Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

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?

There is only microevolution and if more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in an evolutionary process then the joint probability of the mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. As long as the replicator depends on DNA (or in some cases RNA), this math applies.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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.

Aren't you the one who says you don't need physics to explain evolution? So let's hear your explanation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why do you think math is needed?

Mathematics is the language of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mathematics is the language of science.

It is a language of science. And worse yet your math is loaded with errors. You have no answer for them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is only microevolution and if more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in an evolutionary process then the joint probability of the mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. As long as the replicator depends on DNA (or in some cases RNA), this math applies.

So are these changes to the genetics of a population (herders drinking milk in adulthood, tropical people with resistance to malaria) just not evolution at all? Are they "nanoevolution"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Aren't you the one who says you don't need physics to explain evolution? So let's hear your explanation.

I've looked back through this thread and I've seen multiple claims from you that you've presented physics of evolution or explained it or somesuch, but I can't actually find any such presentation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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.

Various biologists have not correctly identified the thermodynamics of evolution. Here's Joe Felsenstein's explanation of what has been done on the subject as of 2018. His discussion starts at about 22:00 of the video:

At about 30:00 he gives his energy model. He is trying to use conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics) to describe what is actually a second law of thermodynamics process. DNA evolution (mutations) is a disordering process. Mutations occur on replication. Where the first law comes into play in this process is that it requires energy to replicate. With each replication, the genotype diverges. In some (rare) cases, this divergence will give adaptive mutations. What that means physically is that those variants with the adaptive mutations are more effective users of the resources (energy) available in the environment and become better candidates for the next possible adaptive mutations.

Anything that reduces the energy available to particular variants in the environment reduces their ability to duplicate (and therefore diverge and adapt). This is why competition for resources in the environment slows any adaptive process. In the context of the Lenski experiment, competition for the limited glucose by the different variants in the population slows the divergence of the most fit variant by the consumption of sugar (the energy necessary for replication) by less fit variants that ultimately go extinct in the fixation process done by the more fit variant. Only when the most fit variant fixes do one of its descendants diverge and get the next adaptive mutation. That descendant must then again compete for the limited resources against these now slightly less fit variants in order to increase its population size to improve the probability of getting the next adaptive mutation.

If you think that the thermodynamics of biological evolution works differently than I've described above, tell us your view of how to apply the laws of physics to this system. Or give us a link to a paper that gives the explanation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So are these changes to the genetics of a population (herders drinking milk in adulthood, tropical people with resistance to malaria) just not evolution at all? Are they "nanoevolution"?

They are examples of DNA microevolution, mutation is the evolutionary unit. I've presented the math as sets of binomial probability problems where each binomial probability problem is linked to the others by the multiplication rule. This process can also be modeled as a Markov Process which is a random walk. Both models give the same results.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I've looked back through this thread and I've seen multiple claims from you that you've presented physics of evolution or explained it or somesuch, but I can't actually find any such presentation.

I've primarily presented the mathematics, read my post to Pita, the one with the Joe Felsenstein lecture video where I give a little more detail. I've said several times that competition (and fixation) is a first law of thermodynamics process. An obvious example of this is Kimura's paper:
ON THE PROBABILITY OF FIXATION OF MUTANT GENES IN A POPULATION
His governing equation (1) is a standard heat transfer equation that is derived based on the first law of thermodynamics.

Haldane's "cost of natural selection" model is also based on conservation of energy as shown in this paper:
An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept

I prefer Haldane's model because it was easily modified to address Lenski's variable populations and the daily bottlenecking of his populations.

DNA evolution, on the other hand, is a second law of thermodynamics process. This is most easily seen physically by considering that random mutations disorder genomes and without natural selection, genetic sequences would ultimately become random sequences. From a mathematical point of view, DNA evolution can be seen to be a second law process because Markov Processes are entropy processes.
Entropy rate - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

Various biologists have not correctly identified the thermodynamics of evolution.

Like I said, glass houses.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've primarily presented the mathematics, read my post to Pita, the one with the Joe Felsenstein lecture video where I give a little more detail. I've said several times that competition (and fixation) is a first law of thermodynamics process. An obvious example of this is Kimura's paper:
ON THE PROBABILITY OF FIXATION OF MUTANT GENES IN A POPULATION
His governing equation (1) is a standard heat transfer equation that is derived based on the first law of thermodynamics.

I don't see how that video makes your general case in this thread.

The speaker describes a simple resource competition model for "energy", assumes acquisition of new resources are determined by the current reserve and provides for a distribution of outflow rates. The result is not very surprising. Then since he used "energy" he makes an "entropy" argument and then apparently applies some expression from Dembski about "information" to the distribution of rates of the various components.

So what?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Like I said, glass houses.

Like I said, various biologists have not applied the laws of thermodynamics to biological evolution correctly. This explains why biologists have so much difficulty in correctly doing the mathematics of microevolution. You can explain conservation principles which are just like balancing a checkbook and they just don't get it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't see how that video makes your general case in this thread.

The speaker describes a simple resource competition model for "energy", assumes acquisition of new resources are determined by the current reserve and provides for a distribution of outflow rates. The result is not very surprising. Then since he used "energy" he makes an "entropy" argument and then apparently applies some expression from Dembski about "information" to the distribution of rates of the various components.

So what?

Felsenstein doesn't get the relationship between energy (the stuff that makes replication possible, the first law principle) and replication where mutations occur (the disordering, divergence, of the genome which is a second law principle). It is from these principles that one can derive the correct equations that describe biological evolution.

And information is simply the converse of entropy. The measure of an increase in information is an improvement in the reproductive fitness of the particular variant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The measure of an increase in information is an improvement in the reproductive fitness of the particular variant.

That seems to be quite the claim. Care to back it up?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That seems to be quite the claim. Care to back it up?

Do you think an increase in information in the genome by a particular mutation of the variant should be the measure if the variant goes extinct?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even if I put aside all of my qualms about information theory, etc., this sticks out to me:

Only when the most fit variant fixes do one of its descendants diverge and get the next adaptive mutation.

Can we really say that this is the case for populations of apes with a O(100,000) individuals at any time? Can we really say this for any mammal population? Any vertebrate population? Any animal population?

None of the examples I mentioned before are fixed in the whole human population (not only do not all individuals have these traits, but their are multiple genotypes that produce each one of them).

If your model assumptions don't match the conditions for mammals or apes then what value does it have for explaining macroevolution in them?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you think an increase in information in the genome by a particular mutation of the variant should be the measure if the variant goes extinct?

Extinct is when they all die. That's how you measure extinction.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Even if I put aside all of my qualms about information theory, etc., this sticks out to me:



Can we really say that this is the case for populations of apes with a O(100,000) individuals at any time? Can we really say this for any mammal population? Any vertebrate population? Any animal population?

None of the examples I mentioned before are fixed in the whole human population (not only do not all individuals have these traits, but their are multiple genotypes that produce each one of them).

If your model assumptions don't match the conditions for mammals or apes then what value does it have for explaining macroevolution in them?

The carrying capacity of the Lenski experiment is insufficient for adaptation to occur without fixation also occurring. The population size is too small. On the other hand, the Kishony experiment has a much larger carrying capacity and therefore supports much larger populations than the Lenski experiment. Therefore, fixation does not need to occur in the Kishony experiment for adaptation to occur. You need to understand that evolutionary competition (what Darwin calls the "struggle for existence") is a distinct physical and mathematical phenomenon from DNA microevolutionary adaptation.

Competition slows adaptation because resources that the most fit variant could use are being consumed by less fit variants which if available to the most fit variant could allow more replications and the possibility of more adaptive mutations occurring. It is replication that drives DNA microevolution because that's when mutations occur.

You must tailor the evolutionary model to fit the system you are trying to model, just as you must tailor Newton's 2nd law to the system you are trying to analyze. You should study how I do this for the Lenski experiment in this paper:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment

 

[Hans Blaster]

The carrying capacity of the Lenski experiment is insufficient for adaptation to occur without fixation also occurring. The population size is too small. On the other hand, the Kishony experiment has a much larger carrying capacity and therefore supports much larger populations than the Lenski experiment. Therefore, fixation does not need to occur in the Kishony experiment for adaptation to occur. You need to understand that evolutionary competition (what Darwin calls the "struggle for existence") is a distinct physical and mathematical phenomenon from DNA microevolutionary adaptation.

Competition slows adaptation because resources that the most fit variant could use are being consumed by less fit variants which if available to the most fit variant could allow more replications and the possibility of more adaptive mutations occurring. It is replication that drives DNA microevolution because that's when mutations occur.

You must tailor the evolutionary model to fit the system you are trying to model, just as you must tailor Newton's 2nd law to the system you are trying to analyze. You should study how I do this for the Lenski experiment in this paper:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment

This literally does not answer my question: Do the assumptions in that model match the reality of human or other ape populations? If not, why should we give it any credence.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Extinct is when they all die. That's how you measure extinction.

So you think that a genome from a replicator that has gone extinct is more ordered than the genome from a replicator that doesn't go extinct?