Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

I haven't payed attention to your math because it does not put a dent into the overwhelming evidence for evolution which the only way you have of getting around the reality of the evidence is denial. If you don't deal with the existing scientific evidence your sole argument is from improbability which is not science.

Frank, I'm not denying evolution, I'm explaining how microevolutionary adaptation works.

That is similar to the point that Dr. Swamidass was trying to make. If you believe in your math put it to the test with the stimulation test he suggested. I was looking for the third elephant and you lead me to it.

What kind of test? I keep asking you for experimental evidence that contradicts this model. Do you think a computer simulation will contradict this math? Is that all you can talk about is imaginary tests and imaginary macroevolution?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

The general model is robust enough without a detailed mechanism, but since there is one, check out population genetics. The Wiki article is just an overview, but there's plenty more detailed articles out there, and for a recent book on the subject, check out Templeton's 'Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory'.

I'm not even asking you for a detailed mechanism, just name the variables in your macroevolutionary model.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You don't challenge the age of fossils you simplistically deny the evidence. Denying evidence does not make evolution go away.

Frank, tell us what you think is the best piece of observational evidence for macroevolution. Don't do it as a link to some web page. Tell us in your own words.

You do have a knack of making ridiculously false statements.

Let me get my recipe book out, I do want to take down that recipe.

Translation. Macroevoluion doesn't exist because no has seen it. Where have we heard that before?

Isn't that what atheists say about God?

 

[Frank Robert]

You don't need to play shy.

Frank, I'm not denying evolution, I'm explaining how microevolutionary adaptation works.

When you deny the evidence for macroevolution you are denying evolution.

What kind of test? I keep asking you for experimental evidence that contradicts this model. Do you think a computer simulation will contradict this math?

Are you saying simulations can not test your math? The simulations would test and compare your math with that of the population geneticists.

Is that all you can talk about is imaginary tests and imaginary macroevolution?

When you claim macroevolution is imaginary your are making an absurd claim in the face of overwhelming evidence. Worse yet, you have not yet taken a baby step in supporting your claim with scientific evidence. You are making yourself an extremely easy target for anyone who has a basic knowledge of evolution simply for the fact that you have zero scientific evidence that macroevoluion is imaginary.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank, tell us what you think is the best piece of observational evidence for macroevolution. Don't do it as a link to some web page. Tell us in your own words.

Misdirection will not get you to where you want to be. You are the one making absurd claims that you can not substantiate. I don't need to prove the accepted science.

Let me get my recipe book out, I do want to take down that recipe.

Here is the recipe. Own up to your claims.

Isn't that what atheists say about God?

I don't know, I am not an atheist. If you want to talk about God there are plenty of other forums where you can do so.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You don't need to play shy.

I'm just bashful.

When you deny the evidence for macroevolution you are denying evolution.

Whatever

Are you saying simulations can not test your math? The simulations would test and compare your math with that of the population geneticists.

It's too bad that Tom Schneider's (from the National Cancer Institute) simulation of random mutation and natural selection was taken down off the NCI website. That was a good simulation even though Schneider made some really weird claims about it. Probably the weirdest claim he made on his webpage was that the multiplication rule did not apply to biological evolution. He also made some pretty weird claims in his publication on his model.

I doubt whether macroevolutionists want to test this model. The solution is so simple and obvious and fits the experimental and empirical data so well, they would only verify its veracity.

When you claim macroevolution is imaginary your are making an absurd claim in the face of overwhelming evidence. Worse yet, you have not yet taken a baby step in supporting your claim with scientific evidence. You are making yourself an extremely easy target for anyone who has a basic knowledge of evolution simply for the fact that you have zero scientific evidence that macroevoluion is imaginary.

I guess this means you are not going to post your best piece of observational evidence for macroevolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm just bashful.

Now you are telling fibs.

Whatever

I'll take it as you are in agreement.

It's too bad that Tom Schneider's (from the National Cancer Institute) simulation of random mutation and natural selection was taken down off the NCI website. That was a good simulation even though Schneider made some really weird claims about it. Probably the weirdest claim he made on his webpage was that the multiplication rule did not apply to biological evolution. He also made some pretty weird claims in his publication on his model.

Misdirection does not answer my question.

I doubt whether macroevolutionists want to test this model. The solution is so simple and obvious and fits the experimental and empirical data so well, they would only verify its veracity.

You claim your math predicts two isolated lab experiments and extrapolate that to macroevolution. You will need to do a lot more to make your case. Running simulations is one way to do so but you won't.

I guess this means you are not going to post your best piece of observational evidence for macroevolution.

You are the one making absurd claims against established science. The burden of proof is on you, not me. When you are ready you can start here. I am not holding my breath.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've already given you the basis. I gave you two reasons, go back and read my posts more carefully.

You gave an argument from your own incredulity about the proteins and residues found in that fossil.

If a paleontologist presented a fossil dinosaur bone of the same claimed age (~70 M yr) without those residues would you accept that age based on geological dating methods?

 

[tas8831]

Maybe one day Lenski will be interested in knowing how his own experiment works and why competition slows adaptation in his experiment.

Maybe one day you will stop deflecting and dodging and learn about the relationship between genotype and phenotype.

 

[tas8831]

tas, tell us how a stem cell goes on to produce more cells that tell other cells to turn on and off the production of keratin to make the correct feather type grow in the correct location on birds?

The same way any other alleles involved in development would. Aren't you the one making arguments on the subject? Aren't you the one that never answers simple, direct questions regarding your claims? Yes, yes you are.

And there you go again.

You merely make an assertion and all are supposed to just accept it. I ask YOU to support YOUR claim, and you shift the burden onto me.

Not playing your sad game.

Don't you have some boils to drain - you know, something in which you might have actual expertise?

Also, as your ilk is wont to do, you ignored all the other problems with your assertions.

What you failed to address in red:

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.

You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so your contrived math is irrelevant.

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.

You don't know?
Shades of ReMine!

And the feathers have to appear at the correct location and grow at the correct time.

And what are those times and how do you know?

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.

Keratin? We have keratin in nails, skin, hair, etc. And the amino acid sequences of keratins in different species are not identical. You suck at picking examples to 'prove your point.'

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?

Why would that have to happen in a "single lineage"? You suck at this.
You seem to be implying that those systems differ by some major chasm. I once had a creationist insist that claws and nails were so totally different that evolution cannot even explain how one evolved from the other. You seem to be of that mindset.
How many mutations do you suppose would have been required to get an avian respiratory system from a reptilian one? And how did you come to that conclusion?

I'm explaining to you how microevolution works.

Not really.

And a series of microevolutionary adaptive steps takes huge numbers of replications for each step to create the new adaptive allele.

Um...
Evidence? And do not mention your usual as that is irrelevant. Do you think an altered limb, for example, requires specific mutations to alter all of the structures in that limb? Mutations for muscles, mutations for bones, etc.? Heck, do you know how to produce an allele? How many mutations are needed to get a new allele, by your understanding?

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.

And the same to you - as you reject that accepted explanation, you need to provide your explanation then substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.​

I am pretty sure I know why you and your creationist pals play this game. I'm betting you do, too. But you are afraid to admit it.

 

[Yttrium]

Yttrium, you are confusing the concept of sampling any sequence (outcome) from a (huge) sample space and sampling a particular sequence (outcome) from that sample space.

I'm aware of the difference. I was pointing out that probabilities are used for desired outcomes. Evolution in nature has no desired outcome.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Now you are telling fibs.

Nope

I'll take it as you are in agreement.

Not whatsoever

Misdirection does not answer my question.

Not at all, Schneider's EV program is a computer simulation of the algebraic model I've presented.

You claim your math predicts two isolated lab experiments and extrapolate that to macroevolution. You will need to do a lot more to make your case. Running simulations is one way to do so but you won't.

The difference between Schneider's computer simulation and the math I've presented is that he has 3 selection conditions that are acting simultaneously on the entire genome at multiple sites in the genome. This is why his algorithm will only adaptively evolve quickly on extremely short genomes (256 bases) with an extremely high mutation rate when all three selection conditions are acting.

I actually have a computer simulation of my model but macroevolutionists don't trust my algebra and application of probability theory to this system. Why would they believe my computer simulation. Anyway, experimental data is the key to testing the validity of a mathematical model. At least I have two "isolated" lab experiments to test the model. Of course I also have all the empirical data starting with the successful use of 3 drug therapy to treat HIV.

You are the one making absurd claims against established science. The burden of proof is on you, not me. When you are ready you can start here. I am not holding my breath.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Do you mean that observational "science" that you won't give the best example of observation?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You gave an argument from your own incredulity about the proteins and residues found in that fossil.

You still aren't paying attention, look up the experimental data for the half-life degradation of polypeptides. Do some homework!
Proteolysis - Wikipedia

The hydrolysis of a protein (red) by the nucleophilic attack of water (blue). The uncatalysed half-life is several hundred years.

If a paleontologist presented a fossil dinosaur bone of the same claimed age (~70 M yr) without those residues would you accept that age based on geological dating methods?

Stop being silly and wasting time. Go figure out the mathematics for the Lenski experiment. You already see that the math is simple. Now figure out how the math relates to the data in Lenski's experiment.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

The same way any other alleles involved in development would. Aren't you the one making arguments on the subject? Aren't you the one that never answers simple, direct questions regarding your claims?

You are the one that doesn't answer a simple question. You think that just because a replicator can produce keratin, it can produce feathers. That will only happen if the replicator has the non-coding, controlling genetics that turns on and off that keratin gene at the right place and the right time in the differentiation of the original stem cell. Whoever taught you biology must be one of those macroevolutionists that thinks that most of the DNA in a genome is junk DNA. That was another of the really bad idea that comes out of biology departments.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm aware of the difference. I was pointing out that probabilities are used for desired outcomes. Evolution in nature has no desired outcome.

You are still missing the point. The way variants improve fitness is by testing every possible outcome in the sample space. If it only requires a single mutation to improve fitness, it only requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications (random trials). If the selection conditions require 2 or more mutations to improve fitness, the number of replications (random trials) goes up exponentially. If you want to know how to do that math, I show in this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
By the way, besides doing the math as an "at least one" probability problem, it can also be done as a random walk Markov process. It's similar to the Jukes-Cantor model except you don't use a stationary transition matrix.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop being silly and wasting time.

I'm not being silly. I'm only trying to figure out if you just have some weird (personal) attachment to this microevolution "disproof" of yours or if it is a general rotting of you comprehension.

Do you think 50 M year-old fossils can be accurately dated as such based on geophysical evidence?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not being silly. I'm only trying to figure out if you just have some weird (personal) attachment to this microevolution "disproof" of yours or if it is a general rotting of you comprehension.

Do you think 50 M year-old fossils can be accurately dated as such based on geophysical evidence?

What are you talking about "microevolution "disproof""?

If you want to believe in the existence of extant 50 million year-old proteins and other biomolecules, get back to me when you want to practice some science, trivial or otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What are you talking about "microevolution "disproof""?

If you want to believe in the existence of extant 50 million year-old proteins and other biomolecules, get back to me when you want to practice some science, trivial or otherwise.

Alan, I mistyped. I meant of course "macroevolution disproof" (or argument or whatever it is you've been engaged in for the last ~2 weeks.)

You initially said they were "Red blood cells" which (factually) they weren't. The preservation of the residues is obviously a complex issue, and not what is important.

That's why I asked the simple question (free of the "residue problem") would you accept a 50 M year-age for a regular, mineralized bone fossil dated by regular geophysical methods?

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope

Not whatsoever

Not at all, Schneider's EV program is a computer simulation of the algebraic model I've presented.

The difference between Schneider's computer simulation and the math I've presented is that he has 3 selection conditions that are acting simultaneously on the entire genome at multiple sites in the genome. This is why his algorithm will only adaptively evolve quickly on extremely short genomes (256 bases) with an extremely high mutation rate when all three selection conditions are acting.

Tell that to the scientists and population geneticists. Oh sorry, you have already done that over and over ad nauseam with the same result.

I actually have a computer simulation of my model but macroevolutionists don't trust my algebra and application of probability theory to this system. Why would they believe my computer simulation. Anyway, experimental data is the key to testing the validity of a mathematical model. At least I have two "isolated" lab experiments to test the model. Of course I also have all the empirical data starting with the successful use of 3 drug therapy to treat HIV.

Do you really want to stake your reputation on a 2bit review in a 2bit journal of 2 isolated lab experiments that you piggy backed on to create a model that you take to forum after forum in self-promotion and no one but anti-evolutionists are buying? You done that too with the same result.

Do you mean that observational "science" that you won't give the best example of observation?

Did your dad ever tell you when you are in a hole to stop digging?

You need to get up to date with actual science and away from your fables.
Evolvability and the Fossil Record
Abstract
The concept of evolvability—the capacity of a population to produce and maintain evolutionarily relevant variation—has become increasingly prominent in evolutionary biology. Although paleontology has a long history of investigating questions of evolvability, often invoking different but allied terminology, the study of evolvability in the fossil record has seemed intrinsically problematic. How can we surmount difficulties in disentangling whether the causes of evolutionary patterns arise from variational properties of traits or lineages rather than due to selection and ecological success? Despite these challenges, the fossil record is unique in offering growing sources of data that span millions of years and therefore capture evolutionary patterns of sustained duration and significance otherwise inaccessible to evolutionary biologists. Additionally, there are a variety of strategic possibilities for combining prominent neontological approaches to evolvability with those from paleontology. We illustrate three of these possibilities with quantitative genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, and phylogenetic models of macroevolution. In conclusion, we provide a methodological schema that focuses on the conceptualization, measurement, and testing of hypotheses to motivate and provide guidance for future empirical and theoretical studies of evolvability in the fossil record.

You also need to get up to date on simulations
Evolutionary Modeling in SLiM 3 for Beginners
Abstract
The SLiM forward genetic simulation framework has proved to be a powerful and flexible tool for population genetic modeling. However, as a complex piece of software with many features that allow simulating a diverse assortment of evolutionary models, its initial learning curve can be difficult. Here we provide a step-by-step demonstration of how to build a simple evolutionary model in SLiM 3, to help new users get started. We will begin with a panmictic neutral model, and build up to a model of the evolution of a polygenic quantitative trait under selection for an environmental phenotypic optimum.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You initially said they were "Red blood cells" which (factually) they weren't. The preservation of the residues is obviously a complex issue, and not what is important.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.

Why are you arguing from your own incredulity? Nowhere in the article do they say they are not rbcs.

That's why I asked the simple question (free of the "residue problem") would you accept a 50 M year-age for a regular, mineralized bone fossil dated by regular geophysical methods?

The problem is, it is not rare to find soft tissue on dinosaur fossils.

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Yes, macroevolutionists don't understand decay, and they don't understand microevolution. There's some unknown physical phenomenon that preserves proteins and cells for millions of years and there is some unknown mechanism of macroevolution. And let's not forget, there is some unknown chemical reaction that caused a replicator to form in the primordial soup. That's the kind of science you need to teach naive school children to deal with the problems of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Don't you have a march through Georgia to go to?