Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Hans Blaster]

Then it should be clear. You can't reconcile a macroevolutionary model with the multiplication rule when it is the multiplication rule that is the dominant governing mathematical principle of adaptive evolution.

You macroevolutionists say there are these multiple lines of evidence but when I ask you to give what you think is your best line of evidence, you don't give it. All your lines start with the presumption that common descent is true. So give me a rational explanation of how a reptile lineage can transform into a bird lineage. I'll even make it easy for you. Tell us what the selection pressure is that would transform a non-feather producer into a feather producer. What proteins need to evolve, what genetic control system turns those proteins on and off in the stem cell to grow the correct feather in the correct anatomic position.

I'm not an "evolutoinist" of the micro or macro variety, or any other variety.

I don't know why you can't google about evolution of feathers. There is a lot of stuff available. Here's a taste:

The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils

Evolution of Feathers

How dinosaur scales became bird feathers

Feather evolution

The Early Origin of Feathers - PubMed

Journal articles and review, popular science sites, academic course pages, etc.

If you really cared to know you'd look yourself. Instead you want to pretend feather evolution was unlikely or impossible.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Also worth noting is claims of the "waiting time" problem (which really is what your argument boils down to) have been around for over 60 years. Yet evolutionary biology keeps trucking along.

Did you ever hear the joke about the guy that fell off the ten-story building? As he's going past the fifth-floor window, an observer yelled out, "how are you doing?" The guy responds "so far, so good".

And it's not the demise of evolution, it's the demise of macroevolution, but it won't completely disappear, you will have an office right next door to the flat-earth society.

I don't recall specifically asking for your participation.

Who did you expect? You really didn't expect some macroevolutionist to explain microevolution, did you?

 

[pitabread]

And it's not the demise of evolution, it's the demise of macroevolution, but it won't completely disappear, you will have an office right next door to the flat-earth society.

More bluster. 100+ years of creationists fighting common descent and what has it got them?

(Besides a couple theme parks in Kentucky.)

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not an "evolutoinist" of the micro or macro variety, or any other variety.

I don't know why you can't google about evolution of feathers. There is a lot of stuff available. Here's a taste:

The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils

Evolution of Feathers

How dinosaur scales became bird feathers

Feather evolution

The Early Origin of Feathers - PubMed

Journal articles and review, popular science sites, academic course pages, etc.

If you really cared to know you'd look yourself. Instead you want to pretend feather evolution was unlikely or impossible.

I've spent years reading these papers. I've only seen one or two where they actually try to identify the genes and mutations required. But then you also have to identify the control modules (the non-coding portion of the genome that turns on and off the coding portions) which represents a much greater portion of the genome. Do you have any idea how little of the genome is made up of genes that code for proteins? Most of the genome is the control system for the differentiation of the stem cell. You should do a literature search on the subject.

Do you know what the loop of Henle is? The birds have it, reptiles don't. Feathers are just the beginning of the genetic transformational problem for the reptiles to birds story. Check out the differences in the circulatory and respiratory systems between birds and reptiles.

So don't just post some silly links, do some actual homework. Learn that the non-coding portion of DNA is not junk DNA.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

More bluster. 100+ years of creationists fighting common descent and where has it got them?

(Besides a couple theme parks in Kentucky.)

The difference now is that we have the correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation and the effects of the multiplication rule on that process. Macroevolutionists have their heels dug in but that won't be enough. The people that accept these mathematical and experimental facts of life are the ones that will make headway against the problems of the evolution of drug resistance and develop better cancer treatments. Others dealing with these problems using the training they get from macroevolutionists will just muddle along.

And I get it, the macroevolutionist theme park is Jurassic World, that's where macroevolution, multi-million-year-old soft tissue, junk DNA, and abiogenesis are scientific facts. I keep telling you, biologists really want to be science fiction writers.

 

[pitabread]

The people that accept these mathematical and experimental facts of life are the ones that will make headway against the problems of the evolution of drug resistance and develop better cancer treatments. Others dealing with these problems using the training they get from macroevolutionists will just muddle along.

Once again you keep projecting this strawman dichotomy.

That you don't even seem willing to acknowledge the reality of modern biology is not helping your position here.

I keep telling you, biologists really want to be science fiction writers.

You're projecting again.

It really is amazing that after all the bluster, everything you've written comes down to bog standard creationist arguments, the creation of imaginary villains and the same tired claims about the demise of evolution aaaaaany day now.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Once again you keep projecting this strawman dichotomy.

That you don't even seem willing to acknowledge the reality of modern biology is not helping your position here.

What reality of modern biology? You can't even explain the physics and mathematics of recent evolutionary experiments.

You're projecting again.

It really is amazing that after all the bluster, everything you've written comes down to bog standard creationist arguments, the creation of imaginary villains and the same tired claims over and over.

We are still waiting for you to post your mathematical model of macroevolution. Perhaps you want to use Yttrium's model? There's a whole lotta evolution going on out there. I think Yttrium was your math instructor for your dumbbell math course.

 

[pitabread]

What reality of modern biology? You can't even explain the physics and mathematics of recent evolutionary experiments.

We are still waiting for you to post your mathematical model of macroevolution. Perhaps you want to use Yttrium's model? There's a whole lotta evolution going on out there. I think Yttrium was your math instructor for your dumbbell math course.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've spent years reading these papers. I've only seen one or two where they actually try to identify the genes and mutations required. But then you also have to identify the control modules (the non-coding portion of the genome that turns on and off the coding portions) which represents a much greater portion of the genome. Do you have any idea how little of the genome is made up of genes that code for proteins? Most of the genome is the control system for the differentiation of the stem cell. You should do a literature search on the subject.

Do you know what the loop of Henle is? The birds have it, reptiles don't. Feathers are just the beginning of the genetic transformational problem for the reptiles to birds story. Check out the differences in the circulatory and respiratory systems between birds and reptiles.

So don't just post some silly links, do some actual homework. Learn that the non-coding portion of DNA is not junk DNA.

You keep asking these questions like you are completely ignorant, so I thought you might need some help. That's why I found those links for you. (And perhaps others might be interested in as well. I might even read some of them if I have time.)

The actual experts on these topics don't quite see things the way you do. I'm frankly not worried that they are grossly ignorant about their own field.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I keep telling you, biologists really want to be science fiction writers. Pita responds to my request for a mathematical model of macroevolution with a picture of an actor.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You keep asking these questions like you are completely ignorant, so I thought you might need some help. That's why I found those links for you. (And perhaps others might be interested in as well. I might even read some of them if I have time.)

You are the one whose research on this subject is superficial. I've already asked myself the question of what it would take to do a genetic transformation of a reptile into a bird. I've looked at what the differences are not just in scales and feathers but the physiologic differences in the respiratory, circulatory, excretory, musculo-skeletal systems, metabolism,... You really haven't put much thought into the subject.

While you are at it, why don't you do a little study on the degradation of polypeptides and the experimental measurements of the half-lives of these molecules under various circumstances. Then you might have the slightest inkling why the idea of multi-million-year-old extant soft tissues in a dinosaur fossil is really pretty stupid.

The actual experts on these topics don't quite see things the way you do. I'm frankly not worried that they are grossly ignorant about their own field.

Do you mean those actual experts that can't explain the simplest examples of microevolutionary adaptation and that don't understand that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process? Macroevolution, abiogenesis, multi-million-year-old soft tissue, junk DNA, that's what you get out of your so-called experts. Hans, you are really gullible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

While you are at it, why don't you do a little study on the degradation of polypeptides and the experimental measurements of the half-lives of these molecules under various circumstances. Then you might have the slightest inkling why the idea of multi-million-year-old extant soft tissues in a dinosaur fossil is really pretty stupid.

I'm not a chemist. What good would it do for me to tinker in their field?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not a chemist. What good would it do for me to tinker in their field?

You might actually learn something. Do you even understand why they put code dates on food? Maybe your problem isn't gullibility.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might actually learn something. Do you even understand why they put code dates on food? Maybe your problem isn't gullibility.

You think something would be gained by me doing experiments?

 

[Yttrium]

.

By the way, Alan, does your "math" on mutations only include point mutations? There's a good variety of types of mutations that can happen to a genome, especially where macroevolution is concerned. I was just wondering. It's not really important, considering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then it should be clear. You can't reconcile a macroevolutionary model with the multiplication rule when it is the multiplication rule that is the dominant governing mathematical principle of adaptive evolution.

Like I said, the macroevolutionary model works. It was proposed, tested, and verified long before the molecular mechanisms underlying it were discovered. So your argument is with population geneticists over the molecular mechanism(s). They think their version works, as it has been tested, verified, and makes fruitful predictions. There are probably a few outstanding problems or puzzles - maybe you could find out what they are and sort them out.

You macroevolutionists say there are these multiple lines of evidence but when I ask you to give what you think is your best line of evidence, you don't give it. All your lines start with the presumption that common descent is true.

No, common descent is an inference from the evidence - again made, tested, and verified long before the molecular biology that enabled its precise mapping (give or take) was discovered.

There have been several postings of the various lines of evidence for macroevolution - the genetic evidence is generally thought to be strongest, the nested pattern of relationships between genomes is characteristic of common descent, and the matching patterns of ERVs are confirmatory. But, as I said, that's a confirmation of a pre-existing theory.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You think something would be gained by me doing experiments?

Hans, there is more than enough experimental data available to understand the mathematical behavior of microevolution. Consider why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment. Some founder bacterium is introduced into the drug-free region. That founder doubles and those offspring redoubles and on and on. Each one of the replications is a random trial for a mutation to occur at every site in the genome from the original founder of that population. If the mutation rate is 1e-9, it takes about 1e9 replications for that population to have tested for a mutation at every possible site in the genome. It takes about 4e9 replications to test for every possible base substitution. If a single adaptive mutation exists anywhere in that set of all possible base substitutions, it will have occurred at least once in the 4e9 replications that have occurred in that population.

So now there is a new variant with an adaptive mutation that enables it to grow in the next higher drug concentration region. That new variant must again sample from every possible base substitution by doing 4e9 replications for the next adaptive mutation. It works the same way in the Lenski experiment. The Lenski experiment has a mixture of variants with different relative fitnesses in competition for a limited amount of energy. The most fit variant must still do 4e9 replications to test for all possible base substitutions for the next adaptive mutation but the rate at which those replications accumulate is slowed because the less fit variants are consuming the energy the most fit could use to replicate. The most fit variant must drive to extinction the less fit variants so that variant can achieve the number of replications necessary to test for all possible base substitutions.

What happens if there is no single adaptive mutation when all possibilities are tested? Let's say it takes 2 mutations to give a new variant with improved fitness. There are many, many more combinations of 2 different mutations in a genome. The reason why Kishony's experiment doesn't work with two drugs (or a single drug where the step increase in drug concentration is too large) is that it takes a vastly larger colony to test for all possible combinations of 2 mutations. I show how to do the mathematics in my paper on simultaneous selection pressures.

These principles apply to any genome. If you want an empirical example for a diploid (or even polyploid) replicator that does sexual reproduction, study the literature on the use of combination herbicides to suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

So, Hans, you don't need to do any experimentation. The data is already out there and now you have the mathematical explanation of the data, as trivial as it is.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

By the way, Alan, does your "math" on mutations only include point mutations? There's a good variety of types of mutations that can happen to a genome, especially where macroevolution is concerned. I was just wondering. It's not really important, considering.

Yes, my math considers any possible kind of mutation. Go back and read this paper:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Equation (1) shows how you address the different possible types of mutations that might occur.

Yttrium, you need to understand that there are 2 different random trials occurring in the microevolutionary adaptive process. One of the random trials is the replication where there are two possible outcomes, does a mutation occur at the given site or does the mutation not occur at the given site. The other random trial is the mutation itself. When a mutation does occur, I list the possible outcomes for that random trial in equation (1).

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Like I said, the macroevolutionary model works. It was proposed, tested, and verified long before the molecular mechanisms underlying it were discovered. So your argument is with population geneticists over the molecular mechanism(s). They think their version works, as it has been tested, verified, and makes fruitful predictions. There are probably a few outstanding problems or puzzles - maybe you could find out what they are and sort them out.

Present the tests performed to test your macroevolutionary model.

No, common descent is an inference from the evidence - again made, tested, and verified long before the molecular biology that enabled its precise mapping (give or take) was discovered.

The only evidence you have for common descent is the misinterpretation of the fossil record. You cannot explain using gross anatomy what happens on a molecular level.

There have been several postings of the various lines of evidence for macroevolution - the genetic evidence is generally thought to be strongest, the nested pattern of relationships between genomes is characteristic of common descent, and the matching patterns of ERVs are confirmatory. But, as I said, that's a confirmation of a pre-existing theory.

You have to cherry-pick tiny pieces of the genome between different taxonomic groups to find these genetic similarities and ignore all the genetic differences which are much larger than the similarities. That is a statistical mathematical blunder. If you want to determine the relatedness of different taxonomic groups, you have to sample randomly from the different genomes to see if there is any kind of match.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans, there is more than enough experimental data available to understand the mathematical behavior of microevolution. Consider why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment. Some founder bacterium is introduced into the drug-free region. That founder doubles and those offspring redoubles and on and on. Each one of the replications is a random trial for a mutation to occur at every site in the genome from the original founder of that population. If the mutation rate is 1e-9, it takes about 1e9 replications for that population to have tested for a mutation at every possible site in the genome. It takes about 4e9 replications to test for every possible base substitution. If a single adaptive mutation exists anywhere in that set of all possible base substitutions, it will have occurred at least once in the 4e9 replications that have occurred in that population.

So now there is a new variant with an adaptive mutation that enables it to grow in the next higher drug concentration region. That new variant must again sample from every possible base substitution by doing 4e9 replications for the next adaptive mutation. It works the same way in the Lenski experiment. The Lenski experiment has a mixture of variants with different relative fitnesses in competition for a limited amount of energy. The most fit variant must still do 4e9 replications to test for all possible base substitutions for the next adaptive mutation but the rate at which those replications accumulate is slowed because the less fit variants are consuming the energy the most fit could use to replicate. The most fit variant must drive to extinction the less fit variants so that variant can achieve the number of replications necessary to test for all possible base substitutions.

What happens if there is no single adaptive mutation when all possibilities are tested? Let's say it takes 2 mutations to give a new variant with improved fitness. There are many, many more combinations of 2 different mutations in a genome. The reason why Kishony's experiment doesn't work with two drugs (or a single drug where the step increase in drug concentration is too large) is that it takes a vastly larger colony to test for all possible combinations of 2 mutations. I show how to do the mathematics in my paper on simultaneous selection pressures.

These principles apply to any genome. If you want an empirical example for a diploid (or even polyploid) replicator that does sexual reproduction, study the literature on the use of combination herbicides to suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

So, Hans, you don't need to do any experimentation. The data is already out there and now you have the mathematical explanation of the data, as trivial as it is.

Wait, I thought you wanted me to go out an do my own work on protein decay, now you beating your old, dead horse again on you math about genetics. Pick a lane.