[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A

[felix]

As I asked, what observations leads you to believe there should be a new species? Provide examples please.

Because, microevolution which is still happening in small rates right from the past known history before the advent of technology, nothing had ever happened - even when populations were isolated.

 

[Barbarian]

Name that new species which was observed to be evolved through speciation.

First one I know of was O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploid mutation.

In 1905, while studying the genetics of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered a variant with a chromosome number of 2n = 28 compared with 2n = 14 for O. lamarckiana. DeVries was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the variant Oenothera gigas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenothera_gigas

Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
Genetics
v.20(4); Jul 1935

Drosophila paulistorum is a species of fly that is reproductively isolated from the species from which it evolved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300595/?page=1

Evidence like this has led many professional creationists to admit the fact of speciation. Organizations like the Institute for Creationist Research, and Answers in Genesis have now agreed that speciation is a fact.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because, microevolution which is still happening in small rates right from the past known history before the advent of technology, nothing had ever happened - even when populations were isolated.

So you are stating that microevolution states that there should be a new species? Can you demonstrate why this is so?

 

[felix]

Mutations.

No, that's the effect. They needed to mutate. Ok, what to, we need info first of what to mutate to.

Try again. Where did the information come from into their DNA which told their cells what to change in growth?

Not is not how mutations work. When mutations happen, the ones that are either neutral or beneficial have a high chance of remaining in the DNA because they are useful in either sustaining life, attractiveness, or performance, or barely any effect at all. Mutations don't know what to do, mainly because there are many mutations that either do nothing impactful or are harmful. Natural selection weeds out the mutations that don't work as efficiently as it possibly can.

What you missed out is, mutation is random and it has equal probability to occur and mutate independently. Which means, even after natural selection weeds out, it takes several thousand generations to have one phenotype in common within a single species. Going back to form a new species, you require not millions of years but more than the age of the universe. If you see what evolutionists do is that they show gradual changes from one species to another, perfectly having all required phenotype occurring in sequence for the new species to occur. A natural selection for one phenotype can be accidental but a series of natural selections perfectly in sequence as if they are programmed for a new species to occur is not a property of randomness. While natural selection is itself is non-random, change in environment that drives natural selection is random.

 

[felix]

Name that new species which was observed to be evolved through speciation.

First one I know of was O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploid mutation.

In 1905, while studying the genetics of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered a variant with a chromosome number of 2n = 28 compared with 2n = 14 for O. lamarckiana. DeVries was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the variant Oenothera gigas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oenothera_gigas

Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
Genetics
v.20(4); Jul 1935

Drosophila paulistorum is a species of fly that is reproductively isolated from the species from which it evolved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300595/?page=1

Evidence like this has led many professional creationists to admit the fact of speciation. Organizations like the Institute for Creationist Research, and Answers in Genesis have now agreed that speciation is a fact.

Those you mentioned are not observed to evolve. They are already there and that is what is being discovered and observed.

If you see my post, I never denied speciation (like snakes losing legs) but rather, asking scientific proof on how speciation can happen in such a small time of a few million years, defying the laws of mathematics?

 

[Barbarian]

Those you mentioned are not observed to evolve. They are already there and that is what is being discovered and observed.

No. For example, De Vries just happened to find, in his plants, one of them that had a polyploidy mutation, which made it reproductively isolated from the rest. It is a viable species, still around today, and still unable to reproduce with the old species.

Likewise, Dobzhansky's flies were taken from a population in the wild. Over time, their isolation led to them forming a new, reproductively isolated species. A few years in the making. De Vries' case just required one mutation to make it happen. Speciation often takes hundreds of thousands of years, but it can happen much more quickly.

If you see my post, I never denied speciation (like snakes losing legs) but rather, asking scientific proof on how speciation can happen in such a small time of a few million years, defying the laws of mathematics?

As you learned, there's nothing in mathematics that rules out rapid speciation. It's much more common in small populations in new environments (the simulation I showed you would make you understand why).

I'm thinking of doing a thread on population genetics, to show why natural selection never leads to a random output, even if mutations are random. Again, the simulation would show you why that is the case. Even if you picked the selection rules, I could use math to accurately predict the outcome, even though every single mutation would be random.

Let's see what you can do with this one:
Suppose a population of a given size has two alleles for a specific gene, with a frequency of 0.5 for each. Suppose that there is no selective pressure for either of these alleles; they are equally adaptive. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

Does size have anything to do with it?

If you get those, you might be able to figure out the rest.

If that's a bit tough, here's one that's more purely mathematical (you seem to have an interest in math). There are two alleles (A and a) for a gene in a population. They have frequencies of 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. Assuming that they are equally adaptive, and that no organisms migrate into or out of the population, what will be the frequency of AA, aa, and Aa individuals in the next generation?

 

[felix]

As you learned, there's nothing in mathematics that rules out rapid speciation.

There is. If rapid speciation is true, then it defies the properties of randomness in mutations and randomness in environment for natrual selection to occur.

Even if you picked the selection rules, I could use math to accurately predict the outcome, even though every single mutation would be random.

Yes please. Also, show me how it fits the speciation.

Let's see what you can do with this one:
Suppose a population of a given size has two alleles for a specific gene, with a frequency of 0.5 for each. Suppose that there is no selective pressure for either of these alleles; they are equally adaptive. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

Does size have anything to do with it?

1. Suppose a population of a given size has two alleles for a specific gene, with a frequency of 0.5 for each
Ok, I will take AT and GC as two alleles.

2. Suppose that there is no selective pressure for either of these alleles; they are equally adaptive.
Yes.

3. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?
No.

What you totally forgot is, this is DNA replication for inheritance which has nothing to do with speciation. Neither the initial population nor the final population is evolved for speciation.

If you get those, you might be able to figure out the rest.

If that's a bit tough, here's one that's more purely mathematical (you seem to have an interest in math). There are two alleles (A and a) for a gene in a population. They have frequencies of 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. Assuming that they are equally adaptive, and that no organisms migrate into or out of the population, what will be the frequency of AA, aa, and Aa individuals in the next generation?

What you are speaking is how a phenotype spreads across a population or inheritance. This is not evolution not can evolution be explained by this. These two alleles or SNP or a single mutation does not create any species. A single celled organism have half a million hase-pairs and you are just speaking of just 1 such base-pair. One such base-pair having 0.3 and 0.7 frequencies does not cause speciation.

 

[Milk-Drops]

What you missed out is,

I'm not missing anything because you aren't showing anything. I've asked you several times to site your sources, and you keep refusing or ignoring this basic request. This tells me that you either hiding something, or manipulating things you've heard and/or read. That means I have no reason to trust anything you say.

mutation is random and it has equal probability to occur and mutate independently. Which means, even after natural selection weeds out, it takes several thousand generations to have one phenotype in common within a single species. Going back to form a new species, you require not millions of years but more than the age of the universe.

Either show me a source that shows this, or I'm calling you dishonest.

If you see what evolutionists do is that they show gradual changes from one species to another, perfectly having all required phenotype occurring in sequence for the new species to occur. A natural selection for one phenotype can be accidental but a series of natural selections perfectly in sequence as if they are programmed for a new species to occur is not a property of randomness. While natural selection is itself is non-random, change in environment that drives natural selection is random.

Yeah, I'm now sure you really have no idea what you are talking about and/or dishonest because I've seen posters point out Punctuated Equilibrium to you before. I'm sorry, your credibility is now destroyed. I see no reason to take anything you say seriously now.

Cheers.

 

[felix]

Because, microevolution which is still happening in small rates right from the past known history before the advent of technology, nothing had ever happened - even when populations were isolated.

So you are stating that microevolution states that there should be a new species? Can you demonstrate why this is so?

That is not what I said. Microevolution is the same mechanism for speciation.

Humans differ with each other by only 0.1% (that's 3 million base-pairs). However, chimps differ by 5% (that's 150 million base-pairs). Now calculate how many mutations are required for chimps to evolve into humans with the same rate of mutations we have now, considering the fact that mutations and the environmental triggers for natural selection are totally random. 8 million years is 400000 generations which is not sufficient for chimps to get evolved. The required timeline is more than the age of universe.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That is not what I said. Microevolution is the same mechanism for speciation.

Another source you need to provide now. This brings you up to over 7 unsourced and/or dishonest claims.

Humans differ with each other by only 0.1% (that's 3 million base-pairs).

8th source needed.

However, chimps differ by 5% (that's 150 million base-pairs).

9th source needed.

Now calculate how many mutations are required for chimps to evolve into humans with the same rate of mutations we have now, considering the fact that mutations and the environmental triggers for natural selection are totally random. 8 million years is 400000 generations which is not sufficient for chimps to get evolved. The required timeline is more than the age of universe.

You fail considering that modern chimps didn't evolve into humans. Modern chimps are just our closest relatives. Those base pairs you are pointing out came after the split off. Your statement is set up hoping I'm ignorant of this basic fact.

Your credibility is now in the negatives. I'm done dude. You have demonstrated zero effort in providing any evidence for your claims and have relied on cheap tricks to try and cover it up. If you have to lie for Jesus, then you've actually caused more damage. You're posts are now an example I can easily show to my honest Christian friends on how not to try and disprove evolution.

Congratulations.

 

[felix]

Another source you need to provide now. This brings you up to over 7 unsourced and/or dishonest claims.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change

Ref: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Humans differ with each other by only 0.1% (that's 3 million base-pairs).

Jorde, LB; Wooding, SP (2004). "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'". Nature Genetics 36 (11s): S28–33. doi:10.1038/ng1435. PMID 15508000.

However, chimps differ by 5% (that's 150 million base-pairs).

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack (Ref: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long)

Now calculate how many mutations are required for chimps to evolve into humans with the same rate of mutations we have now, considering the fact that mutations and the environmental triggers for natural selection are totally random. 8 million years is 400000 generations which is not sufficient for chimps to get evolved. The required timeline is more than the age of universe.

You fail considering that modern chimps didn't evolve into humans. Modern chimps are just our closest relatives. Those base pairs you are pointing out came after the split off. Your statement is set up hoping I'm ignorant of this basic fact.

Your credibility is now in the negatives. I'm done dude. You have demonstrated zero effort in providing any evidence for your claims and have relied on cheap tricks to try and cover it up. If you have to lie for Jesus, then you've actually caused more damage. You're posts are now an example I can easily show to my honest Christian friends on how not to try and disprove evolution.

Congratulations.

My question is based on fossil records. If you feel the CA is much different, you have the liberty to reduce the bp difference by 2 but doesn't that change anything. If you feel uncomfortable, you also have the liberty to start explaining from a single celled organism genome which only have half-a-million base-pairs.

What you are ignorant is the properties of randomness and how it makes grand-scale evolution impossible.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, there's nothing in mathematics that rules out rapid speciation.

There is.

Nope. As you see, a single mutation can do it. Reality trumps anyone's argument.

If rapid speciation is true,

It's been directly observed.

then it defies the properties of randomness in mutations and randomness in environment for natrual selection to occur.

It just defies your expectations. There's nothing in the notion of randomness that rules out rapid speciation. And unless you're really unusual, I've done a lot more work in statistics and systems analysis than you have.

Barabarian obeserves:
Even if you picked the selection rules, I could use math to accurately predict the outcome, even though every single mutation would be random.

Yes please. Also, show me how it fits the speciation.

What do you mean, "fits the speciation?" All that's required for speciation, is for a subpopulation to change sufficiently to be reproductively isolated from the main population. And for example, the rules I used for the simulation would allow me to predict 2 things.
1. Fitness will rise asymptotically to a particular level, after which the population will not change significantly, unless the rules change (new environment).

2. You will have more odd numbered genes than most even numbers but a higher number of "4", but never two together. There will be a significantly higher number of "6" in the first gene position.

Barbarian offers another illuminating exercise:
Let's see what you can do with this one:
Suppose a population of a given size has two alleles for a specific gene, with a frequency of 0.5 for each. Suppose that there is no selective pressure for either of these alleles; they are equally adaptive. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

Does size have anything to do with it?
1. Suppose a population of a given size has two alleles for a specific gene, with a frequency of 0.5 for each

Ok, I will take AT and GC as two alleles.

Doesn't matter what you call them.

2. Suppose that there is no selective pressure for either of these alleles; they are equally adaptive.

Yes.

3. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

No.

Yes, it will. Mathematically, you can show that eventually there well be fixation of neutral alleles.

Learn about it here:
http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/site...w0/chapter20/simulation_of_genetic_drift.html

What you totally forgot is, this is DNA replication for inheritance which has nothing to do with speciation.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Speciation depends on DNA.

Neither the initial population nor the final population is evolved for speciation.

The final population, by definition is evolved. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time.

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
If you get those, you might be able to figure out the rest.

If that's a bit tough, here's one that's more purely mathematical (you seem to have an interest in math). There are two alleles (A and a) for a gene in a population. They have frequencies of 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. Assuming that they are equally adaptive, and that no organisms migrate into or out of the population, what will be the frequency of AA, aa, and Aa individuals in the next generation?

What you are speaking is how a phenotype spreads across a population or inheritance.

I asked for the frequency of these genotypes in the next generation. Would you mind telling us?

This is not evolution not can evolution be explained by this.

Indeed, this is a test to determine whether or not natural selection is acting on a population for that gene. Do you see why it can be used for that?

Tell us the distribution, and why this is a good test for natural selection.

These two alleles or SNP or a single mutation does not create any species.

It can. A single point mutation can produce reproductive isolation.

A single celled organism have half a million hase-pairs and you are just speaking of just 1 such base-pair. One such base-pair having 0.3 and 0.7 frequencies does not cause speciation.

If you don't know the answer, tell me, and I'll explain it to you.

 

[Barbarian]

Humans differ with each other by only 0.1% (that's 3 million base-pairs). However, chimps differ by 5% (that's 150 million base-pairs).

The difference, measuring base pairs is more like 3%. Since genes are the unit of heredity, we'll use your 5% But there's about 30,000 genes for humans and about the same for chimps, so about 1500 genes different. But both have evolved, so there's about 750 genes different from the last common ancestor (both humans and chimps have evolved over time, not just humans).

Now calculate how many mutations are required for chimps to evolve into humans with the same rate of mutations we have now, considering the fact that mutations and the environmental triggers for natural selection are totally random.

Now, all of us have a dozen or so mutations not found in our parents. Assume a population of 1,000,000 individuals, that would be conservatively 10,000,000 mutations, the vast majority of them pretty much neutral, and not observably good or bad. Perhaps 5% of them are harmful, and very conservatively 0.000001% is useful (one in a hundred million). So about 0.01 useful mutations per generation. As you see, even with the most conservative estimates of useful gene mutations, there is more than enough time for evolution to proceed.

8 million years is 400000 generations which is not sufficient for chimps to get evolved.

That's another of your errors. We didn't evolve from chimps. We and chimps had a common ancestor from which we both evolved.

The required timeline is more than the age of universe.

Three hundred thousand years would be the minimum time required, as you see from the math. More likely, several million years, given changes in selective pressures.

 

[Classik]

You are such a comedian, bro.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Wow, Barbarian. I don't know if you copy/paste your info or you know all this stuff, but if you was as good with scriptures as you are with this type of info, you'd make a heck of an evangelist.

It does seem that he finds the scriptures less interesting.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow, Barbarian. I don't know if you copy/paste your info or you know all this stuff, but if you was as good with scriptures as you are with this type of info, you'd make a heck of an evangelist.

I am. I have more success bringing nonbelievers to Christ, than I have bringing creationists to science. Which is, I think, the way it should be. I was the assistant CCD director for my church.

BTW, no one could memorize all that stuff. The key today to being educated, is knowing where to find the material, and having the understanding of the framework of biological sciences, so that you can understand it when you find it. I check the literature constantly, if for no other reason, to make sure I'm up to date on what's known.

Of course, I've been studying living things for nearly 60 years, if you count my boyhood paddling around the sloughs and islands in the Mississippi river. I started out loving animals and decided I'd learn all that I could about them, and understand what they were thinking. That's been a lifelong effort, and I have to say, there are moments in the field when all the things I see going on around me fall together with my faith and there's an epiphany for me with Him and His works.

I started reading the Bible (a Douay) when I found it in the bookshelf. I was about eight, I think. I remember thinking, how raw some of it was. From the start, I liked Paul and Matthew. I connected better with the Gospel from them, than from the others. I'm hardly a Bible scholar; my koine Greek is terrible, and I know next to nothing of Hebrew and Aramaic. But I think I can be an effective apologist, if necessary.

Something you'd like to talk about?

 

[felix]

There's nothing in the notion of randomness that rules out rapid speciation.

I will address this first and others will automatically fall.

When you say "random", it has to abide by some basic properties.
1. Equally probable values.
2. Independent values.

Hence, mutation and the environmental events which triggers natural selection are random and equally probable. Thus, each successive generations having a favorable path for rapid speciation is not possible.

3. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

Yes, it will. Mathematically, you can show that eventually there well be fixation of neutral alleles.

Learn about it here:
http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites...tic_drift.html

Genetic Drift does not work for larger populations within the required timeline for speciation. It only removes existing phenotype from a population.
even a population of 50 requires significant number of generation and for practical reasons, their isolation is not possible for thousands of years.

It can. A single point mutation can produce reproductive isolation.

Definition of evolution clearly states that evolution is on population not an individual. So, you require another "miracle creature" simultaneously born with same reproductive isolation.

A single celled organism have half a million hase-pairs and you are just speaking of just 1 such base-pair. One such base-pair having 0.3 and 0.7 frequencies does not cause speciation.

these frequencies like genetic drift don't cause anything to evolve. it is only a part of evolutionary mechanism to remove alleles. But for another species to evolve you require "mutations" not genetic drift.
Genetic drift also requires mutations.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There's nothing in the notion of randomness that rules out rapid speciation.

When you say "random", it has to abide by some basic properties.
1. Equally probable values.
2. Independent values.

Nothing's a problem so far.

Hence, mutation and the environmental events which triggers natural selection are random and equally probable. Thus, each successive generations having a favorable path for rapid speciation is not possible.

No, that's wrong. You see, natural selection changes the possible combinations for the next generation, by removing the unfavorable combinations and by preserving the favorable ones. So, next generation, you start with a population that's more fit than the previous. And then, the process goes on. That's why the simulation I gave you would help you understand why random change and natural selection will make that path possible.

Barbarian observes:
3. Will the population ever reach fixation (only one allele surviving in the population)?

Yes, it will. Mathematically, you can show that eventually there well be fixation of neutral alleles.

Learn about it here:
http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites...tic_drift.html

Genetic Drift does not work for larger populations within the required timeline for speciation.

That's one reason why speciation tends to happen in small isolated populations.

It only removes existing phenotype from a population.

Natural selection, however also increases the number of the fittest organisms each generation. And that's all it takes.

Even a population of 50 requires significant number of generation and for practical reasons, their isolation is not possible for thousands of years.

No, that's wrong, too. We have many such examples. And, as you learned, a few thousand generations is more than enough to effect speciation.

Barbarian observes:
It can. A single point mutation can produce reproductive isolation.

Definition of evolution clearly states that evolution is on population not an individual. So, you require another "miracle creature" simultaneously born with same reproductive isolation.

Such as identical twins from a litter. We actually know of such cases. There's a polyploid rodent in S. America. It could only have begun a population from another polyploid individual. As you know, it more often happens that several mutations are required for speciation, and so a small population will more gradually become reproductively isolated.

A single celled organism have half a million hase-pairs and you are just speaking of just 1 such base-pair.

Yep. And one is sometimes all it takes.

One such base-pair having 0.3 and 0.7 frequencies does not cause speciation.

That doesn't make any sense at all. I think you're confusing genes and base pairs. And possibly individuals and populations.

these frequencies like genetic drift don't cause anything to evolve.

Since you weren't able to work out the next-generation frequencies, they are:
aa = .09 Aa = .42 AA = .49

This is the Hardy-Weinberg equation and when it comes out according to the prediction, indicates that evolution is not going on for that gene. When it does not meet the prediction, it verifies an evolutionary process.

It is only a part of evolutionary mechanism to remove alleles.

No, that's a common misunderstanding. What it does, is change the allele frequencies for the next generation. It reduces the frequency of unfit alleles, and increases the frequency of the fit alleles.

But for another species to evolve you require "mutations" not genetic drift.

No. Speciation can occur by genetic drift. I hope you understand that genetic drift also requires mutations. You should learn about the Founder Effect, to see why these things are so. Of course, speciation may not produce any increase in fitness. It merely produces reproductive isolation. Since evolution generally does increase fitness, that would be the usual result, but it is not necessarily true.

 

[Vaccine]

Hi all! According to ENCODE mutations are no longer a viable source to evolution. According to Gould, MOST don't change. MOST appear in the fossil record fully formed. What a time to live to see what discoveries ENCODE is making.

 

[Barbarian]

Hi all! According to ENCODE mutations are no longer a viable source to evolution.

You've already learned that the ENCODE researchers said nothing of the sort. In fact, their finding is that mutations and natural selection are required for evolution to proceed:

Evolution is the process by which organisms change over time. Mutations produce genetic variation in populations, and the environment interacts with this variation to select those individuals best adapted to their surroundings. The best-adapted individuals leave behind more offspring than less well-adapted individuals. Given enough time, one species may evolve into many others.

http://www.genome.gov/Glossary/index.cfm?id=60

That is the statement of the ENCODE team, concerning evolution. As you see, they have found exactly the opposite of what you've attributed to them.

According to Gould, MOST don't change.

Gould says that all populations evolve.
(Stephen Jay Gould:The Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 63)

MOST appear in the fossil record fully formed.

All organisms are "fully formed." But as you learned, Gould has clearly refuted your claim:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

What a time to live to see what discoveries ENCODE is making.

Indeed. But it is not good news for creationism. From the ENCODE site:

Is natural selection considered a mutation?
Larry Brody, Ph.D.: Dr. Brody's lab investigates the connection between genetics and diseases related to birth defects and cancer. No. They are different but related. Natural selection occurs when one variant form has an advantage over another variant form. Variation is produced when mutations happen to DNA. This creates organisms that are slightly different. Without mutations, life would never have evolved.

http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=756&year=2008