Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

In a manner of speaking. I'm asking if you would consider that a form of "microevolution". Yes or no?

Sure! In fact, the Kishony team posted a video where they superimpose a drawing of a phylogenetic tree on their experiment.
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)
Each new branch on that tree requires about a billion replications. The tree is drawn in at about 1:40 of the video.

Note that there are many other mutant variants in these populations but these mutants don't have adaptive mutations so they can be distinguished from other drug-sensitive variants in the populations.

 

[pitabread]

Sure! In fact, the Kishony team posted a video where they superimpose a drawing of a phylogenetic tree on their experiment.

So to confirm, you would consider laboratory experiments involving speciation and formation of distinct breeding populations to be a form of microevolution.

Then my question is what is the biological difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Do you think macroevolution would require a different process?

 

[Job 33:6]

You are the one who introduced the word "goal"! I prefer the word "adaptation". What is the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring? Do that math correctly and you can predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I'll even give you a hint, start with the definition of the mutation rate for a single replication.

I'm curious about this, so if hundreds of adaptive mutations have been occurred in the lenski experiments in the course of billions of total mutations observed, could our probability of an adaptive mutations be something like 100/50,000,000,000? Or 1/500,000,000 for the populations of ecoli in the experiments?

This would make sense to me.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Out of curiosity, do you believe the conditions of the Kishony experiment are reflective of the process of evolution, biological organisms and ecosystems as a whole?

The Kishony (and the Lenski) experiments are controlled single selection pressure experiments. These types of environments allow for the most rapid DNA evolutionary processes possible. The carrying capacity of the Lenski experiment is far smaller than the Kishony experiment and therefore causes competition between the different variants slowing the adaptation process. Attempts to perform these experiments with two or more simultaneous selection conditions would markedly slow these experiments or more likely cause them to fail. These experiments are being run under ideal conditions, unlike real ecosystems which have multiple simultaneous selection conditions acting on the populations.

 

[pitabread]

The Kishony (and the Lenski) experiments are controlled single selection pressure experiments. These types of environments allow for the most rapid DNA evolutionary processes possible. The carrying capacity of the Lenski experiment is far smaller than the Kishony experiment and therefore causes competition between the different variants slowing the adaptation process. Attempts to perform these experiments with two or more simultaneous selection conditions would markedly slow these experiments or more likely cause them to fail. These experiments are being run under ideal conditions, unlike real ecosystems which have multiple simultaneous selection conditions acting on the populations.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Phred]

I usually find that whenever someone namedrops like this. Well, they're usually attempting to intimidate others. What I see is a rather skilled kid who didn't actually read the book assigned for homework.

So you can start posting your equations and the explanations behind them. Or you can hush up. But the constant questioning as if you're so intelligent you just can't bear to get down on our level... it's really too much. I've run into far too many of you far too often.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Out of curiosity, do you believe the conditions of the Kishony experiment are reflective of the process of evolution, biological organisms and ecosystems as a whole?

The Kishony experiment is performed under ideal conditions allowing for the most rapid adaptive evolutionary process. If the experiment were performed including, for example, thermal stress, starvation, multiple antibiotics,..., this experiment would evolve much more slowly or not at all.

 

[pitabread]

Put up or shut up.

If you want to see where all this is going, I'd suggest reading this thread on Peaceful Science: Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution

For further reference: Does neutral evolution explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm curious about this, so if hundreds of adaptive mutations have been occurred in the lenski experiments in the course of billions of total mutations observed, could our probability of an adaptive mutations be something like 100/50,000,000,000? Or 1/500,000,000 for the populations of ecoli in the experiments?

This would make sense to me.

I haven't done this part of the math but an adaptive mutation rate of 2e-9 should put you in the ballpark. The take-home lesson here is that it takes a lot of replications for adaptive mutations to occur and that just for a single selection-pressure evolutionary process.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'll take that as a "no".

That's right, these experiments are much more evolution-friendly than non-laboratory environments. This explains why 99% of all species have gone extinct.

 

[pitabread]

That's right, these experiments are much more evolution-friendly than non-laboratory environments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution-friendly"? Keeping in mind that evolution (per modern evolutionary theory) involves a lot more than just natural selection.

 

[Job 33:6]

I haven't done this part of the math but an adaptive mutation rate of 2e-9 should put you in the ballpark. The take-home lesson here is that it takes a lot of replications for adaptive mutations to occur and that just for a single selection-pressure evolutionary process.

Here is a statement from wiki that reflects what I recall reading of the articles some years ago:

"Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population,"

So if we guessed 15/500,000,000, that's 1/33,000,000 mutations being adaptive. With each generation yielding hundreds of millions of mutations.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I usually find that whenever someone namedrops like this. Well, they're usually attempting to intimidate others. What I see is a rather skilled kid who didn't actually read the book assigned for homework.

So you can start posting your equations and the explanations behind them. Or you can hush up. But the constant questioning as if you're so intelligent you just can't bear to get down on our level... it's really too much. I've run into far too many of you far too often.

Put up or shut up.

Here's how you do the math for a single selection pressure adaptive evolutionary process:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics used here is a straightforward application of the "at least one rule" from probability theory. Each adaptive evolutionary step is a binomial probability problem, does the adaptive (beneficial) mutation occur or does it not occur. And each binomial probability problem is linked to the other binomial probability problems by the multiplication rule.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your analogy is not correct. Drops add up to fill the test tube. Microevolutionary steps don't add, they are random occurrences. You must calculate the joint occurrences of microevolutionary changes by multiplication of their probabilities of occurrence.

Since this reflects a total misunderstanding of what evolutionary change is, the onus is on you to state why you think that it is so. Otherwise it is above my pay grade to figure out the nature of your bizarre understanding of evolution. No version I can think of would fit your assertion. (And I have a fertile imagination.)

 

[Alan Kleinman]

If you want to see where all this is going, I'd suggest reading this thread on Peaceful Science: Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution

For further reference: Does neutral evolution explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees

These are not the same discussions. Joshua Swamidass claimed that you can explain the genetic differences between humans and chimps using neutral evolution. The problem with that argument is that there are 7 billion humans and only 300,000 chimps. Neutral evolution implies no change in reproductive fitness. The numbers say otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

These are not the same discussions.

I know, just pointing to discussions you've had on forums so folks here can get some context for where the discussion here may go.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Here is a statement from wiki that reflects what I recall reading of the articles some years ago:

"Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population,"

So if we guessed 15/500,000,000, that's 1/33,000,000 mutations being adaptive. With each generation yielding hundreds of millions of mutations.

I don't think there were hundreds of millions of mutations every generation in the Lenski experiment. Start with the mutation rate, get the genome length, and multiply by the number of replications each generation. He starts with 5,000,000 bacteria at the beginning of each day, and has about 6 1/2 doublings each day to give a population size of 500,000,000, then bottlenecks his population back to 5,000,000 for the next day.

 

[Frank Robert]

Identify the specific genetic changes in your reference on algae evolution. I read your link and they don't identify those mutations.

I am not an expert but here is a recent video with
Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Dan Cardinale (Microevolution vs Macroevolution)

You do not need to watch the whole video, just bring up the transcript and search on the key words.

And do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly if you think I've done it incorrectly. The math I've presented predicted very accurately the behavior of the Kishony Mega-Plate experiment before he performed his experiment and it also simulates and predicts the behavior of the Lenski experiment and explains why the Kishony experiment will not work with 2 drugs in his experimental apparatus.

None of your experts correctly explain either experiment.

You were given an opportunity to test out your math and discuss it with experts in the field at Peaceful Science, you didn't take it. I am not an expert but would find a discussion between you and other qualified scientists informative. My expertise is in Addiction Psychology which I would be happy to discuss.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution-friendly"? Keeping in mind that evolution (per modern evolutionary theory) involves a lot more than just natural selection.

What I mean by evolution-friendly is the most ideal environment for an evolutionary process to occur. There are many ways to slow adaptive evolution. And do you understand the difference between natural selection in the context of adaptation and natural selection in the context of adaptation?

 

[Frank Robert]

Define speciation.

You need to first define species otherwise you will continue to move the goal posts.