If Evolution Were True

[sandy whitelinger]

You assume too much.

Undoubtedly. Could you point out where my doubts mentioned are accounted for in the math used to calculate the probability that all of life originated from singlecelled organisms in 3.5 billion years?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Okay, step by-step, here we go:
God "poofed" all of the various forms of life. He also created them with the ability to evolve within species. I do not believe that species change past that. And I missed the proof of genus change. Humor Jethro for me and give it to me again please.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Very nicely done. It's been said before, but nicely done nonetheless. Of course, the Sandy's of this world will continue to claim that some magical yet unexplained force - let's call it God's girdle - constrains evolution to micro-evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you give me the Cliff's notes version?

Here is a short answer, from here

A common complaint of Creationists and the Intelligent Designers is that the mutation rate for advantageous mutations is so small that even the more than 3 billion years that life has been present on the earth is not enough to allow for Darwinian selection of advantageous mutations. [p79] Creationists and the Intelligent Designers repeatedly claim that the production of beneficial variants by single nucleotide mutations (STMs) is too rare and too slow to allow for evolution. This ignores the fact that much evolution is not the result of this type of rare genetic change. DNA composed of repetitious sequences in the form of short tandem repeats (STRs) mutate a million to 10 millions times faster than STMs and play an important role in gene regulation and evolution. In addition to this mechanism, reusing or exchanging pieces of DNA that have already proven themselves in other situations accomplishes most evolution. These processes for rapid evolution include:

• Endosymbiosis
• Whole genome duplication (polyploidy)
• Chromosomal rearrangements
• Gene duplication
• Hybridization
• Gene displacement
• Horizontal gene transfer
• Jumping genes
• Sexual recombination
• Retrotransposons (Alu sequences)
• Exon shuffling and domain exchange
• Repetitious DNA and repitious peptides

These processes allow whole genomes, whole chromosomes, parts of chromosomes, whole organelles (chloroplasts and mitochondria), whole genes, specific combinations of genes, whole gene domains, and parts of gene domains to be put to new uses – over and over again. This reuse of what already works allows for the rapid acceleration of evolution and speciation and allows for a rapid response to environmental change and geographical isolation. As a result – there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. [p92]



The basic answer is this: This is one of the first questions that Biologists asked about this theory. It has been tested and prodded and poked at and challenged by some of the world's best minds for over a century, and they were reluctantly convinced that the answer is yes around 100 years ago, when we realized that the earth is over 4 billions years old. Do you really think that you, not very good with math or knowledgeable about Biology, are right, and the world's top mathematical Biologists are wrong?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here is a short answer, from here

A common complaint of Creationists and the Intelligent Designers is that the mutation rate for advantageous mutations is so small that even the more than 3 billion years that life has been present on the earth is not enough to allow for Darwinian selection of advantageous mutations. [p79] Creationists and the Intelligent Designers repeatedly claim that the production of beneficial variants by single nucleotide mutations (STMs) is too rare and too slow to allow for evolution. This ignores the fact that much evolution is not the result of this type of rare genetic change. DNA composed of repetitious sequences in the form of short tandem repeats (STRs) mutate a million to 10 millions times faster than STMs and play an important role in gene regulation and evolution. In addition to this mechanism, reusing or exchanging pieces of DNA that have already proven themselves in other situations accomplishes most evolution. These processes for rapid evolution include:

• Endosymbiosis
• Whole genome duplication (polyploidy)
• Chromosomal rearrangements
• Gene duplication
• Hybridization
• Gene displacement
• Horizontal gene transfer
• Jumping genes
• Sexual recombination
• Retrotransposons (Alu sequences)
• Exon shuffling and domain exchange
• Repetitious DNA and repitious peptides

These processes allow whole genomes, whole chromosomes, parts of chromosomes, whole organelles (chloroplasts and mitochondria), whole genes, specific combinations of genes, whole gene domains, and parts of gene domains to be put to new uses – over and over again. This reuse of what already works allows for the rapid acceleration of evolution and speciation and allows for a rapid response to environmental change and geographical isolation. As a result – there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. [p92]
The basic answer is this: This is one of the first questions that Biologists asked about this theory. It has been tested and prodded and poked at and challenged by some of the world's best minds for over a century, and they were reluctantly convinced that the answer is yes around 100 years ago, when we realized that the earth is over 4 billions years old.

Thanks I'll go over it this weekend and get back to it. Keep in mind that I use libraries for internet service and my time is limited for this. I do copy information and read it at home but it takes time. This is one reason I don't answer every question asked (surely not the only, such as I'm naturally discourteous ).

Do you really think that you, not very good with math or knowledgeable about Biology, are right, and the world's top mathematical Biologists are wrong?

I never said I wasn't knowledgeble in biology. And I do not automatically assume people are right. What many scientists are too arrogant to admit is that they have agendas and use statistic and assumptions to "prove" they are right.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In fact if you were willing to read an book I recommended it would be one by Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic. But unfortunately you are not willing to read books on the subject.

I've put the book on reserve through my local library.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, step by-step, here we go:
God "poofed" all of the various forms of life. He also created them with the ability to evolve within species. I do not believe that species change past that. And I missed the proof of genus change. Humor Jethro for me and give it to me again please.

But earlier you said that you agree that new species arise from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection. Now you're saying that species are fixed? That new species never emerge?

I believe that I reminded you that science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Then I think I pointed to DNA as the best evidence for relatedness. But now I'm not sure what you mean by "genus change." This is an odd term.

I think the best evidence is just to understand what ToE says happens. I described how new species arise (and you said you agreed.) When that happens over and over again, and the newest new species is different enough from another species, we call that a new genus.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks I'll go over it this weekend and get back to it. Keep in mind that I use libraries for internet service and my time is limited for this. I do copy information and read it at home but it takes time. This is one reason I don't answer every question asked (surely not the only, such as I'm naturally discourteous ).

I was thinking about this--it's more than a lack of courtesy. It's a way to avoid dealing with weaknesses in your argument.

I never said I wasn't knowledgeble in biology. And I do not automatically assume people are right. What many scientists are too arrogant to admit is that they have agendas and use statistic and assumptions to "prove" they are right.

You are fundamentally mistaken about how science works. Science is a system for challenging agendas, disputing statistics and challenging assumptions. There is no challenge you can think up that scientists have not already presented. It is only after all these challenges have been met that a theory is accepted--like ToE.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Extrapolate.

 

[fantome profane]

I've put the book on reserve through my local library.

Fantastic! Which one?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But earlier you said that you agree that new species arise from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection. Now you're saying that species are fixed? That new species never emerge?

Nope. Didn't say that.

I believe that I reminded you that science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Then I think I pointed to DNA as the best evidence for relatedness. But now I'm not sure what you mean by "genus change." This is an odd term.

You know, kingdom, family, class, order, genus, species. I guess I wasn't clear enough as to what I was looking for. Show me your best line of evedence that one genus changed into another genus. Something like here's a fossil of plant or animal A. Here's AB. Here's B.

I think the best evidence is just to understand what ToE says happens.

Let me rephrase that and see if it makes sense. I think the best evidence is just to understand what the Bible says happens.

I described how new species arise (and you said you agreed.). When that happens over and over again, and the newest new species is different enough from another species, we call that a new genus.

Wow.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

O.K., re: math, here's some books:

Evolutionary Dynamics.
Mathematics of Evolution and Phylogeny
Reconstructing Evolution

Have you read these books?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Can you give me the Cliff's notes version?

Here is a short answer, from here

I went here.
Is there anything in the math that includes time? For example how long, on average, it takes for a new trait to emerge in a population?

 

[herushura]

Animals only evolve, if theres a need to evolve, monkey are always living in forests, thus they are adapted and there no need for them to evolve. A Change of habitat is the one major cause of evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I was thinking about this--it's more than a lack of courtesy. It's a way to avoid dealing with weaknesses in your argument.

Suit yourself.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Extrapolate.

Wow, the evolution of geometry.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Fantastic! Which one?

I think it is called "Searching For Darwin's God"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Animals only evolve...

Hmmm, I thought plants evovled too.

...if theres a need to evolve,

I thought evolution wasn't a need.

...monkey are always living in forests, thus they are adapted and there no need for them to evolve. A Change of habitat is the one major cause of evolution.

I believe you are trying to describe natural selection.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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)

Can you tell me why p + q = 1

 

[herushura]

Can you tell me why p + q = 1

Its called Algebra p=1/q=0 - p+q=1