Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

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

Do you know the NCI took down Schneider's model?

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.

Hmmm, I wonder what the editors and peer-reviewers from Statistics in Medicine would say about your quote?

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

Actually, my father never gave me that kind of advice.

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.

If they are doing phylogenetics inference using this algorithm:
PHYLIP - Wikipedia
They are using the wrong governing equation and doing their sampling incorrectly. Of course, you have no idea what they are doing.

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.

Ask them to simulate macroevolution for you.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

But what does dinosaur DNA tell us? Not what you believe it does.
Hints of fossil DNA discovered in dinosaur skull

Does the discovery mean we can sequence dino DNA? Not even close. The researchers haven’t tried extracting DNA from the fossil cells, so they haven’t confirmed whether the material is unaltered DNA or some kind of fossil byproduct of genetic material breaking down. Scientists also caution that if DNA is present within the dinosaur cells, it’s probably in tiny fragments, chemically altered, and tangled up with what was once protein.
​

I would love to be able compare my pet dinosaurs' DNA with those that lived millions of years ago. Perhaps in the future.

​

 

[pitabread]

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.

It's not a dichotomy, despite the continued march of your strawman arguments.

(Btw, if you're going to respond with some combination of the words "microevolution", "mathematics", "Kishony", and "Lenski", you can save yourself the bother. We've already seen that one.)

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you know the NCI took down Schneider's model?

What does Schneider's model have to do with how scientists and population geneticists have consistantly treated your model? I keep telling you misdirection will not get you to where you want to be.

Hmmm, I wonder what the editors and peer-reviewers from Statistics in Medicine would say about your quote?

Ask them, you might be surprised.

Actually, my father never gave me that kind of advice.

Unforturnate!

If they are doing phylogenetics inference using this algorithm:
PHYLIP - Wikipedia
They are using the wrong governing equation and doing their sampling incorrectly. Of course, you have no idea what they are doing.

If you believe that write a review. It could be another venue for self-promotion.

Ask them to simulate macroevolution for you.

It has already been done.
Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs

The process of adaptation occurs on two timescales. In the short term, natural selection merely sorts the variation already present in a population, whereas in the longer term genotypes quite different from any that were initially present evolve through the cumulation of new mutations....
​

REvoSim: Organism-level simulation of macro and microevolution

Macroevolutionary processes dictate the generation and loss of biodiversity. Understanding them is a key challenge when interrogating the earth–life system in deep time. Model-based approaches can reveal important macroevolutionary patterns and generate hypotheses on the underlying processes...
Whilst microevolutionary processes drive the model, macroevolutionary phenomena such as speciation and extinction emerge.​

 

[Yttrium]

You are still missing the point. The way variants improve fitness is by testing every possible outcome in the sample space.

I understand your point. I keep telling you that the point is not applicable to macroevolution. "Improving fitness" is not required in most cases in nature. Fitness is simply selected from available alleles.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But what does dinosaur DNA tell us? Not what you believe it does.
Hints of fossil DNA discovered in dinosaur skull

Does the discovery mean we can sequence dino DNA? Not even close. The researchers haven’t tried extracting DNA from the fossil cells, so they haven’t confirmed whether the material is unaltered DNA or some kind of fossil byproduct of genetic material breaking down. Scientists also caution that if DNA is present within the dinosaur cells, it’s probably in tiny fragments, chemically altered, and tangled up with what was once protein.
​

I would love to be able compare my pet dinosaurs' DNA with those that lived millions of years ago. Perhaps in the future.

​

DNA, now that's a biological molecule that can last millions of years. Perhaps now they solve the cold case that it was really Godzilla that defeated King Ghidorah and they can get Kong off death row.

Hey Frank, are you one of those "Hollow Earth" theorists?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It's not a dichotomy, despite the continued march of your strawman arguments.

(Btw, if you're going to respond with some combination of the words "microevolution", "mathematics", "Kishony", and "Lenski", you can save yourself the bother. We've already seen that one.)

Macroevolution, millions of years old soft tissue, junk DNA, abiogenesis, what other goodies you biologists got for us, Pita?

Apparently, you've lost interest in discussing a modern evolutionary biology text such as Joe Felsenstein's THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

I so wanted to see that mathematical model of macroevolution since you won't give us an experimental example. Don't try to use either the Kishony and Lenski experiments, those experiments are reserved for a real physical phenomenon, microevolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What does Schneider's model have to do with how scientists and population geneticists have consistantly treated your model? I keep telling you misdirection will not get you to where you want to be.

How do you know what's happening with these papers? Do you expect the Titanic field of biology to turn in an instant?

Ask them, you might be surprised.

Ask them if they are a 2-bit journal? I think I'll leave that one to you.

Unforturnate!

My father never gave me any unnecessary advice. Perhaps your father should have taught you to not believe everything you hear, especially if it comes from a biologist that says it's a scientific fact but can't provide a single experiment to justify that claim.

It has already been done.
Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs
The process of adaptation occurs on two timescales. In the short term, natural selection merely sorts the variation already present in a population, whereas in the longer term genotypes quite different from any that were initially present evolve through the cumulation of new mutations....

Do you actually read what you cut and paste into your posts? Why don't you ask them how many replications it takes for the cumulation of new mutations? Ask them to simulate reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals.

REvoSim: Organism-level simulation of macro and microevolution
Macroevolutionary processes dictate the generation and loss of biodiversity. Understanding them is a key challenge when interrogating the earth–life system in deep time. Model-based approaches can reveal important macroevolutionary patterns and generate hypotheses on the underlying processes...
Whilst microevolutionary processes drive the model, macroevolutionary phenomena such as speciation and extinction emerge.

So ask them for an explanation of why adaption is slowed by competition.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I understand your point. I keep telling you that the point is not applicable to macroevolution. "Improving fitness" is not required in most cases in nature. Fitness is simply selected from available alleles.

OK mathematician, give us the mathematical model for macroevolution. Name for us the variables involved and the mathematical relationship between those variables.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

OK mathematician, give us the mathematical model for macroevolution. Name for us the variables involved and the mathematical relationship between those variables.

You missed his point entirely.

 

[Frank Robert]

DNA, now that's a biological molecule that can last millions of years.

Jumping the gun are we?

Perhaps now they solve the cold case that it was really Godzilla that defeated King Ghidorah and they can get Kong off death row.

Hey Frank, are you one of those "Hollow Earth" theorists?

Glad you have a sense of humor even though it falls flat.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You missed his point entirely.

Oh no, Ponderous, I get Yttriums point completely. Reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals simply by an accumulation of neutral mutations, the divergence of genomes by sets of random mutations without any change in fitness. That's the same blunder Swamidass makes when he tries to demonstrate the relatedness of humans and chimpanzees simply by counting mutations. The only problem is there are 7 billion humans today and only 300,000 chimps.

It's no problem writing out the mathematics for Yttriums claim, it's a Markov random walk. And it will take vastly more replications to do that genetic transformation than it would if natural selection is introduced into the process. You macroevolutionists really need to take a real mathematics course. Whoever taught Yttrium mathematics didn't teach him about the mathematics of random walks.

 

[Frank Robert]

How do you know what's happening with these papers? Do you expect the Titanic field of biology to turn in an instant?

bad sense of humor

Ask them if they are a 2-bit journal? I think I'll leave that one to you.

I have no reason to ask them as I already know what the reputation is among real scientists.

My father never gave me any unnecessary advice. Perhaps your father should have taught you to not believe everything you hear, especially if it comes from a biologist that says it's a scientific fact but can't provide a single experiment to justify that claim.

Keep digging!

Do you actually read what you cut and paste into your posts? Why don't you ask them how many replications it takes for the cumulation of new mutations? Ask them to simulate reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals.

You asked for a simulation of macroevolution, I provided two, I can't help it if you don't understand what a simulation is.

So ask them for an explanation of why adaption is slowed by competition.

If you disagree that their model does not "model, macroevolutionary phenomena such as speciation and extinction emerge" then write a review for peer review.

Perhaps they would like what you have to say.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Jumping the gun are we?

Frank is now going to present the experimental evidence that DNA can remain extant for millions of years. NOT!

Glad you have a sense of humor even though it falls flat.

Not nearly as flat as your experimental evidence that demonstrates the existence of macroevolution. You have less than 0 experimental evidence, you have 0 without the rim.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Oh no, Ponderous, I get Yttriums point completely. Reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals simply by an accumulation of neutral mutations, the divergence of genomes by sets of random mutations without any change in fitness. That's the same blunder Swamidass makes when he tries to demonstrate the relatedness of humans and chimpanzees simply by counting mutations. The only problem is there are 7 billion humans today and only 300,000 chimps.

It's no problem writing out the mathematics for Yttriums claim, it's a Markov random walk. And it will take vastly more replications to do that genetic transformation than it would if natural selection is introduced into the process. You macroevolutionists really need to take a real mathematics course. Whoever taught Yttrium mathematics didn't teach him about the mathematics of random walks.

No you claim that a specific set of mathematics is relevant without evidence of your major claim. Your only somewhat evidenced claim is that in very constrained circumstances, your math provided a passable approximation. Once again, you have done nothing to evidence that your short scale approximation has anything to do with general observations.
If your math does not correspond to observation, it is irrelevant.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

bad sense of humor

The Titanic field of biology is heading toward a mathematical and experimental iceberg of microevolution. The helmsman panically waves his hands thinking it's a rudder but it's too late. Are there enough lifeboats? Sadly no, some of the biologists become emersed in the cold hard mathematical facts and the moaning can be heard for miles. Such a tragedy.

I have no reason to ask them as I already know what the reputation is among real scientists.

Maha Frank knows all through his fossil tea-leaf reading.

Keep digging!

The ToE deserves a great hole.

You asked for a simulation of macroevolution, I provided two, I can't help it if you don't understand what a simulation is.

You don't read what you cut and paste into your posts.

If you disagree that their model does not "model, macroevolutionary phenomena such as speciation and extinction emerge" then write a review for peer review.

I read unlike you what you cut and paste into your post. They are modeling competition, "In the short term, natural selection merely sorts the variation already present in a population", and microevolution, "whereas in the longer term genotypes quite different from any that were initially present evolve through the cumulation of new mutations".

Perhaps they would like what you have to say.

From what you cut and pasted into your post, they should be able to simulate the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Ask them to do that. They should independently verify my model.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank is now going to present the experimental evidence that DNA can remain extant for millions of years. NOT!

Are you suggesting I made that claim?

Not nearly as flat as your experimental evidence that demonstrates the existence of macroevolution. You have less than 0 experimental evidence, you have 0 without the rim.

Did you read what I wrote or are your questions just more misdirection.
You believe you found a loophole that gives you a pass to deny macroevolution because millions of years of evolution can not be reproduced and observed in a lab. That is just another way of saying "no one has seen it so it doesn't exist." Unfortunately for your denial does not change the reality of overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevolution.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[SelfSim]

The Titanic field of biology is heading toward a mathematical and experimental iceberg of microevolution. The helmsman panically waves his hands thinking it's a rudder but it's too late. Are there enough lifeboats? Sadly no, some of the biologists become emersed in the cold hard mathematical facts and the moaning can be heard for miles. Such a tragedy.

Wasn't it the mechanical engineers who said the Titantic was unsinkable .. something about a mathematical impossibility?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No you claim that a specific set of mathematics is relevant without evidence of your major claim. Your only somewhat evidenced claim is that in very constrained circumstances, your math provided a passable approximation. Once again, you have done nothing to evidence that your short scale approximation has anything to do with general observations.
If your math does not correspond to observation, it is irrelevant.

Ponderous, a specific set of mutations is required if you want an increase in fitness. Now Yttrium is claiming that the evolution of reptiles to birds and fish to mammals simply occurs by a divergence in genome sequence by neutral mutations. That divergence process is a Markov random walk. It's the same divergence process that occurs when natural selection is acting on that population. How large of a colony do you think it would take for the drug-resistant variants to appear in the Kishony experiment if he didn't use an antibiotic on his plate? The math I've presented will give you that calculation and his plate is not anywhere near large enough to get those variants. Even to get a variant with the first 3 mutations would take a population size of about 1e27. Genomes diverge very slowly, most of the genome will be identical to the founding parent of the lineage, even when the population size is 1e27.

Don't you even remember the macroevolutionist argument about the similarity of human and chimp genomes? 98% similar. And that's after how many generations of divergence of genomes? You macroevolutionists need to think through your arguments.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Are you suggesting I made that claim?

You better not make that claim, you already have more than enough dumb claims to deal with.

Did you read what I wrote or are your questions just more misdirection.
You believe you found a loophole that gives you a pass to deny macroevolution because millions of years of evolution can not be reproduced and observed in a lab. That is just another way of saying "no one has seen it so it doesn't exist." Unfortunately for your denial does not change the reality of overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevolution.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I do read what you write, I keep waiting for you to explain macroevolution in your own words instead of posting some link. And waiting for an experimental example of that explanation is hopeless.