps combine together to create an example of macroevolution? Why?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Only two selection pressures?

Feel free to do 3 or more, I've already done the math.

I think you read too much into these very controlled and regulated experiments done with bacteria. They are a far cry from selection pressures in the wild.

Well, that explains why 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's doesn't mean that the remaining 1% of reptiles and fish evolve into birds and mammals. But if you think you can get an unregulated and uncontrolled experiment to demonstrate that adaptive evolution works more effectively than in a controlled and regulated environment, post the experimental evidence. Perhaps if Lenski put his bacteria under varying thermal and osmotic stress as well as starvation pressure they will evolve more quickly than just their adaptation to starvation?

 

[Frank Robert]

Why not? Frank claims he knows something about microevolution.

Did I really do that?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And the way you presented it was just non-readable. I could not make heads nor tails of it.

Let's do one line at a time.
1. It takes energy to replicate. For example, in the Lenski experiment, that energy is glucose. Any question, disagreement, or confusion?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Did I really do that?

Frank never claimed he has a good memory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's do one line at a time.
1. It takes energy to replicate. For example, in the Lenski experiment, that energy is glucose. Any question, disagreement, or confusion?

Glucose is a source of energy not the energy.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But why can't numerous microevolutionary steps combine together to create an example of macroevolution? Why?

They can but because of the multiplication rule, it requires a large number of replications for each adaptive step. For a single selection pressure evolutionary trajectory and a mutation rate of 1e-9, each adaptive (mutation) step will take about a billion replications.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They can but because of the multiplication rule, it requires a large number of replications for each adaptive step. For a single selection pressure evolutionary trajectory and a mutation rate of 1e-9, each adaptive (mutation) step will take about a billion replications.

So why isn't that possible? If we take every species that has existed, including those that have gone extinct, as being actual real world examples of macroevolutionary changes in organisms, than that means, ipso facto, that macroevolution is correct and factual.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Glucose is a source of energy not the energy.

OK, point taken. But you do agree that it takes energy to replicate? If so, point 2.
2. The carrying capacity of the environment is the available energy for the survival and replication of the population. Again, for example, in the Lenski experiment, he provides enough glucose on a daily basis to increase his population from 5 million to 500,000,000.
Agree, disagree, confusion?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, point taken. But you do agree that it takes energy to replicate? If so, point 2.
2. The carrying capacity of the environment is the available energy for the survival and replication of the population. Again, for example, in the Lenski experiment, he provides enough glucose on a daily basis to increase his population from 5 million to 500,000,000.
Agree, disagree, confusion?

Okay, going forward: no more Lenski. No more Kishony. I am just sick and tired of seeing your personal Don Quixote-esque vendetta against them. It's getting annoying that every second post, you name drop them.

But yes, I agree with that statement.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank never claimed he has a good memory.

You're right. You win the grand prize.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So why isn't that possible? If we take every species that has existed, including those that have gone extinct, as being actual real world examples of macroevolutionary changes in organisms, than that means, ipso facto, that macroevolution is correct and factual.

That number of 1 billion replications for each adaptive step is for the ideal case of adaptation to a single selection pressure at a time. If the population is to adapt to just two selection pressures at a time, the number of replications when the mutation rate is 1e-9 goes to a trillion replications for each adaptive step. If a population must adapt to 3 selection pressures at a time, the number of replications for each adaptive step goes to about 1e15 replications. This is why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. It takes massive population sizes for these variants to have a reasonable probability of appearing. Certainly, human population sizes have not achieved the levels necessary to do any significant adaptive evolution to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.