• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Evolution Were True

sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Autodidact said:
Wow, that's odd. You're convinced the math doesn't work; but you haven't done the math, or read any of the many published papers that have, and assume that the scientists who did them are wrong, without ever reading their work. That's weird. I'll work on that for you, if you do the same.
Click to expand...
It probably because I not that good at math and it's been probably 10 years since I've looked at any of this. I am working on a general hunch. For example life remained basically unchanged for around a billion years. That cut the time to a third. I assume we know nothing of the genetics of life billions of years ago so predicting how many changes in dna stucture would be required to effect a change is pure speculation. We can only speculate on population sizes and isolation of populations which are germain to the frequency of mutations that survive natural selection. Add to that we can only guess at the total number of species at most points in time involved in the calculations. Plus there a number of points in time when there were mass extinctions which futher confuse calculations. At least according to most scientists. I have to assume that what is required to cause billions of different species to evolve from simple single-celled organisms in the amount of time given isn't probable.
 
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
painted wolf said:
Anyone who says there is no math in Biology is full of bull.

We are going over the finer points of the Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium equation and implications in my University Evolution class right now.
Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

At its simplest it states:
Genotypic frequency for a population to be in Equilibrium = P(squared)+2PQ+Q(squared)= 1
Where P is a given gene in a population and Q is the recessive allele of that gene.
P(squared) = the fraction of the population Homozygous (having two identical copies of the dominant gene ex. AA)
Q(squared) = the fraction of the population Homozygous for the recessive allele (ex. aa)
2PQ = the fraction of the population that are Heterozygous. (that is they have one copy of each allele ex. Aa)

If no evolution is going on you these numbers should equal one. This is what is called a "Null Hypothesis" ... that is, it proposes the conditions that need to be met for an event to not happen. An ideal population would not evolve.

Those conditions are:
Non-Random Mating = there can be no sexual selection, all mates must be chosen at random
No Selection = there can be no pressure that would favor one allele over another.
No Mutation = there can be no change in genes (or their alleles)
No Genetic Drift = there can be no random changes due to chance events.
No Gene Flow = there can be no migration/immigration of members of the population, it must remain constant.

You can imagine how hard this is to find in nature.
cute little flash animation that shows how the above conditions change allele frequencies.
http://zoology.okstate.edu/zoo_lrc/biol1114/tutorials/Flash/life4e_15-6-OSU.swf

So um... yeah... math in Biology but still no laws.

wa:do

ps... an allele just in case I didn't explain it well enough above... is a variation of a given gene. Blood type is an allele, O is the dominant gene with A and B being recessive variations or alleles of the same gene.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll look this over this weekend and se if I can fathom it.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
atotalstranger said:
Why am I arguing with an idiot? Anybody ever hear the quote "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." I think it's priceless wisdom in this case. Good luck.
Click to expand...
And you wish to lecture me on curtesy. But I have been wondering why you continue myself. Could it be that passing up an opportunty to throw in a dig is just to much temptation to avoid?
 
Last edited:
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
sandy whitelinger said:
I believe I covered that when I said I don't believe in macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I cannot grasp what your position is. Could you just lay it out for us? What is "macro-evolution," and why don't you "believe in" it?

Are you saying that God poofed genuses into existence, and that evolution only happens within a genus? That genus is like a line beyond which species can no longer evolve?

To me it seems that you're contradicting yourself--that you agree that new species do arise, but you say that God "spoke" everything into existence. Can you clarify?
 
Last edited:
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
sandy whitelinger said:
Are you saying He magically poofed them into existance?
Click to expand...

No, I am assuming for the purposes of this discussion that God created the entire universe and everything in it, including all the conditions that cause new species to evolve. Exactly how is outside of the scope of Biology.
 
Last edited:
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
sandy whitelinger said:
It probably because I not that good at math and it's been probably 10 years since I've looked at any of this. I am working on a general hunch. For example life remained basically unchanged for around a billion years. That cut the time to a third. I assume we know nothing of the genetics of life billions of years ago so predicting how many changes in dna stucture would be required to effect a change is pure speculation. We can only speculate on population sizes and isolation of populations which are germain to the frequency of mutations that survive natural selection. Add to that we can only guess at the total number of species at most points in time involved in the calculations. Plus there a number of points in time when there were mass extinctions which futher confuse calculations. At least according to most scientists. I have to assume that what is required to cause billions of different species to evolve from simple single-celled organisms in the amount of time given isn't probable.
Click to expand...

You assume too much.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
sandy whitelinger said:
Here we go again.
Click to expand...
Yep, more obstinate refusal from Sandy to actually educate themselves on the subject...
Micro and Macro evolution are not distinct processes; they're the same thing. Biologists have used the terms loosely, and many even avoid the terms today since micro and macro have been hijacked by creationists. Creationists love to adopt scientific terms and reinterpret them to suit their needs. The whole macro/micro distinction is the most obvious example.

There is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution; they both describe a change of alleles over different lengths of time. Differentiating between them would be like claiming walking is a form of locomotion while running is not- they are the same thing, just different paces, and both are examples of phenotypic variation or natural selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top