Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That only tells you the odds of the observed mutation occurring. Again, very often multiple mutations would do the same job. You are not calculating the odds of evolution. You are calculating the odds of specific path oh evolution. That is not an explanation.

"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.


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.

And again, you are only calculating the odds of a specific path of evolution. Almost worthless information. You are making the error of assuming a specific goal.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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

You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"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.

I used fuzzy language because I am not an expert on lactose metabolism in mammals, its pattern and distribution among the mammals, or the genetics thereof, and neither are you.

You did say kids, so that still makes them juveniles. I don't know when it is normal for goats to stop producing lactase.

If a population of apes that kept other mammals for food could develop a trait to retain lactose metabolism after infancy, then why couldn't a population of canines or felines that lived with such apes that extracted milk from other animals also have retained a mutation for lactase persistence?

I note that these are presented in the form of exceptions and all occur in populations of mammals that either keep other mammals as a food source or are domesticated by the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Really?

" Required " implies that there is only one solution. You continually appear to think that there is only one possible successful evolutionary pathway.

"Do the job" means that there are countless pathways

A simple analogy: Uber is hiring drivers. They hire Steve Johnson because he has a license and a fairly recent automobile. The odds of hiring Steve Johnson out of thousands of applicants is a bit of a "so what?" since countless others met the qualifications. And not only that, many others were hired too.

What we see in nature are not only solutions to problems, but multiple solutions to almost every problem. Calculating the odds of one particular solution does not tell us much at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.

Lenski already did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk without a problem.

You could try a literature search:

Whole-genome sequencing reveals lactase persistence adaptation in European dogs

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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.

I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.

The common argument is that microevolutionary changes add up to produce a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically and empirically incorrect. Adaptive mutations are random events and the joint probability of these events doesn't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You could try a literature search:

Whole-genome sequencing reveals lactase persistence adaptation in European dogs

Do you think this example explains how macroevolution works? If so, show us.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Lenski already did.

Show us the math and how this explains macroevolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.

The common argument is that microevolutionary changes add up to produce a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically and empirically incorrect. Adaptive mutations are random events and the joint probability of these events doesn't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule.

Both of the examples I gave (Sickle cell trait, lactase persistence) are what most who use the terms would characterize as "micro" evolution. If you can't grasp how two such micro changes could be uncorrelated and not contingent on each other how can we think you have a grasp on even micro evolution in animals?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm pretty sure I understand the physics of evolution better than you. My major field for my PhD in mechanical engineering was thermodynamics. Do you think you are ready to learn the physics of evolution? Actually, the physics is not all that much more complicated than the math.

Trying to not laugh derisively at the engineer "explaining" evolution and citing physics.

Trying to not laugh derisively at the engineer "explaining" evolution and citing physics.

Trying to not laugh derisively at the engineer "explaining" evolution and citing physics.

Trying to not laugh derisively at the engineer "explaining" evolution and citing physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show us the math and how this explains macroevolution.

Why do you think math is needed?

 

[Frank Robert]

From the Wikipedia page:


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

You are the self proclaimed master at probabilities. What is the probability of after winning $100,000 buying 100,000 in tickets for the next lottery and winning $60,000, investing the the $60,000 in the next lottery and winning $1,000,000?

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

If you believe he won multiple back-to-back lotteries I have bridge to sell you.

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

Why, it if all he is saying is when you win invest the entire winnings in the next lottery?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

He and you appear to be saying similar things and I am not buying either, nor is anyone else on here. Think about it.

 

[pitabread]

You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.

Human evolution is a great example as there have been tracking of the evolution of various traits within our species due to geographic migrations across the globe. For example: Demographic Events and Evolutionary Forces Shaping European Genetic Diversity

They discussion selective pressures on three independent genes (LCT, SLC45A2, and CCR5) within European populations.

 

[pitabread]

I'm pretty sure I understand the physics of evolution better than you. My major field for my PhD in mechanical engineering was thermodynamics.

So what about the various biologists of the world that have specialized in, y'know, actual biology? You seem to have no trouble throwing away their views, yet because you're an engineer we should listen to you?

Glass houses and all that.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

I said there was evidence and I pointed you to Dan Cardinale's discussion that provided the evidence. You do not need to view the whole video, just search the pertinent parts with key words, i.e definition for microevolution.

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.

Thanks are premature, no one claimed that there were not mutations.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you think math is needed?

When the only tool you have is a hammer . . . . .

 

[Frank Robert]

I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.

You forgot over time.

The common argument is that microevolutionary changes add up to produce a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically and empirically incorrect.

Adaptive mutations are random events and the joint probability of these events doesn't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule.[/QUOTE]So you say, but the evidence you offer offer math that no one appears to take seriously after multiple attempts on multiple forums. Why?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.

Here is one for you a whole bunch of different ways to mutate in one very selective environment.
Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes