Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not having difficulty grasping anything. You are having difficult in acknowledging this simple comment: if each species, extinct and extant, that exists has come about through macroevolutionary changes, then ipso facto macroevolution must be factual.

You are assuming that these macroevolutionary genetic transformations can occur when all experimental evidence of DNA microevolutionary transformations says that you don't have the selection conditions or population sizes to do such a transformation.

Consider a limited example. You have some non-feather producing replicator, how many mutations at what genetic loci are required to get a feather producing replicator. And the feathers have to appear at the correct location and grow at the correct time. In other words, the mutations in the stem cell not only have to produce the correct proteins but control when and where these proteins are produced. And that's just the start of your genetic transformation problem. Reptiles have different respiratory systems than birds, different cardiovascular systems, different excretory systems, different musculoskeletal systems... How does a single lineage accumulate the mutations that would do this genetic transformation?

You also haven't answered my question at the end of: Because how can you explain all the massive biodiversity that has existed and does exist on Earth with just microevolution alone? How do you explain it with just microevolution?

I'm explaining to you how microevolution works. And a series of microevolutionary adaptive steps takes huge numbers of replications for each step to create the new adaptive allele. It is up to you to explain how microevolution can create this biodiversity. And you need to substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are assuming that these macroevolutionary genetic transformations can occur when all experimental evidence of DNA microevolutionary transformations says that you don't have the selection conditions or population sizes to do such a transformation.

Consider a limited example. You have some non-feather producing replicator, how many mutations at what genetic loci are required to get a feather producing replicator. And the feathers have to appear at the correct location and grow at the correct time. In other words, the mutations in the stem cell not only have to produce the correct proteins but control when and where these proteins are produced. And that's just the start of your genetic transformation problem. Reptiles have different respiratory systems than birds, different cardiovascular systems, different excretory systems, different musculoskeletal systems... How does a single lineage accumulate the mutations that would do this genetic transformation?

But I don't need the experiments because the real world shows macroevolution occurring. We have multiple species evolving and that fact is shown in the fossil record and the world we live in.

I'm explaining to you how microevolution works. And a series of microevolutionary adaptive steps takes huge numbers of replications for each step to create the new adaptive allele. It is up to you to explain how microevolution can create this biodiversity. And you need to substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

You haven't shown anything of the sort. You just keep going on about large numbers and that's it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yet this is not what is observed in human evolution and the adaption to multiple selection pressures like different climates, pathogens, diet, etc.

Humans adapt to different environments by intelligence, not by genetic adaptation. Only occasionally do we see adaptation by mutation such as sickle cell variants. But that only requires a single mutation.

The Kishony and Lenski experiments are highly contrived scenarios that don't specifically mimic real-world evolution (insofar as real-world environments, selection pressures, etc.).

Those contrived scenarios are what it takes to get adaptive evolution to work consistently. Read the Kishony papers and see what they had to do to get their experiment to work. And since when are toxins and starvation, not real-world selection pressures? Are you aware that Lenski ran experiments where he used thermal stress as his selection pressure?

I think human evolution would be a primate candidate. If you really think your model is an accurate description of real-world evolution, try applying it to what we know about human evolution. Perhaps do some modeling to see what would happen to human populations as they migrated around the world? In your model, would human populations be able to adapt to different climates while under various selection pressures?

That's simple. What adaptive mutations would give humans the capability to do industrial farming, produce aircraft, build computers, complex written language,... while chimpanzees are much stronger and get ants and termites out of a hole with a stick? You have about a billion replications of humans to get thoseadaptive mutations and fewer for chimps.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But I don't need the experiments because the real world shows macroevolution occurring. We have multiple species evolving and that fact is shown in the fossil record and the world we live in.

You don't have experiments and you are trying to explain what happens on the molecular level (DNA evolution) with gross anatomy. Use your understanding of fossils to explain the adaptive evolutionary process occurring in the Kishony and Lenski experiments, because these experiments contradict your claims.

You haven't shown anything of the sort. You just keep going on about large numbers and that's it.

Watch this video:

Make an attempt to understand why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in this experiment.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't have experiments and you are trying to explain what happens on the molecular level (DNA evolution) with gross anatomy. Use your understanding of fossils to explain the adaptive evolutionary process occurring in the Kishony and Lenski experiments, because these experiments contradict your claims.

Make an attempt to understand why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in this experiment.

Why do I need experiments and why do I need to watch a video when I clearly and factually pointed out that we have species that have evolved, both extinct examples and extant examples, and the only way to explain that is through macroevolution?

You can't even explain why it could happen through microevolution, if you think that it can happen through microevolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Humans adapt to different environments by intelligence, not by genetic adaptation. Only occasionally do we see adaptation by mutation such as sickle cell variants. But that only requires a single mutation.

(I see your pre-emptive mention of blood diseases that help fight malaria...)

Humans have adapted to extreme altitude in Peru and Tibet (with different genetic changes), low sun exposure with lighter skin, enhanced starch digestion (after development of grain based agriculture), and many others (including the two I've already mentioned today).

Technology is faster, but it sounds like humans have adapted to environment quite a bit.

 

[pitabread]

Humans adapt to different environments by intelligence, not by genetic adaptation.

Oh wow.

So oxygen saturation adaptions of high altitude populations like Tibetans or Ethiopians are based on intelligence? Or the adaption of human skin pigmentation for varying UV radiation? Or the Bajau people's spleen adaptations and ability to deep dive underwater far longer than the average human? Or lactase persistence in various populations? Etc., etc.

Only occasionally do we see adaptation by mutation such as sickle cell variants. But that only requires a single mutation.

I think you have a lot more reading to do about human evolution and adaption.

(I knew you were bluffing before, but... wow. )

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh wow.

So adaptions of high altitude populations like Tibetans or Ethopians are based on intelligence? Or the adaption of human skin pigmentation for varying UV radiation? Or the Bajau people's ability to deep dive underwater far longer than the average human? Or lactase persistence in various populations? Etc., etc.



I think you have a lot more reading to do about human evolution and adaptations.

I knew you were bluffing before, but... wow.

Jinx! (And Warden, the 3 minute video is good and doesn't really support his position that his super-important math is that important.)

 

[pitabread]

Jinx!

At least we had a few examples that were different.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why do I need experiments and why do I need to watch a video when I clearly and factually pointed out that we have species that have evolved, both extinct examples and extant examples, and the only way to explain that is through macroevolution?

All you are doing is identifying species with genetic differences, you aren't showing how the genetic transformation can occur. You need to watch the video because this experiment demonstrates how genetic transformations occur.

You can't even explain why it could happen through microevolution, if you think that it can happen through microevolution.

Watch the video and try to understand how an adaptive microevolutionary transformation can occur.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All you are doing is identifying species with genetic differences, you aren't showing how the genetic transformation can occur. You need to watch the video because this experiment demonstrates how genetic transformations occur.

Why aren't genetic differences enough to show macroevolution?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why aren't genetic differences enough to show macroevolution?

'cause he's just going to claim different species were just "created" with different genetics. (Oh, look, he's already done that.) Seems like a majik escape button to me.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

(I see your pre-emptive mention of blood diseases that help fight malaria...)

Had a similar discussion early in the thread.

Humans have adapted to extreme altitude in Peru and Tibet (with different genetic changes), low sun exposure with lighter skin, enhanced starch digestion (after development of grain based agriculture), and many others (including the two I've already mentioned today).

The mathematical problem is getting the mutations for extreme altitude, low sun exposure with lighter skin, enhanced starch digestion,... into one lineage. Maybe you think it can be done with recombination? It might be a bit hard for someone living in Peru or Tibet to meet someone from Norway 10,000 years ago, no internet online dating.

Technology is faster, but it sounds like humans have adapted to environment quite a bit.

The total human population size of 100 billion over history allows for on average every possible base substitution at every site in the genome about 25 times. It shouldn't be unexpected that one of those variants might get a single adaptive mutation. It's that second adaptive mutation on that new more fit lineage where the multiplication rule hits.

Jinx! (And Warden, the 3 minute video is good and doesn't really support his position that his super-important math is that important.)

Oh really? What does that video support, reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? The solution I've presented sticks in your craw because it is so elegantly simple. It isn't going away so you might as well get used to it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why aren't genetic differences enough to show macroevolution?

You have to show how these genetic transformations can occur.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

'cause he's just going to claim different species were just "created" with different genetics. (Oh, look, he's already done that.) Seems like a majik escape button to me.

I really like how this trivial math irritates you. Adaptive evolution is so simple, it all comes down to the probability of at least one occurrence of that adaptive mutation in the number of replication trials. So simple, yet so elegant. How come a smart guy like you didn't figure this out? Oh yeah, you are too busy doing that non-trivial math.

 

[pitabread]

The mathematical problem is getting the mutations for extreme altitude, low sun exposure with lighter skin, enhanced starch digestion,... into one lineage. Maybe you think it can be done with recombination? It might be a bit hard for someone living in Peru or Tibet to meet someone from Norway 10,000 years ago, no internet online dating.

In some cases, yes, recombination + selection appears to have shaped specific traits in specific populations. For example, in Inuit populations they have specific adaptations for cold weather such as body fat distribution. The genetics for that appear to have arisen from Denisovan populations which interbred with other human populations. Then selective pressures took care of the rest.

The total human population size of 100 billion over history allows for on average every possible base substitution at every site in the genome about 25 times. It shouldn't be unexpected that one of those variants might get a single adaptive mutation. It's that second adaptive mutation on that new more fit lineage where the multiplication rule hits.

Yet we see populations of humans with multiple adaptive mutations.

For example, this paper on Inuit populations they identify a couple dozen mutations under strong selection: Genetic architecture and adaptations of Nunavik Inuit

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In some cases, yes, recombination + selection appears to have shaped specific traits in specific populations. For example, in Inuit populations they have specific adaptations for cold weather such as body fat distribution. The genetics for that appear to have arisen from Denisovan populations which interbred with other human populations. Then selective pressures took care of the rest.

Sure, you can get some genetic and phenotypic improvements in fitness in different lineages around the world. In the medical field, some lineages do better against tuberculosis, others do better against malaria, and others against fungal infections, and so on. It's getting all those adaptive mutations into one lineage that doesn't happen.

Yet we see populations of humans with multiple adaptive mutations.

For example, this paper on Inuit populations they identify a couple dozen mutations under strong selection: Genetic architecture and adaptations of Nunavik Inuit

With a total population size of 100 billion and a mutation rate 1e-9 the maximum number of adaptive mutations in a single lineage is about 100. But the human population is subdivided into many lineages. It's much more reasonable to estimate a maximum number of adaptive mutations in any one lineage of about 5-10.

Selection pressures can target many genetic loci. In the Lenski experiment, starvation targets every energy using metabolic pathway in the genome.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The mathematical problem is getting the mutations for extreme altitude, low sun exposure with lighter skin, enhanced starch digestion,... into one lineage. Maybe you think it can be done with recombination? It might be a bit hard for someone living in Peru or Tibet to meet someone from Norway 10,000 years ago, no internet online dating.

Why do they need to be in one lineage. Each of these adaptations are locally advantageous and spread as such. The starch digestion (grain based diet), lighter skin, and the lactase persistence variants are no doubt present in many, if not most northern Europeans. Does this fit within your mathematical model? (At least two of these, skin and lactase, have been around for several thousand years, so consider the available population carefully.)

The total human population size of 100 billion over history allows for on average every possible base substitution at every site in the genome about 25 times. It shouldn't be unexpected that one of those variants might get a single adaptive mutation. It's that second adaptive mutation on that new more fit lineage where the multiplication rule hits.

Most of the adaptations I and pitabread mentioned are not found in all of humanity so clearly multiple adaptive mutations can spread through the population at once without being contingent on one of the others being fixed. This is why you multiplication rule is not appropriate.

Oh really? What does that video support, reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? The solution I've presented sticks in your craw because it is so elegantly simple. It isn't going away so you might as well get used to it.

The video is about bacteria, as you well know since you posted it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

With a total population size of 100 billion and a mutation rate 1e-9 the maximum number of adaptive mutations in a single lineage is about 100. But the human population is subdivided into many lineages. It's much more reasonable to estimate a maximum number of adaptive mutations in any one lineage of about 5-10.

How big do you think the Inuit population has been in the last 10,000 years? How many adaptions do you expect from a population of that size? Let's see that model predict something.

Selection pressures can target many genetic loci. In the Lenski experiment, starvation targets every energy using metabolic pathway in the genome.

The Inuit aren't bacteria. Neither are any other human group.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why do they need to be in one lineage. Each of these adaptations are locally advantageous and spread as such. The starch digestion (grain based diet), lighter skin, and the lactase persistence variants are no doubt present in many, if not most northern Europeans. Does this fit within your mathematical model? (At least two of these, skin and lactase, have been around for several thousand years, so consider the available population carefully.)

They don't have to be in a single lineage. But if you are going to make the argument that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor, the total human population size over history allows for only a very few possible adaptive mutations to account for the reproductive fitness difference between humans and chimps. In addition, 99% of all humans that have ever lived have lived in the past 10,000 years. That doesn't leave you with much of a population to work with to do any kind of significant adaptation other than single adaptive mutations scattered throughout the population.

Most of the adaptations I and pitabread mentioned are not found in all of humanity so clearly multiple adaptive mutations can spread through the population at once without being contingent on one of the others being fixed. This is why you multiplication rule is not appropriate.

Fixation is not necessary for adaptation. In fact, evolutionary competition slows adaptation. You have two ways a lineage can get multiple adaptive mutations. One way is through DNA adaptive microevolution. That's demonstrated in the Kishony experiment. As a colony increases in size, mutant variants start to appear. When the colony reaches a size of about 1/(mutation rate) replications, there is a reasonable probability that an adaptive mutation has occurred (as well as mutations at every other site in the genome). That variant with the first adaptive mutation then has to start a new colony and as that new colony grows, the probability a second adaptive mutation improves, and when that second colony achieves a population of about 1/(mutation rate) replications, you have a good probability that one of the members of that colony with the first adaptive mutation will get a second adaptive mutation. This new more fit variant must then form a third colony and the cycle repeats. Note that in this process, new alleles are being produced at each adaptive step.

The other way adaptive mutations can accumulate in the lineage is recombination. One parent with an allele that has an adaptive mutation recombines with the other parent that has a different allele with a different adaptive allele to give an offspring with both adaptive alleles. In this new alleles are not being produced. With a breeding program or environmental conditions which select for particular variants to increase the frequency of those variants with adaptive alleles, the process can work pretty rapidly. If the recombination process is random (as with HIV and pollination), it is governed by the trinomial distribution. The math is trivial, so you wouldn't be interested.

The video is about bacteria, as you well know since you posted it.

Sure, but DNA is DNA. You have to take into account the ploidy. Each human replication is 2 genome replications. And of course, take into account recombination. It is possible that in the recombination process, the adaptive allele is not passed to the offspring. You are aware that doubling the number of genome replications does not double the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring?

How big do you think the Inuit population has been in the last 10,000 years? How many adaptions do you expect from a population of that size? Let's see that model predict something.

I have no idea of the number of Inuit that have ever lived. From Wikipedia:
Inuit - Wikipedia
There are Inuit populations in Europe, United States, Canada, Greenland, and related ethnic groups from Asia and who knows how many in the past and where. If there were a billion people in that lineage, that would be enough genome replications to give about 1 mutation at every site in the genome. Depending on when the adaptive mutation occurred, the frequency of that variant could increase over generations improving the probability of a recombination event with another parent with a different adaptive allele. As I estimated earlier, this lineage might accumulate 5-10 adaptive mutations for various selection conditions (diseases, diet, thermal stress, etc.) When it comes to creating new alleles, it is all about replication because that's when you have a possibility of a mutation occurring, some will be detrimental, some will be neutral, and on rare occasions, adaptive.

The Inuit aren't bacteria. Neither are any other human group.

Starvation puts selection pressure on humans and bacteria alike. Humans have adapted to it by farming. What adaptation mutations give humans the capability to farm and chimpanzees can't.