Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

It is just the engineers argument that because the specific set of mutations that occurred in a given pathway was of low probability then evolution cannot work. It relies on the idea that there is only one way for anything to work, which obviously isn't terribly relevant to how evolution works.

That's how adaptive evolution works. Read this paper and understand why.
Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins

Perhaps you think neutral evolution is the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. Strange logic you macroevolutionists have.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So take it up with them. Don't complain to me about it.

I've tried, your so-called experts say it would take too long.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Look, what you have basically done is modelled a very small portion of a very large space with a linear equation. And like modelling an exponential curve over a short segment, you get apparent agreement. You then try to extrapolate this to the whole curve and deny the observed curve because it doesn't fit your extrapolation. All this says is that while your argument might even be useful for quick calculations in some spaces, it is not a useful description of the whole situation.
Your tangential argument is irrelevant which is why it gains no traction since it just leads to the unobserved.

DNA microevolution is a highly nonlinear process. There is not a direct proportionality between the probability of adaptation and the number of selection conditions. Equation (11) from this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
gives the relationship between the probabilities and population sizes required for adaptation. Figures 2, 3, and 5 give the plots of these probabilities for 1, 2, and 3 selection pressures. Even HIV if the mutation rate is 1e-5 will require a population size of about 1e15 to give a probability of 0.5 of that adaptive step occurring.

DNA is DNA, DNA microevolution and adaptation work the same way for bacteria as any other creature.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I've tried, your so-called experts say it would take too long.

Funny x 1

I am not going to do some long study of the LTEE

 

[tas8831]

Well in this case he's not even submitting to those journals in the first place. It seems doubly strange to complain about said journals not publishing work that they aren't receiving to begin with. :/

Interesting.

Just like the comments here...

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That's how adaptive evolution works. Read this paper and understand why.
Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins

Perhaps you think neutral evolution is the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. Strange logic you macroevolutionists have.

Yup, as I said, over short segments, a linear approximation may be useful, but I don't see them concluding as you do that this means that macro-evolution is not possible.

 

[tas8831]

If Lenski's team understood the physics and mathematics of their own experiment

When all you have is a hammer...

 

[tas8831]

Yup, as I said, over short segments, a linear approximation may be useful, but I don't see them concluding as you do that this means that macro-evolution is not possible.

Does he even know what macroevolution is?

 

[tas8831]

Believers in macroevolution

Define macroevolution as you understand it. Because from what I've read, you seem to think it is something other than what evolution posits.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps you think neutral evolution is the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. Strange logic you macroevolutionists have.

Then how did such lineages evolve over time?

Or are you proposing something entirely different than evolution? If you have an alternative mechanism, what is it?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

DNA microevolution is a highly nonlinear process. There is not a direct proportionality between the probability of adaptation and the number of selection conditions. Equation (11) from this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
gives the relationship between the probabilities and population sizes required for adaptation. Figures 2, 3, and 5 give the plots of these probabilities for 1, 2, and 3 selection pressures. Even HIV if the mutation rate is 1e-5 will require a population size of about 1e15 to give a probability of 0.5 of that adaptive step occurring.

DNA is DNA, DNA microevolution and adaptation work the same way for bacteria as any other creature.

Sorry first of all, multi drug therapies are common and understood. Why do you think they call HIV therapies cocktails? Further, whoosh, my reference to linear approximation of an exponential curve is only to demonstrate the dangers of unwarranted extrapolation.

 

[pitabread]

Sorry first of all, multi drug therapies are common and understood. Why do you think they call HIV therapies cocktails?

And FWIW, this is literally discussed in the first chapter of the evolution textbook, Evolutionary Analysis.

Which makes his complaining that evolutionary biologists don't appear to understand this all the more perplexing. :/

 

[tas8831]

Still no links for the correct mathematical explanation of the microevolution of drug resistance from your "on topic" journals. How said for those people suffering from sepsis and pneumonia.

And still no evidence regarding the application of physics and mathematics to the existence of the Yahweh.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Does he even know what macroevolution is?

That which is highly improbable by dint of his calculations.
He's smarter than us because not only does he not play lotteries, he knows that no one ever wins one.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yup, as I said, over short segments, a linear approximation may be useful, but I don't see them concluding as you do that this means that macro-evolution is not possible.

Linear equation - Wikipedia

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And FWIW, this is literally discussed in the first chapter of the evolution textbook, Evolutionary Analysis.

Which makes his complaining that evolutionary biologists don't appear to understand this all the more perplexing. :/

Why don't you post the mathematics from your reference?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That which is highly improbable by dint of his calculations.
He's smarter than us because not only does he not play lotteries, he knows that no one ever wins one.

The probability that someone will win the lottery is good if enough tickets are sold. What about someone winning 2 lotteries? How many tickets do you have to sell for there to be a reasonable probability of that happening?

 

[Phred]

Still haven't explained the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Comon, I really want to know.

 

[pitabread]

Why don't you post the mathematics from your reference?

If you're interested, you can always look it up: Herron & Freeman, Evolutionary Analysis, 5th Edition

I'm not looking to debate the contents of the textbook though. You can take that with its authors.

 

[pitabread]

Interesting.

Just like the comments here...

What even was that?

It's one thing to inject into a thread that at least is semi-relevant, but to start babbling about Lenski and Kishony in a post about a web site update? Yeesh.