Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 361 of 908 (817145)
08-15-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
08-15-2017 1:43 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:
Doesn't affect what I said about beetles.
It does. The millions of different alleles for homologous genes seen among beetle populations were produced by mutations.
And the additional alleles do not improve the immune system at all, they simply scatter its protections among individuals, making it more like Russian Roulette than a functionoing immune system.
Yet more stuff you are making up.
The genes of the immune system are all co-dominant which would ensure that all individuals had the same protections if it remained intact, but mutations destroy that intactness and scatter its protections.
And here you said that selection reduces genetic diversity. You have just pointed to an example that destroys your argument.
The genes of the immune system are all co-dominant which would ensure that all individuals had the same protections if it remained intact, but mutations destroy that intactness and scatter its protections.
Each person only has 2 alleles out of the thousands of alleles for some HLA genes.
The concession had to do with whether that many different mutations could have occurred since Creation given the current rate of mutations. They couldn't have.
Then how do we have thousands of alleles for these genes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 1:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 362 of 908 (817146)
08-15-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Faith
08-15-2017 2:57 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:
Selection which must decrease that very genetic diversity.
So just like the gas tank of a car, the engine removes gas while the gas pump adds gas. This is why evolution never stops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 908 (817147)
08-15-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
08-15-2017 2:55 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
What I'm saying is that species in nature appear to be pretty stable, not subject to mutations which keep changing their appearance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 2:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2017 3:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 364 of 908 (817148)
08-15-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
08-15-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:
Nature doesn't "care" but the fact is that species in the wild do have established identities that do persist, . . .
There are no such species in nature as the peppered moth and pocket mouse demonstrate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 365 of 908 (817149)
08-15-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-15-2017 2:59 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
What I'm saying is that species in nature appear to be pretty stable, not subject to mutations which keep changing their appearance.
For most species, changes are hard to see, but there are some examples of more rapid speciation which have been given in these threads.
I can see how you might not expect speciation in just 6000 or 4350 years, but we have evidence of over three billion years so there's been lots of time.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 366 of 908 (817150)
08-15-2017 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-15-2017 2:59 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:
What I'm saying is that species in nature appear to be pretty stable, not subject to mutations which keep changing their appearance.
What you are saying is contradicted by observed facts. Species do change through time due to mutations. The peppered moth and the pocket mouse are two examples. We can even look at transitional hominids that change through time. You are simply living in a fantasy world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 367 of 908 (817151)
08-15-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Taq
08-15-2017 3:01 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Selection can change a species, but as a matter of fact there are an awful lot of species that simply persist without change. The peppered mother and the pocket mice are unusual situations which is why they are talked about. If there had been no industrial revolution and no lava-covered areas neither would have changed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:01 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 372 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 368 of 908 (817152)
08-15-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
08-15-2017 3:05 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:
Selection can change a species, but as a matter of fact there are an awful lot of species that simply persist without change.
Name one. I am unaware of any fossil species from the Cambrian that is completely unchanged since the Cambrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 369 of 908 (817155)
08-15-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
08-11-2017 6:40 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Really? You completely ignore what I was telling you in Message 236 and tried to change the subject to be about WEASEL?
It's very cute and it's fun to watch it do its thing, but it doesn't take into account the FACT that to get a new variety or species requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes.
It wasn't meant to! Your "criticism" of it is like calling all smart phones worthless because they can't heat a frozen pizza.
I was pointing out to you that there are many things that we cannot imagine (ie, work out in our heads how they work), so we have to resort to more rigorous methods. Your silly genetic depletion claim is just such a problem. You need to write it down in detail and work out those details in order for you to see whether it actually works or not.
As I said from the beginning, I was yet again casting pearls before swine. My minister warned me about that.
The only reason I mentioned my MONKEY was to point you to my analysis of its probabilities, MPROBS. As I wrote in Message 236:
DWise1 writes:
Because I simply could not imagine how my own MONKEY program could produce such results, I analyzed it mathematically. It was only then that I could finally understand it. Human imagination had failed me completely, but it was mathematics which showed me the truth of what was happening.
Faith, on this point, your imagination has failed you. It is time to turn to reasoning and then to mathematics. Figures don't lie, although liars can figure.
In MPROBS, I determined the probability of producing a given string, the alphabet in alphabetical order, with randomly selected characters. When I did it using single-step selection (what creationists false ascribe to evolution), the probability of success is 1.6244×10-37, so improbable that it would take a supercomputer making 1,000,000 attempts per second about 195 trillion years to earn a one-in-a-million chance -- nearly 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years. Using cumulative selection (modeled after what evolution actually uses), my old XT clone succeeded in about half a minute, consistently, repeatedly, without fail. On a modern PC, it succeeds so rapidly as to appear instantaneous.
In MPROBS, I calculate the probability of success for each step (choosing one position at random and replacing it with a randomly selected character). This is where it really got counter-intuitive, because for each step the probability of success is low. And the closer you got to the solution the worse the odds became.
My mind could not imagine how MONKEY could ever possibly succeed, yet it does, rapidly, without fail.
To illustrate that, I just wrote a short C program to calculate and display some of those probabilities. In this run, I simply differentiated between succeeding by advancing (ie, "making the next step") and failing to advance (ie, either sliding back or no change). Here is the printout (remember that k is the number of characters in the current string that are correct):
quote:

P(succeed) P(fail)
k = 0: 0.038462 0.961538
k = 10: 0.023669 0.976331
k = 20: 0.008876 0.991124
k = 25: 0.001479 0.998521

And yet MONKEY and WEASEL both succeed each and every time, without fail. It is impossible to imagine how, which is the point I was making. In order to solve that problem, you need to dig deep and analyze what you find, something that you cannot do simply by using your imagination.
The solution turns out to be that since you have multiple copies of that string that you're making a random change to, then for that step to fail all of the attempts need to fail. Furthermore, for the entire experiment to fail, then virtually all of the steps need to fail. It turns out that the probably of that happening becomes vanishingly small and hence the probability of the experiment succeeding becomes virtually inevitable.
Basically, the probability of any given step failing to advance is P(fail)size of the population. If you are working with population of 10 strings and k=0, then the probability of all 10 attempts failing is (0.961538)10 = 0.6756. Not as certain to fail, is it? With 100 strings it becomes 0.0198 and the probability of success becomes 0.98, very likely. Even with k=25, with 100 strings the probability of failure becomes 0.86 and hence success becomes 0.14, about one chance in 7.
Now, for a population of 100 strings, what is the probability of consistent failure for 100 iterations? For k=0 where P(fail) = 0.0198, that would be 0.0198100 = 4.64×10-171, virtually impossible, which makes success virtually inevitable. Choose the probability of failure for a population of 100 strings and k=25, 0.86, we find that 0.86100 = 2.817×10-7, which is 1 chance in 3.55 million, rather low; success in that case would be 0.9999997, which is quite high.
 
 
Faith, you need to do the same thing with your claim. Of course, the difference is that when I undertook that exercise I was trying to disprove MONKEY -- indeed, I wrote MONKEY in order to disprove WEASEL. In your case you will not be able to maintain such honesty, but you must at least try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 6:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:34 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 370 of 908 (817157)
08-15-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Taq
08-15-2017 3:11 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Since the fossil record is not a record of change from time period to time period as is claimed by OE and ToE theory, but a record of what lived before the Flood, you have no point. Besides, I'm not talking persistence over millions of years, I'd expect small changes in any population even over a few hundred years, so I'm talking about relative stability of a population in which the changes are hardly noticeable in any case.
I'd suggest the wildebeests as a stable unchanging population, grizzly bears, polar bears, panda bears, any local population of raccoons, bobcats, lions, etc etc etc. Almost any species you can think of is stable in the sense I'm talking about. You get change when you get selection; otherwise you get stability even with all your mutations. Even the cheetah is stable, how long has it persisted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 371 of 908 (817158)
08-15-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by dwise1
08-15-2017 3:29 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
If I can't follow what you are saying I have no choice but to ignore it. If you want to talk to me make it intelligible to me and stop with the insults if you want to be heard. I stopped reading your post about a third of the way down because it makes no sense to me, it's a lot of insulting gobbledegook. Sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:29 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:38 PM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 372 of 908 (817159)
08-15-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
08-15-2017 3:05 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Selection can change a species, but as a matter of fact there are an awful lot of species that simply persist without change.
Yes, that's called stasis, which is also a product of selection.
If a species is well-enough adapted to its environment, then selection will keep it there, weeding out the ones whose differences make them too ill-adapted, or at least not as well-adapted. The result is stasis, just as we would expect.
If the species is not well-enough adapted to its environment, then selection will favor those that are better adapted and the species will change. Actually, in the case of stasis, selection is doing the same thing, favoring those that are better adapted to the environment.
So what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 373 of 908 (817160)
08-15-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
08-15-2017 3:34 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
If I can't follow what you are saying I have no choice but to ignore it. If you want to talk to me make it intelligible to me and stop with the insults if you want to be heard. I stopped reading your post about a third of the way down because it makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Then that is evidence that your mind is not powerful enough to have worked out how evolution must work all inside your noggin. For that matter, nobody's mind is that powerful.
Which is why you need to take a more structured and rigorous approach than just making bald assertions and ignoring the multitude of problems with your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:40 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 374 of 908 (817161)
08-15-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by dwise1
08-15-2017 3:38 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
I've been consistently answering all the bogus "problems" you all keep bringing up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:38 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by dwise1, posted 08-15-2017 3:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 377 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 3:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 375 of 908 (817162)
08-15-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
08-15-2017 3:40 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
By repeating all the same bogus bald assertions along with new rationalizations and denials.
Those problems with your claim are quite real and do need to be addressed. All you end up doing is to discredit yourself and your position. And your religion, the reason you make your bogus claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024