Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

The following is a quote of Gould that previously was posted by Paul.

I added the bold face to two of the sentences. In the first bold face sentence, Gould is speaking about mutations. It is clear from the mathematics from ev that the larger the population, the more rapid the evolution (at least for random point mutations). However, if you consider a small population with advantageous alleles and recombination rather than mutations, Gould’s postulate makes sense.

The second bold faced sentence also makes sense if you are talking about recombination and natural selection. Pygmy elephants could rapidly evolve to their larger relatives that we see today by recombination and natural selection without their being much evidence in the fossil record because of the rapid transition from the small form to the large form. If you consider the analogy of dog breeding, you have the variation in size from Chihuahuas to Great Danes in fewer than 10,000 generations.

Gould should have been using the word recombination, not mutation in his postulate and then his theory would match observations.

Are Chihuahuas and Great Danes still members of the same species? I can't imagine that it would be reasonably likely for the two "breeds" to be able procreate without human intervention.

 

[hammegk]

Er, the definition of species is still evolving.

http://humboldt.edu/~kll1/speciesdef.html

That paper purports to be last updated in 1998. Perhaps someone can provide a few definitions more to get us all up to date?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The following is a quote of Gould that previously was posted by Paul.

I added the bold face to two of the sentences. In the first bold face sentence, Gould is speaking about mutations. It is clear from the mathematics from ev that the larger the population, the more rapid the evolution (at least for random point mutations). However, if you consider a small population with advantageous alleles and recombination rather than mutations, Gould’s postulate makes sense.

The second bold faced sentence also makes sense if you are talking about recombination and natural selection. Pygmy elephants could rapidly evolve to their larger relatives that we see today by recombination and natural selection without their being much evidence in the fossil record because of the rapid transition from the small form to the large form. If you consider the analogy of dog breeding, you have the variation in size from Chihuahuas to Great Danes in fewer than 10,000 generations.

Gould should have been using the word recombination, not mutation in his postulate and then his theory would match observations.

Are Chihuahuas and Great Danes still members of the same species? I can't imagine that it would be reasonably likely for the two "breeds" to be able procreate without human intervention.

The two breeds maintain homologous chromosomes. A “pure bred” Chihuahua/Great Dane pair might have difficulty mating because of their extreme size difference but it is easy to imagine a Chihuahua interbreeding with a small mutt giving larger offspring than the Chihuahua parent and a Great Dane interbreeding with a large mutt giving smaller offspring than the Great Dane parent and the offspring of these “pure bred” dogs interbreeding. This can all be done without human intervention.

 

[kjkent1]

The two breeds maintain homologous chromosomes. A “pure bred” Chihuahua/Great Dane pair might have difficulty mating because of their extreme size difference but it is easy to imagine a Chihuahua interbreeding with a small mutt giving larger offspring than the Chihuahua parent and a Great Dane interbreeding with a large mutt giving smaller offspring than the Great Dane parent and the offspring of these “pure bred” dogs interbreeding. This can all be done without human intervention.

You avoided the question. A small mutt is not a Great Dane. A small mutt is a cross between a Great Dane and something(s) else, and may in fact, be more something else than Great Dane.

And, to be clear, a male Great Dane wouldn't just "have difficulty mating, because of their extreme size differences." A male Great Dane would almost certainly kill the female Chihuahua, if not during mating, then during the birth of the pups.

As for the reverse circumstance of a male Chihuahua mating with a female Great Dane, when you get me a photo of those two dogs tied together, that's when I'll buy into that imagery.

So, I'll repeat the question, are Great Danes and a Chihuahuas members of the same "species?"

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The two breeds maintain homologous chromosomes. A “pure bred” Chihuahua/Great Dane pair might have difficulty mating because of their extreme size difference but it is easy to imagine a Chihuahua interbreeding with a small mutt giving larger offspring than the Chihuahua parent and a Great Dane interbreeding with a large mutt giving smaller offspring than the Great Dane parent and the offspring of these “pure bred” dogs interbreeding. This can all be done without human intervention.

You avoided the question. A small mutt is not a Great Dane. A small mutt is a cross between a Great Dane and something(s) else, and may in fact, be more something else than Great Dane.

And, to be clear, a male Great Dane wouldn't just "have difficulty mating, because of their extreme size differences." A male Great Dane would almost certainly kill the female Chihuahua, if not during mating, then during the birth of the pups.

As for the reverse circumstance of a male Chihuahua mating with a female Great Dane, when you get me a photo of those two dogs tied together, that's when I'll buy into that imagery.

So, I'll repeat the question, are Great Danes and a Chihuahuas members of the same "species?"

Do you think that all the members of a species have to be the same size?

 

[kjkent1]

Do you think that all the members of a species have to be the same size?

You're giving a splended demonstration of being unable to define when microevolutionary change ends and macroevolutionary change begins.

A Great Dane is enormously bigger than a Chihuahua, not in some cases, but in every case.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/great_dane/index.cfm

http://www.akc.org/breeds/chihuahua/index.cfm

But, suppose there is a dwarf? If you admit that a dwarf Great Dane is possible, then you admit the possiblity of some very substantial and immediate changes due to random mutation -- changes which could irrevocably prevent any future procreation between what were formerly members of the same "species."

Is a Chihuahua a dwarf Great Dane? Is a dwarf Great Dane a Great Dane? A dwarf Great Dane would be equally unable to breed with a full size Great Dane as would a Great Dane and a Chihuahua.

All of this begs the question of when speciation occurs. It is inescapable that if you define Great Dane and Chihuahua as the American Kennel Club defines them, that there is near zero probability of their ever mating again without human intervention. Howevever if you define the dogs differently, then you will get a different result.

So, once more, are Great Danes and Chihuahuas different species?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That paper purports to be last updated in 1998. Perhaps someone can provide a few definitions more to get us all up to date?

Good luck. The definition of species is not as slippery as macroevolution, but it's right up there on the slick scale.

You're giving a splended demonstration of being unable to define when microevolutionary change ends and macroevolutionary change begins.

Agreed. I sure as heck wouldn't base my definition of macroevolution on a definition of species. It's slippery all the way down.

Continua are very difficult to partition. We have to do it in ethics, but I see no reason why we have to do it in biology.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Can an evolutionarian wave his arms fast enough to actually gain altitude?

 

[Kotatsu]

A hopefully breif derail

Can an evolutionarian wave his arms fast enough to actually gain altitude?

Yes. I use it all the time. I think I've saved several thousands of my local currency in bus fares over the last six months alone! [EDIT] Of course, this would depend on the individual evolutionarian's body weight, arm strength, the local wind and weather conditions, whether or not he/she is carrying anything, and several other factors; please consider my simple "Yes" an affirmation that it is indeed possible under certain conditions, not as an universal positive.[/EDIT]

Question: What is actually "arm-waving" as used by Hammegk here? I've seen it several times in this thread and elsewhere, but I'm not really sure I understand what it means.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Do you think that all the members of a species have to be the same size?

You're giving a splended demonstration of being unable to define when microevolutionary change ends and macroevolutionary change begins.

Kjkent1, you are doing a splendid demonstration of swatting at gnats when an elephant is stomping on your head. You are attempting to split hairs with this species argument concerning Chihuahuas and Great Danes when you are missing this huge mathematical difference between mutation and natural selection and recombination and natural selection.

Mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process while recombination and natural selection is a rapid process. You can not extrapolate the rapid changes that are possible by recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection. This is what Darwin and Gould have done and caused evolutionists to go down a hundred plus year long rabbit trail.

That paper purports to be last updated in 1998. Perhaps someone can provide a few definitions more to get us all up to date?

Good luck. The definition of species is not as slippery as macroevolution, but it's right up there on the slick scale.

Let’s start firming up the definition of macroevolution. Start with the de novo evolution of a gene.

You're giving a splended demonstration of being unable to define when microevolutionary change ends and macroevolutionary change begins.

Agreed. I sure as heck wouldn't base my definition of macroevolution on a definition of species. It's slippery all the way down.

Hey Paul, we agree on this one. Does that mean you are soon going to retract this statement?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Have you noticed that antievolutionites demand that things be continuous when it suits them (e.g., fossil record), but also demand that things be discrete when it suits them (e.g., species, macroevolution)? Is this because these things are really continuous/discrete, or is it just convenient?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Question: What is actually "arm-waving" as used by Hammegk here? I've seen it several times in this thread and elsewhere, but I'm not really sure I understand what it means.

It means he thinks you don't know what you're talking about, but you stubbornly refuse to use the word mu. If you would just say moo, he would be happy.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Have you noticed that antievolutionites demand that things be continuous when it suits them (e.g., fossil record), but also demand that things be discrete when it suits them (e.g., species, macroevolution)? Is this because these things are really continuous/discrete, or is it just convenient?

Since I am the primary antievolutionite on this thread, I will take this statement as addressed to me. It is you evolutionarians that are claiming that the fossil record is your proof for evolution. Now that the huge mathematical difference between mutation and natural selection and recombination and natural selection is now apparent (in part because of your good work on ev), the explanation of the fossil record become more sensible. The changes in the fossil record are explained by recombination and natural selection events. Punctuated equilibrium explains why there are no transitional form fossils seen for intraspecies microevolutionary events (such as pygmy elephants to the large forms we see today, ring species and many other examples) and the lack of fossils for extraspecies macroevolutionary events such as the transition from reptiles to birds. Unless the transition from reptiles to birds is accomplished by recombination and natural selection by punctuated equilibrium, you should see large numbers of transitional forms due to the slow action of mutation and natural selection. Paul, you do good work and I appreciate it very much.

 

[PixyMisa]

Mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process while recombination and natural selection is a rapid process.

Except, of course, when the reverse is true. Thousands of years of selective breeding and all dogs are dogs. A single transposition error and we have a species of bacteria with an ability never seen before.

It all depends on what sort of changes you are looking for.

For example:

It is clear from the mathematics from ev that the larger the population, the more rapid the evolution (at least for random point mutations).

Which simply isn't correct. A larger population allows for more instances of mutation; however, this does not result in speciation unless the mutations are propagated and accumulate over time. That is far more likely in a small, isolated population than in a large, widespread one. What the large population ends up with is more genetic variation; what it doesn't do is evolve.

 

[PixyMisa]

Since I am the primary antievolutionite on this thread, I will take this statement as addressed to me. It is you evolutionarians that are claiming that the fossil record is your proof for evolution.

Not just that; we have also observed speciation for all sensible definitions of the term. We also have the evidence of molecular evolution, of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. The molecular evidence runs directly against your hypothesis.

Now that the huge mathematical difference between mutation and natural selection and recombination and natural selection is now apparent (in part because of your good work on ev)

Your interpretation of the mathematics of these processes is completely wrong.

Punctuated equilibrium explains why there are no transitional form fossils seen for intraspecies microevolutionary events (such as pygmy elephants to the large forms we see today, ring species and many other examples) and the lack of fossils for extraspecies macroevolutionary events such as the transition from reptiles to birds.

Except that this is also completely wrong. We have an abundance of transitional fossils... except, as far as I know, for bats.

Unless the transition from reptiles to birds is accomplished by recombination and natural selection by punctuated equilibrium, you should see large numbers of transitional forms due to the slow action of mutation and natural selection.

And we do see large numbers of transitional forms.

What's more, it simply isn't possible, genetically, for recombination to result in phyletic evolution (such as reptiles to birds). There are new genes all over the place, changes in the numbers of chromosomes, all sorts of differences.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, and the definition of macroevolution is a simple one:

Microevolution: Change.
Macroevolution: More change.

 

[hgc]

Question: What is actually "arm-waving" as used by Hammegk here? I've seen it several times in this thread and elsewhere, but I'm not really sure I understand what it means.

Welcome to hammyworld. He's got a whole snarkabulary that you will never penetrate.

 

[kjkent1]

Except, of course, when the reverse is true. Thousands of years of selective breeding and all dogs are dogs. A single transposition error and we have a species of bacteria with an ability never seen before.

This sort of brings me back to my point about Chihuahuas and Great Danes. The statement that "all dogs are dogs," is just our choice as humans to arbitrarily classify a certain group of life forms as "dogs", and as all being contained within the same species. Yes, all dogs continue to share important features, and their DNA is compatible. But if physical reproductive isolation were considered the primary speciation determiner, then a Chihuahua and a Great Dane would no longer be members of the same species, because they cannot, as a practical matter, procreate.

Furthermore, suppose that the "Eugenics" movement of the early-mid 1900s had caught on. Suppose we were actively creating breeds of humans, for size, shape, strength and intellect, etc. Within a few hundred years our view of what is a "human" would be markedly different. And, I suggest that if one of these human breeds were considerably more fit than all of its competitors, that those competitors would very quickly disappear from the biological landscape.

Like it or not, we humans are an extremely ruthless species.

We don't like to think about these things, because of our cultural history. Eugenics is almost a code word for "NAZI," because of how the Third Reich chose to deal with the creation of a superior race.

But, were we, as humans to become suddenly and considerably less "moral," I strongly suspect that we would witness a very profound evolution of the species within our own lifetimes.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process while recombination and natural selection is a rapid process.

Except, of course, when the reverse is true. Thousands of years of selective breeding and all dogs are dogs. A single

transposition error and we have a species of bacteria with an ability never seen before.

This is a good example of a single mutation that can cause a microevolutionary change. Natural selection in this case takes and existing peptidase and modifies it so a synthetic organic molecule (nylon) can be decomposed. Now if the original peptidase were to evolve, that would be macroevolution.

It is clear from the mathematics from ev that the larger the population, the more rapid the evolution (at least for random point mutations).

Which simply isn't correct. A larger population allows for more instances of mutation; however, this does not result in speciation unless the mutations are propagated and accumulate over time. That is far more likely in a small, isolated population than in a large, widespread one. What the large population ends up with is more genetic variation; what it doesn't do is evolve.

I haven’t noticed any previous posts from you but it seems you are not familiar with the data posted from Dr Schneider’s ev program. This computer model simulates random point mutations and natural selection. The mathematics of random point mutation and natural selection is completely different from the mathematics of recombination and natural selection. You are confusing these two mathematical processes. You need to study this thread and a related thread-http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=f42b17926a042f8bf08e0eb2cc13c212 in order to understand the distinction. You will then have some understanding of the effects of population on random point mutation and natural selection.

Since I am the primary antievolutionite on this thread, I will take this statement as addressed to me. It is you evolutionarians that are claiming that the fossil record is your proof for evolution.

Not just that; we have also observed speciation for all sensible definitions of the term. We also have the evidence of molecular evolution, of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. The molecular evidence runs directly against your hypothesis.

What you are doing is extrapolating the observation of similarity between genomes of different life forms to that they evolved from one another. The flaw in your argument is that the differences are too great to be accounted for by mutations and natural selection to make the transformation. Not only does random point mutation and natural selection fail to account for the evolution of one species to the next, the de novo evolution of genes is a mathematical impossibility. There is no known selection mechanism to evolve a gene de novo and Dr Schneider’s ev computer model with an unrealistic selection process shows how profoundly slow random point mutations and natural selection is for evolving binding sites de novo.

Now that the huge mathematical difference between mutation and natural selection and recombination and natural selection is now apparent (in part because of your good work on ev)

Your interpretation of the mathematics of these processes is completely wrong.

My interpretation of the mathematics is based on an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection and the observed behavior of recombination and natural selection, for example dog breeding. What is the mathematical basis of your interpretation?

Punctuated equilibrium explains why there are no transitional form fossils seen for intraspecies microevolutionary events (such as pygmy elephants to the large forms we see today, ring species and many other examples) and the lack of fossils for extraspecies macroevolutionary events such as the transition from reptiles to birds.

Except that this is also completely wrong. We have an abundance of transitional fossils... except, as far as I know, for bats.

The fossil record is open to interpretation. Your interpretation of the fossil record conflicts with the mathematical results obtained from ev.

Unless the transition from reptiles to birds is accomplished by recombination and natural selection by punctuated equilibrium, you should see large numbers of transitional forms due to the slow action of mutation and natural selection.

And we do see large numbers of transitional forms.

This is the evolutionist version of the Rorschach test. You are seeing what you want to see in the fossil record. You have not come to grips with the fact that you have a big mathematical problem in your theory.

What's more, it simply isn't possible, genetically, for recombination to result in phyletic evolution (such as reptiles to birds). There are new genes all over the place, changes in the numbers of chromosomes, all sorts of differences.

Again, what you don’t understand yet is that recombination and natural selection is a rapid mechanism for change. It is this mechanism that Darwin was observing when trying to explain the differences between finch beaks, not mutation and natural selection. It also is the mechanism that Gould should have used when postulating his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium rather than mutation and natural selection. There is no way to explain mathematically all the new genes required to evolve reptiles to birds. Random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process as shown by the ev computer model. All the other forms of mutations that are being raised by evolutionists are governed by the same mathematics as is random point mutations and natural selection.

Oh, and the definition of macroevolution is a simple one:

Microevolution: Change.
Macroevolution: More change.

Conceptually this may be the case. Perhaps you would like to tell us what the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

 

[kjkent1]

Again, what you don’t understand yet is that recombination and natural selection is a rapid mechanism for change. It is this mechanism that Darwin was observing when trying to explain the differences between finch beaks, not mutation and natural selection. It also is the mechanism that Gould should have used when postulating his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium rather than mutation and natural selection. There is no way to explain mathematically all the new genes required to evolve reptiles to birds. Random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process as shown by the ev computer model. All the other forms of mutations that are being raised by evolutionists are governed by the same mathematics as is random point mutations and natural selection.

I wonder if the answer is in the selection method? ;-)

Ev's method is extremely simplistic, apparently quite arbitrary and not at all like what happens in nature (ev simply and mindlessly kills off one half of the population which is less fit, and replaces it with a copy of the more fit half).

I suspect that a more natural model of a bacterial evolution (ev is clearly an asexual model) would be to kill off nearly the entire population except for the organism which has the mutation permitting survival under the current environmental stress, and then multiply that organism.

Of course, ev doesn't model any particular environmental stress, either. If it did, then that stress would tend to limit the survival of the population to those creatures whose mutations provide them with the best opportunity to survive.

Ev operates in an almost totally random style, as if the environment in which its creatures live is under a stress that simply kills off one half of the population which is "less perfect," as defined by ev.

This is not how it happens in nature. In nature, perfect is defined by the ability of the creature to survive long enough to procreate in the present environment. This may mean, for example, that only the bacteria which has developed the required antibiotic resistance will survive, and all the other bacteria will die.

I don't think your constant pounding on ev's slow mutation rate is reasonable, because you are arguing that ev doesn't realistically model evolution of the species in nature. I doubt that Dr. Schneider would disagree with that assessment.