
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] 
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total) 
 
Jerry Johnson  
Diomedes  
Total: 877,485 Year: 9,233/23,288 Month: 248/1,544 Week: 523/518 Day: 19/84 Hour: 5/0 
Thread ▼ Details 
Member Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 
Thread Info



Author  Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution  what is it?  
dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
I know that this is casting pearls before swine, but others reading this may get something out of it even if you refuse to.
It's not eitheror, because both processes, selection and accumulation of greater genetic diversity, are happening at the same time. Therefore, we could work out a mathematical function of genetic diversity which incorporates the effects of both selection and the processes that increase genetic diversity such as the accumulation of genetic mutations. Now refer to your differential calculus in which you examine the rates of change of a function with respect to an independent variable. To illustrate with a simple and intuitive example, you can develop a function of spatial displacement with respect to time, s(t); we would say "s is a function t" or "displacement s is a function of time t". If you differentiate s(t) with respect to t, you get velocity, v(t) = ds / dt. With v(t), you can determine the velocity at any point in time. If you then differentiate v(t), you get acceleration, a(t) = dv / dt. To put that simplistically (because other factors come into play) into a practical problem, you have a rocket that needs to follow a particular trajectory, the displacement function, s(t), which yields the rocket's location at every point in time. From that trajectory, you can determine what the rocket's velocity has to be at every point in time. From that velocity function, you know how much the rocket will need to be accelerating at every point in time. From that acceleration function, you can determine how much thrust you'll need from the engines. Of course, in real life, differential calculus is often mainly used to solve problems of a more abstractly mathematical nature or to develop mathematical models of observed phenomena. The story is that Newton invented calculus to provide him the language with which to describe what he was observing. Many functions describing the real world are multivariant  ie, instead of having just one independent variable, they have more than one, often several. That changes the problem to needing to determine with variables have more of an effect on the function. For that, we use partial derivatives: quote: In short, you successively differentiate the function by each variable, then add up all the partial derivatives to get the total derivative. The benefit of this evolution {NavySpeak} is that each term in that total derivative tells you how much each variable contributes to the total rate of change. So returning to our mathematical function of genetic diversity which incorporates the effects of both selection and the processes that increase genetic diversity such as the accumulation of genetic mutations, I think we can safely assume that it is a function with multiple variables, which would make it a prime candidate for partial differentiation. In term, I think we can safely assume that the constituent function for selection also has multiple variables and can itself be decomposed into partial derivatives  those multiple variables would express selection under different conditions, such as during speciation as opposed to during stasis as opposed to normal tracking of a changing environment. The partial derivative for mutation may well prove to be much simpler and nearly constant. The bottom line is that the none of the processes involved does turn off or on, but rather each process is at work continually. It is not a simplistic either/or situation, but rather one in which one process contribute more or less than the others under certain circumstances and, as those circumstances change ever so slightly, then so do the contributions of each process. It is a complex interplay which can quickly outstrip the human mind's ability to imagine it. The human ability to imagine how something works is very remarkable, albeit limited. My own ability is fairly strong; coupled with my mechanical aptitude, I frequently observe a system in operation and start to analyze how it works. At a multiday campout which started with the moon being up and spoiling our stargazing, I visualized in my mind, coupled with some vary basic calculations based on the moon's roughly 28day orbit, how the moon would be rising about 45 minutes later each night, and thus determined that we would have a good window of opportunity for stargazing on the last night before the moon could rise and spoil the party. But our ability to imagine things is limited  a fact which you have failed to learn in your own failed geological thought experiments. In one of his most misquoted statements, Darwin described the evolution of complex organs such as the eye as being beyond human imagination, but  he continues, which creationists always leave out in misquoting him  if you apply reason then we can work out how the eye could have evolved. What follows varies from one edition of On the Origin of Species to the next, but he works methodically through example after example of visual organs in thenextant species starting with a photo sensitive cell to one connected to a nerve and so on and so. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins recreated that exercise, I seem to recall in Chapter 3. Now, for Darwin's work, "reason", let's substitute "math". When I read Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program in Chapter 3, "Accumulating Small Change", of The Blind Watchmaker, I didn't believe it. So, using his description of it as my specification (he did not provide any source listing and I think it was written in BASIC anyway), I wrote a Pascal program to implement it (since rewritten in C). It worked phenomenally, which still made no sense to me. Even with my maybebetterthanaverage ability to imagine a solution in my head, I simply could not understand how Dawkins' WEASEL, now my MONKEY, so named as an homage to Eddington's perennial misquote: quote: The misquote is that creationists (and others) keep misrepresenting it as referring to the probabilities of evolution, whereas in fact he was talking about thermodynamics, as in the probability that the random motion of a gas in a container could ever result in all the molecules having moved to one side of the container  see Infinite monkey theorem. 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. The ultimate solution with WEASEL and MONKEY lies completely in the probability models used. My apologies, but I am decades out or practice with the academic definitions. Most probability models are based on "this happening AND this happening AND this happening AND ... ". For example, assuming a fair coin (normally impossible since heads is usually ever so slightly heavier) such that heads would have a probability of 0.5 (50%), what is the probability of tossing 10 heads in a row? That would be the product of the probability of each and every independent event, which in this case would be 0.5^{10}, which would be 0.0009765625 or 9.765625×10^{4}. 100 times in a row would be 0.5^{10}, which would be about 7.89×10^{31}. Practically all creationist probability arguments follow this model. The problem with creationist probability arguments is that they have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution nor with how it works  the latter being the far stronger argument. Let's return to that coin toss sequence. One coin, one thumb, one single series of attempts. Now let's look at how evolution would need to work. One population. Multiple members of that populations, hence multiple parents and multiple sets of progeny. Immediately, we see the typical creationist format providing only one single path, whereas in reality life itself follows multiple parallel paths. So instead of ANDing (Boolean multiplication, BTW) each step, we need to be ORing (Boolean addition, BTW) each step. I explain all this in my analysis of MONKEY, MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS)  I have been informed of an error therein: in calculating the Markovian chain probabilities for each step of a given scenario, I was off by one iteration. When you open the page, search for "de Morgan Theorem". As part of my training as a computer electronics technician, I was taught Boolean algebra, which was later supplemented by a university electrical engineering course in logic design. "DeMorganizing" a circuit or Boolean expression was an everyday skill for us. Here is the section on Wikipedia about the engineering use of de Morgan's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws#Engineering. Basically, to deMorganize a Boolean expression, you invert all the Boolean variables and replace the ANDs with ORs and the ORs with ANDs. Here is how I applied that to the probability model. Please note that for every probability, P, of something happening, there is also the probability, Q, of it not happening, such that Q = (1.0  P)  BTW, probability values range from 0 (absolute impossibility) to 1.0 (absolute certainty). Now, here is the bottom line from MPROBS and the ultimate reason why both MONKEY and WEASEL succeed so inevitably. For MONKEY to fail, it would require every single parallel path to fail. When we work out the probabilities of that happening, such complete and utter failure is so small as to be deemed "virtually impossible", which by inversion ( P = (1  Q) ) , renders the probability of success virtually inevitable. I could not ever have possibly imagined that outcome! But the mathematics shows it to be virtually inevitable.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

Let's use a different example to state your position:
quote: The only way for that model to be true is if you only take friction into account and not the car engine. That is what we keep seeing you do with this argument.
None of which is true. Could you please name some of these computer simulation models that you are referring to?
Any model describing or simulation evolution which does not take selection into account could not work. Again, what computer simulation models are you talking about?


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
I asked a serious question and your reply is to bullshit us? And you wonder why nobody can take anything you say seriously. There is a misconception that the amount of change in a phenotype is proportional to the amount of change in the genotype; ie, that a large change in the phenotype requires a large change in the genotype and that a large change in the genotype results in a large change in the phenotype while a small change in the genotype results only in a small change in the phenotype. That is not true, so Dawkins wrote Biomorphs to demonstrate that small changes in the genotype can result in large changes in the phenotype while large changes in the genotype can result in little or no change in the phenotype. Biomorphs does not simulate evolution! Rather it illustrates development, the use of a genotype to generate a phenotype. Since it does not simulate evolution, it does not need to include selection but rather leaves it to the user to provide artificial selection to select a biomorph to be the parent of the next generation. For that matter, including selection in the program would present problems for the program itself (ie, would require defining an environment and how the phenotype of the organisms would interact with it for selection to work) which in no way whatsoever presents problems for evolution. At the bottom of my MONKEY page I discuss this problem and mention and briefly describe two programs that do implement selection. Similarly, WEASEL does not even attempt to simulate evolution and explicitly was not intended to. Rather, it demonstrates the difference in performance of two different methods of selection: singlestep selection (abysmally poor performance) which creationists falsely claim evolution uses, and cumulative selection (extremely effective) which is based on how selection in evolution works. That is what it was intended to do and that is what it does do. It was never intended to simulate evolution. Since neither program was ever intended to simulate evolution, naming them to support your claims is completely false. Shouldn't you try to learn something about the things that you want to use to support your claims before you actually use them? From the bottom of At the bottom of my MONKEY page: quote:


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

Faith, you again tried to avoid the main question. From Message 284:


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

That's right! And so is yours for the same reason. It's not just the engine accelerating the car and it's not just friction decelerating it, but rather it's the net effect of both forces considered together. It's not just the accumulation of genetic diversity and it's not just the loss of some of that genetic diversity through selection, but rather it's the net effect of both forces considered together. If you only consider the one factor while ignoring the other, as you are doing, then you arrive at incorrect conclusions, often at ridiculously incorrect conclusions. BTW, in your model, how are neutral mutations lost through selection? How does selection eliminate them, given that selection does not act upon them, what with them being neutral and all that? And keep in mind that today's neutral mutation can be tomorrow's beneficial trait when the environment changes.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
I have been driving since 1967, so then for half a century. You are claiming that I should have run out of gas long ago, yet I still have never run out of gas. Never, not even once.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
Really? You completely ignore what I was telling you in Message 236 and tried to change the subject to be about WEASEL?
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:
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 singlestep 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 oneinamillion 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 counterintuitive, 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: 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 0.0198^{100} = 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 0.86^{100} = 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.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
Yes, that's called stasis, which is also a product of selection. If a species is wellenough adapted to its environment, then selection will keep it there, weeding out the ones whose differences make them too illadapted, or at least not as welladapted. The result is stasis, just as we would expect. If the species is not wellenough 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?


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
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.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

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.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

Logic! Oh how that poor word has been misused for all these years! But thanks to CDR Spock, when I started college in 1969 one of the first classes I attended was in logic. Formal logic. The primary problem with logic is that it is completely dependent on structure, not on truth. Is your argument valid? That is all that logic can determine. Whether your argument is valid. If your argument is valid, then if you plug true premises into it, you should get true conclusions. If your argument is not valid, then you have not idea what you are getting. So then, Faith, your problem here is twopronged: 1) is your logic valid?, and 2) are your premises valid? At the very least, your premises are highly suspect.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

Seriously?
There's a common second year algebra problem in which you have a water tank with an input that is pouring water in at a given rate and a drain which is draining off that water at a given rate and after a given amount of time you are to determine how much water is in that tank. You are asking us to ignore the water that is pouring into the tank. The gasoline analogy does indeed work. It just does not support your contrarytoreality fantasy.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

No, Faith, what you choose to imagine within your own highly limited noggin will not suffice. I mean, you cannot even handle reading an actual study of simple probabilities, so how much can we trust your ability to completely overturn all of evolutionary science that all knowledgeable scientists have already worked out with great care, all worked out within your own noggin which has already been demonstrated to be too limited to handle any and all discussion of even the simplest of probability calculations.
The logic is far from clear. The need for actual calculations is paramount. Please provide those actual calculations.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8

Wrong. You've been posting this halfbaked idea of yours for quite some time now. And during all that time you've been ignoring all attempts to help you to correct its problems.
I do not have any evolution simulating program! I have told you that repeatedly! Neither WEASEL nor MONKEY simulate evolution! Try to get that through your thick skull!
False! It does no such thing nor was it ever intended to! You are projecting your own halfbaked ideas onto it.
And so far nothing you have said shows that the Bible takes into account the UNIX operating system, therefore the Bible must be false. Criticizing something for not accomplishing something that it was never intended to accomplish is foolish. Please stop being so foolish!
Yet again, it is indeed a matter of add and subtract. Just because selection is happening does not mean that mutation stops happening. Failing to recognize that is the major problem with your silly halfbaked argument. Besides, selection does not turn on and off either. Selection happens (we should make that into a bumper sticker). Selection happens all the time in every single Faith, your halfbaked argument informs us that you misunderstand even the most basic parts of how evolution works. You need to think your ideas through and correct those errors. And that you refuse so vehemently to do so tells us a llot about you and your argument.


dwise1 Member Posts: 4194 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 
I have! It's not my fault that you choose to ignore it. Biomorphs:
WEASEL and MONKEY:
Of course, you will yet again ignore what I've been telling you and continue to make your false statements.



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020