Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

Alan Kleinman said:

The Smithsonian is not a reputable source? Is it in the NYT?

Click to expand...

You have a link from either of these sources saying her team found a RBC in a dinosaur fossil?

Alan Kleinman said:

It's ok to make claims, it's not ok to say those claims are scientific facts without repeatable experimental evidence.

Click to expand...

How's this: Black holes are a fact. (Based on the various astronomical observations.) Do you dispute the reality of black holes?

Alan Kleinman said:

I don't question the decay rates, I question the validity of assumed initial conditions. I haven't done any research on this subject but I have heard geologists argue on this point and present contradictory evidence on the measurement of rock ages.

Click to expand...

Well, at least you're not making claims about changing decay rates. As for the rest, the geological and geochemical aspects of rock dating, I'm not the right person to discuss them with, so I leave this portion satisfied.

Alan Kleinman said:

T
OK, so you want to add these probabilities. Let's say the probability of a single change is 0.02, and the next change has a probability of 0.2, and you have a total of a hundred changes, each with a probability of 0.02. Is the total probability 2?

Click to expand...

No, the changes are additive. Probabilities are not applicable.

You have a problem there. The number of replications necessary for that adaptation mutation to occur is also the same number of replications for every other possible mutation to occur on that genome. The bacteria is sampling every possible mutation in the sample space. The environment determines which of all these mutations occurring is the beneficial mutation.

Click to expand...

I don't have any problem. Mutations happen. It doesn't matter which mutations happen.

Mutations become spread around the population. Selection events happen. Changes occur.

Stop pointing at your bacteria case. It doesn't apply to macroevolution.

Hans Blaster said:

You have a link from either of these sources saying her team found a RBC in a dinosaur fossil?

Click to expand...

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Sorry, I said mistakenly said 75 million years, they say the rbc is only 68 million years old.

Hans Blaster said:

How's this: Black holes are a fact. (Based on the various astronomical observations.) Do you dispute the reality of black holes?

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that but if they want to claim that as evidence of macroevolution, I would question the validity of that claim. If a paleontologist wants to claim they found a fossil, fine. But to interpret anatomical and structural differences between different fossils and claim they can explain how biological evolution can work, I don't buy it. They are trying to use gross anatomy to explain what happens on a molecular level.

Hans Blaster said:

Well, at least you're not making claims about changing decay rates. As for the rest, the geological and geochemical aspects of rock dating, I'm not the right person to discuss them with, so I leave this portion satisfied.

Click to expand...

Great!, another satisfied customer.

Alan Kleinman said:

I haven't done any research on this subject but I have heard geologists argue on this point and present contradictory evidence on the measurement of rock ages.

Click to expand...

Point 1: If you have done no research on the subject, which I take to mean that you have not studied it in depth, then how can you evaluate what you take to be contradictory arguments?
Point 2: Did the arguments you heard take place in the literature or the University cafeteria? (Other options are available at your discretion.)
Point 3: Were the disputes over order of magnitude difference in the ages, or something less than that?
Point 4: Please cite at least two examples of such disputes.

Yttrium said:

No, the changes are additive. Probabilities are not applicable.

Click to expand...

Of all the errors that Alan may be making this is the one that, from the outset, I've felt renders all others redundant.

Yttrium said:

No, the changes are additive. Probabilities are not applicable.
...
I don't have any problem. Mutations happen. It doesn't matter which mutations happen.

Mutations become spread around the population. Selection events happen. Changes occur.

Stop pointing at your bacteria case. It doesn't apply to macroevolution.

Click to expand...

The initial conditions assumed in the model, are also a factor not taken into account in Alan K's conclusions.

Alan Kleinman said:

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Sorry, I said mistakenly said 75 million years, they say the rbc is only 68 million years old.

Click to expand...

Collogen and other proteins, residues of hemoglobin, fossilized structures -- these are the things they found. It's a bit subtle, but it wasn't preserved RBCs.

Alan Kleinman said:

I don't dispute that but if they want to claim that as evidence of macroevolution, I would question the validity of that claim. If a paleontologist wants to claim they found a fossil, fine. But to interpret anatomical and structural differences between different fossils and claim they can explain how biological evolution can work, I don't buy it. They are trying to use gross anatomy to explain what happens on a molecular level.

Click to expand...

That's a really odd answer to the question about if you think the claim that black holes are a fact.

SelfSim said:

The initial conditions assumed in the model, are also a factor not taken into account in Alan K's conclusions.

Click to expand...

The initial condition for DNA microevolutionary adaptation is simply the state of the system (population) at the initiation of the evolutionary process. For the Kishony experiment, the initial condition consists of a population of bacteria that are completely susceptible to low concentrations of the antibiotic. For the Lenski experiment, his population consists of a wide variety of variants with varying abilities to use glucose. Lenski's populations were so diverse that there were even drug-resistant variants in the population even though these bacteria had no history of exposure to antibiotics (except perhaps streptomycin) somewhere in the past. Once lineages of bacteria from either experiment started on their particular evolutionary trajectories, each adaptive step (mutation) required about 1/(mutation rate) replications for the given variant on each step.

Hans Blaster said:

Collogen and other proteins, residues of hemoglobin, fossilized structures -- these are the things they found. It's a bit subtle, but it wasn't preserved RBCs.

Click to expand...

68 million years old???? Some people are just too gullible.

Hans Blaster said:

That's a really odd answer to the question about if you think the claim that black holes are a fact.

Click to expand...

You missed my point, they aren't making any ridiculous claim about black holes. For example, it is a scientific fact that life originated in black holes.

Alan Kleinman said:

68 million years old???? Some people are just too gullible.

Click to expand...

Do you challenge the age of the fossil? If so, on what basis. (Incredulity is *not* a basis of challenge.)

Alan Kleinman said:

You missed my point, they aren't making any ridiculous claim about black holes. For example, it is a scientific fact that life originated in black holes.

Click to expand...

Did anyone claim life came from black holes?

Do you think they exists?

Yttrium said:

To a degree, within the bounds of the molecules. Mutations happen. Selection events happen. Allele frequencies in a population change.

The math is simple. I said it before. Changes are additive. A lot of small changes eventually add up to a big change. There's nothing we know of in the DNA that will stop the process.

Probabilities only come into place when you have a desired outcome. If you want a bacteria that's resistant to a certain antibiotic, then the right mutations have to happen. The real world doesn't care about outcomes. Changes happen.

Click to expand...

Which is the gist of his "argument". He is trying to calculate the probability of a specific outcome, in this case the human genome from some ancestor without recognizing that macroevolution doesn't have a target and thus that we exist while being improbable when looking forward is as useless an argument as calculating the specific winner of a lottery while writing the lottery rules.

Alan Kleinman said:

The initial condition for DNA microevolutionary adaptation is simply the state of the system (population) at the initiation of the evolutionary process.

Click to expand...

Noted. Modern DNA is an information rich, template based, error prone, yet high fidelity self-replicating molecule. That's also a very non-trivial part of the initial state of the system.

I think of the creationist probability arguments as the "playing cards fallacy".

I take a deck of 52 cards, thoroughly shuffle them, and then draw one at a time. I end up with a specific sequence of cards. What's the probability of drawing that same sequence again? It's 1/(52*51*50*...*2*1). It's a really small number, approximately 1.24*10^-68. I couldn't have drawn that sequence, the odds are too remote, it's a miracle!

But no, I had to draw something. The probability of drawing some sequence is 1. The probability of evolution coming up with some array of species after several billion years is 1. Didn't matter what the selection of species would be, as far as nature is concerned.

I only mention this because I was wondering if there was already another fallacy that covered my "playing cards fallacy".

Alan Kleinman said:

I don't question the decay rates, I question the validity of assumed initial conditions.

Click to expand...

Detail any specific instance, defining which aspect of the initial conditions you question and why; I shall be happy to address your reservations.

Alan Kleinman said:

Frank, I'm not arguing intelligent design, I'm proposing and arguing the physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation. I've also given you a limit for which microevolutionary adaptation can operate, 3 selection pressures acting at 2 genetic loci simultaneously. The reason being both mathematical, the probability of 3 particular random mutations occurring requires a huge population on the order of 1e15 and the empirical example of the microevolution of HIV to 3 drug therapy.

Click to expand...

I haven't payed attention to your math because it does not put a dent into the overwhelming evidence for evolution which the only way you have of getting around the reality of the evidence is denial. If you don't deal with the existing scientific evidence your sole argument is from improbability which is not science.

Even if this math that I've presented only represents a special case of the evolution of drug resistance, everyone dealing with the problems involving evolving populations should understand this math, especially in medicine and agriculture.

Click to expand...

That is similar to the point that Dr. Swamidass was trying to make. If you believe in your math put it to the test with the stimulation test he suggested. I was looking for the third elephant and you lead me to it.

Alan Kleinman said:

Frum, the mathematical models I use have well-defined variables with specific mathematical relationships between these variables. If you can't define that mathematical relationship specifically, you should try to at least specify your variables, and then you can write out your equation as a functional equation.

So what are the variables for your macroevolution model? Does it include population size or mutation rate?

Click to expand...

The general model is robust enough without a detailed mechanism, but since there is one, check out population genetics. The Wiki article is just an overview, but there's plenty more detailed articles out there, and for a recent book on the subject, check out Templeton's 'Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory'.

Hans Blaster said:

Do you challenge the age of the fossil? If so, on what basis. (Incredulity is *not* a basis of challenge.)

Click to expand...

I've already given you the basis. I gave you two reasons, go back and read my posts more carefully.

Hans Blaster said:

Did anyone claim life came from black holes?

Click to expand...

Not yet. But macroevolutionists claim that life came from a primordial soup, they just won't give us the recipe.

Hans Blaster said:

Do you think they exists?

Click to expand...

Actually, I've never seen one and really know very little about what people say about these things. One of the few things I do hear them say is that the gravitational pull from them is so great that even light can't escape that gravitational pull and they are detected by the behavior of objects around them. Did I get that right?

So, what behavior in the object(s) in this biological world we live in allows us to identify macroevolution? It's easy to identify microevolution.

SelfSim said:

Noted. Modern DNA is an information rich, template based, error prone, yet high fidelity self-replicating molecule. That's also a very non-trivial part of the initial state of the system.

Click to expand...

I agree, that's a good explanation of why microevolution is so arduous a process and why it takes so many replications for each adaptational step. And that's a very good argument against abiogenesis.

Alan Kleinman said:

I've already given you the basis. I gave you two reasons, go back and read my posts more carefully.

Click to expand...

You don't challenge the age of fossils you simplistically deny the evidence. Denying evidence does not make evolution go away.

Not yet. But macroevolutionists claim that life came from a primordial soup, they just won't give us the recipe.

Click to expand...

You do have a knack of making ridiculously false statements.

So, what behavior in the object(s) in this biological world we live in allows us to identify macroevolution? It's easy to identify microevolution.

Click to expand...

Translation. Macroevoluion doesn't exist because no has seen it. Where have we heard that before?

Yttrium said:

I think of the creationist probability arguments as the "playing cards fallacy".

I take a deck of 52 cards, thoroughly shuffle them, and then draw one at a time. I end up with a specific sequence of cards. What's the probability of drawing that same sequence again? It's 1/(52*51*50*...*2*1). It's a really small number, approximately 1.24*10^-68. I couldn't have drawn that sequence, the odds are too remote, it's a miracle!

But no, I had to draw something. The probability of drawing some sequence is 1. The probability of evolution coming up with some array of species after several billion years is 1. Didn't matter what the selection of species would be, as far as nature is concerned.

I only mention this because I was wondering if there was already another fallacy that covered my "playing cards fallacy".

Click to expand...

Yttrium, you are confusing the concept of sampling any sequence (outcome) from a (huge) sample space and sampling a particular sequence (outcome) from that sample space.

In order for natural selection to operate with a variant to give improved fitness, that variant must be able to do about 1/(mutation rate) replications. What that variant is doing is sampling virtually every possible outcome (base substitution) possible in that sample space.

If we put that in terms of your card drawing analogy, draw every possible poker hand possible and natural selection then chooses amongst all these possible draws which is the best hand.