Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Frank Robert]

You think that a colony is bigger than a cell so that's macroevolution. Just another example of a macroevolutionist that can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

It doesn't matter that if it explain K or L. What matters is no one is buying your explanation of K & L.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You are reading it incorrectly. If he had invested all his wins into the next game then he would not have had any money after he won the non-money holidays rather than cash prizes. It is also unlikely that he would win eight straight lotteries.

From the Wikipedia page:

In an interview with ABC News, Lustig explained that his method is to re-invest all of his winnings back into the lottery.[2] He also recommends using hand-picked sequential numbers and using the same numbers repeatedly.

and

[Lustig] never actually comes out and says that he’s a net winner.

You seem to be having some trouble with the English language, here's the definition for the word "all".
Definition of ALL

If you have trouble remembering this definition, you might try taking memory lessons from a chimpanzee.

And by all means, buy his book and get rich.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It doesn't matter that if it explain K or L. What matters is no one is buying your explanation of K & L.

I wouldn't expect someone who buys Lustig's strategy for winning lotteries to buy my explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh really, you mean Swamidass explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You can't explain these experiments either. You just have this confused idea that if a single cell replicator grows into a colony that it is macroevolution. Why don't you identify the genetic differences between the single cell and the members of the colony? How many mutations are required for that to happen? You won't because your example doesn't demonstrate macroevolution. Do you have any idea how microevolution operates? Obviously not.

Yes, they did. Far better than you did. You see they did not make your errors.

And please, quit trying to tell others what they believe. You have no clue. I merely pointed out your errors.

You still have not realized what errors you made and why that makes your "math" worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get it. You think every mutation is an adaptive mutation. No wonder you macroevolutionists can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Nope. I never claimed that or even implied that.

You simply have a strawman version of evolution. It is wrong on so many levels that your model based on it also fails. This is why you would not be able to get your article published at a site where the peers understand how evolution works. You published on a site that was more mathematically oriented.

GIGO. You should remember that.

And remember, you can't "explain" the experiments either. You based your model on a strawman.

 

[Ophiolite]

You seem to be having some trouble with the English language, here's the definition for the word "all".

You seem to be having trouble convincing anyone to take your argument seriously. It is probably to late for this milieu, but the next time you invade a forum why not try being respectful of other members, patient with their disagreement, direct, but polite in your explanations and generally less like a rabid rotweiller with brain damage and more like an informed, thoughtful, open-minded individual.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, they did. Far better than you did. You see they did not make your errors.

And please, quit trying to tell others what they believe. You have no clue. I merely pointed out your errors.

You still have not realized what errors you made and why that makes your "math" worthless.

Macroevolution isn't the only figment of your imagination. Why don't you post the link where Swamidass explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Macroevolution isn't the only figment of your imagination. Why don't you post the link where Swamidass explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You won't.

Sorry, but you appear to have been trolling lately. Until you acknowledge your errors there is no point in posting such links for you. You would simply deny them. You certainly could not refute them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The sickle cell mutation is just an example of an adaptive mutation against malaria. It can be any adaptive mutation for any particular selection pressure. It makes just as much sense as you using a lactase persistence mutation for your example. All adaptive mutations are particular mutations and the joint probability of any two particular adaptive mutations must be computed using the multiplication rule.

In both of these examples only one mutation is needed to gain the benefit. There is no need for a second lactase persistence mutation or any other mutation to make the one lactase persistence mutation useful and for it to promote reproductive advantage.

Why not the parents have lactase persister alleles and the child is born with a mutation that stops lactase persistence?

It's pretty clear that is *not* what happened, that's why. There are multiple lactase persistence mutations each centered in a particular location. Not every human has a lactase persistence mutation and to my understanding they are either rare or non-existent other mammals.

The point you are missing is that you are considering only a single adaptive mutation in a lineage. For that lineage to improve reproductive fitness against the selection conditions of that environment, more adaptive mutations must occur on some member of that variant. If the population size of that variant is small, the probability of another adaptive mutation occurring on some member of that variant population will be small. But as the population grows, that probability improves. The joint probability of additional adaptive mutations is computed by multiplying their individual probabilities. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are, it is a simple binomial probability problem, does the adaptive mutation occur or does it not occur on replication.

Again, the examples I've been working with in this convo are mutations that provide benefit *BY THEMSELVES*. They do not need any other added genetic feature otherwise missing to provide benefit. They will propagate based on their own benefits and drawbacks without any other mutations needed.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nope. I never claimed that or even implied that.

You simply have a strawman version of evolution. It is wrong on so many levels that your model based on it also fails. This is why you would not be able to get your article published at a site where the peers understand how evolution works. You published on a site that was more mathematically oriented.

GIGO. You should remember that.

Sure you did, you said pertaining to a single cell alga growing into a colony which Frank said is an example of macroevolution:

There are no "required mutations".

If no mutations are required for a single cell alga to grow into a colony then it isn't an example of macroevolution. Thank you for supporting my argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This explains why you can't formulate the correct mathematics of evolution.

I'm not trying to formulate a mathematical theory of evolution. I'm just unconvinced that you have beyond a very narrow application.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure you did, you said pertaining to a single cell alga growing into a colony which Frank said is an example of macroevolution:



If no mutations are required for a single cell alga to grow into a colony then it isn't an example of macroevolution. Thank you for supporting my argument.

You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not trying to formulate a mathematical theory of evolution. I'm just unconvinced that you have beyond a very narrow application.

I am beginning to think that it does not work as he claims even for his very narrow application.

 

[Ophiolite]

You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.

That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?

I do not want to speculate. He does have what seems to be a strawman version of evolution at best.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In both of these examples only one mutation is needed to gain the benefit. There is no need for a second lactase persistence mutation or any other mutation to make the one lactase persistence mutation useful and for it to promote reproductive advantage.

That's the point, two or more adaptive mutation imposes one or more instances of the multiplication rule. The point I'm trying to make here is that when more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in a lineage, you have to use the multiplication rule to calculate the probability of those events occurring. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are or the genetic loci affected.

It's pretty clear that is *not* what happened, that's why. There are multiple lactase persistence mutations each centered in a particular location. Not every human has a lactase persistence mutation and to my understanding they are either rare or non-existent other mammals.

"Pretty clear"? So lactase persister parents can't have an offspring that is not a lactase persister? I'm not so sure how rare lactase persistence is in other animals. I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk without a problem. I raise goats and the kids will drink their mothers' milk as long as the mother allows.

Again, the examples I've been working with in this convo are mutations that provide benefit *BY THEMSELVES*. They do not need any other added genetic feature otherwise missing to provide benefit. They will propagate based on their own benefits and drawbacks without any other mutations needed.

A single adaptive mutation is not a joint event, therefore the multiplication rule does not apply. However, a microevolutionary process involving more than a single adaptive mutation does bring into play the multiplication rule because you are now dealing with joint events. These joint events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule where each additional adaptive mutation brings in another instance of the multiplication rule.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.

What's the difference between "do the job" and "required"?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not trying to formulate a mathematical theory of evolution. I'm just unconvinced that you have beyond a very narrow application.

Try and find an empirical example that doesn't demonstrate this mathematical behavior.

 

[pitabread]

That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?

The parallel nature of evolution and recombination are part of what do make the "waiting time" problem a non-issue for evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's the point, two or more adaptive mutation imposes one or more instances of the multiplication rule. The point I'm trying to make here is that when more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in a lineage, you have to use the multiplication rule to calculate the probability of those events occurring. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are or the genetic loci affected.

[SNIPPED to address later]

A single adaptive mutation is not a joint event, therefore the multiplication rule does not apply. However, a microevolutionary process involving more than a single adaptive mutation does bring into play the multiplication rule because you are now dealing with joint events. These joint events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule where each additional adaptive mutation brings in another instance of the multiplication rule.

But I was talking about adaptive mutations that:

* Didn't occur in the same population,
* Don't depend on each other or any other novel genetic form to be beneficial.

If you want to claim that joint probability is necessary they you need to demonstrate that two or more mutations need to be:

* present simultaneously to be useful, and that
* one of them couldn't have spread in a neutral fashion in the population before the second appeared.