Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Hans Blaster]

And you do not have the population sizes necessary for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor. Only about 100 billion humans have existed in all time and 99% in the last 10,000 years. That gives a population size for adaptive evolution of a lineage to accumulate about 5 adaptive mutations, and that under ideal circumstances. So, what are the 5 magical mutations that give humans the intellect to do industrial farming, produce aircraft, make computers,... and chimps only able to gather ants and termites with a stick for food?

Really?

Lactase persistence has evolved several time on its own in that period, or rather the last 100,000 years (and probably much less).

I think your adaptive mutation rate is a bit low.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It's basically just the "waiting time" problem. I think he even mentioned Haldane earlier in this thread.

Which IIRC hasn't been a problem for evolution and common ancestry since the 1960's?

Thanks, I just learned a bunch more stuff between you and google. Now I have a better understanding of why he is wrong with my 8th grade biology. Will keep reading.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Your question appears to be poorly formed. You have a phrase in it that indicates you do not understand what you are arguing about. What do you mean by the phrase "joint probability of adaptive mutations"? It appears by that question that you think that there is a goal to evolution.

You use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Really?

Lactase persistence has evolved several time on its own in that period, or rather the last 100,000 years (and probably much less).

I think your adaptive mutation rate is a bit low.

The adaptive mutation rate is lower than the mutation rate for any possible mutation. And please identify the specific mutations which give lactase persistence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The adaptive mutation rate is lower than the mutation rate for any possible mutation. And please identify the specific mutations which give lactase persistence.

There are several of them, arising in different populations. I'm sure if the specific mutations actually mattered to you that you could find them yourself.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Thanks, I just learned a bunch more stuff between you and google. Now I have a better understanding of why he is wrong with my 8th grade biology. Will keep reading.

Did your 8th-grade biology explain to you how DNA adaptive microevolution works? If so, please explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Please show your math, 8th-grade level probability theory will suffice.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There are several of them, arising in different populations. I'm sure if the specific mutations actually mattered to you that you could find them yourself.

Do your own work, if you can. You won't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do your own work, if you can. You won't.

So the specific mutations matter, but *I* have to type them out or they don't count. (Or will you dismiss them after I do type them out as well?)

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).

Yup, this is your problem, you assume that there is only one way to get from an LCA to humans, and while trivially true, it is not what evolution is about. Thus the a priori calculation of our genome from the LCA is no more relevant than a calculation of the names of five sequential winners of a lottery before running it. Your misuse of the word adaptation with all the philosophical baggage you add is your problem. LOL

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Unfortunately your lone paper is not even evidence let alone "proof".

And all the experimental and empirical evidence that verifies this math. You won't find this in your so-called "on topic" journals. Where are the physical and mathematical explanations of the Kishony and Lenski adaptive microevolutionary experiments in the limited journals you read?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).

Nope, you just demonstrated why you failed.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not asking for a scientific answer necessarily.

How do you think species arose if not via evolution?

Don't you know what the name of the thread you started is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And all the experimental and empirical evidence that verifies this math. You won't find this in your so-called "on topic" journals. Where are the physical and mathematical explanations of the Kishony and Lenski adaptive microevolutionary experiments in the limited journals you read?

It does not verify it. All you have is cherry picking. Do you want to know why you do not appear to have any evidence at all?

Tell us what reasonable test, based upon the merits of your idea, could possibly refute your idea.

 

[pitabread]

Don't you know what the name of the thread you started is?

Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

Let's try again.

How do you think species arose if not via evolution (e.g. via common ancestry)?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So the specific mutations matter, but *I* have to type them out or they don't count. (Or will you dismiss them after I do type them out as well?)

If they are adaptive mutations, they matter.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nope, you just demonstrated why you failed.

Only that I've failed to teach introductory probability theory to a believer in macroevolution. My suggestion is don't take up a career as a gambler.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you do not have the population sizes necessary for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor. Only about 100 billion humans have existed in all time and 99% in the last 10,000 years. That gives a population size for adaptive evolution of a lineage to accumulate about 5 adaptive mutations, and that under ideal circumstances. So, what are the 5 magical mutations that give humans the intellect to do industrial farming, produce aircraft, make computers,... and chimps only able to gather ants and termites with a stick for food?

This is a really poor argument.

Your primary contention is that since the split of chimpanzees from humans there should only be about 5 adaptive mutations and that 99% of them should have occurred in the last 10,000 year.

From this you then ask about the "5 magical mutations" that permitted "farming", "aircraft", "computers" when by your own calculations, those mutations would have occurred *after* we developed our mental capacites that differentiate us from chimpanzees.

You should have argued that by your calculations there should have approximately 0 adaptive mutations that allowed humans to develop their special characteristics that permitted our ancestors to expand rapidly in population with the development of agriculture.

I suspect that your "adaptive mutation" rate is garbage, but I leave it to those who know more about genetics to verify this.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Did your 8th-grade biology explain to you how DNA adaptive microevolution works? If so, please explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Please show your math, 8th-grade level probability theory will suffice.

Duh, that is where I agreed with you, in the very limited case where there were only a very few mutations that would immediately provide the necessary adaptation, then your math is possibly relevant, but when you wish to extrapolate this to the scenario where you insist on some undefined number of "adaptive mutations" it quickly becomes evident that you are not actually arguing reality but your wish for something else to define human beings. We are not the goal of evolution, we are just what happened.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It does not verify it. All you have is cherry picking. Do you want to know why you do not appear to have any evidence at all?

Tell us what reasonable test, based upon the merits of your idea, could possibly refute your idea.

Find an experimental or empirical example that contradicts this math. Make sure you can identify the adaptive mutations, population sizes, and mutation rate. You won't find these examples.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If they are adaptive mutations, they matter.

I could list them and summarize them, but that's already been done for me:

Lactase persistence - Wikipedia

[I await the mandatory complaint about citing wikipedia.]