04-14-10, 06:09 AM #481
"Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth."
In support of this contention they cite Fisher [Fisher, R. A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarendon, Oxford).] and Otto et al Otto, S. P. & Whitlock, M. C. (1997) Genetics 146, 723–733..
I have never before heard anyone complain about lack of maths in Fisher's work. What do you find unsatisfactory about the authors' own explanation? And, if you are doubting Fisher, could you also specify what you find questionable in the works of Haldane, Dhobzansky, Simpson and Mayr.
04-14-10, 06:22 AM #482
Jack, Jack would provide no fact
his wife could not be found
he posted his links
and claimed his truth
again and round and round.
(in honor of national poetry month)
04-14-10, 07:19 AM #483
y = u + a(sub i) + b(sub j) + [a(sub i) * b(sub j)] + e(sub ijm)
where y is phenotype (binary or quantitative; ability to use substrate), u is the population mean, a is the effect of genotype i (users and non-users), b is the effect of environment j (low substrate and normal substrate), a*b is the interaction of the two and e is error. It doesn't seem different from any other mathematical model of GxE.
"Desired results"? I think you mean "results".
Next, since this would naturally be a superior method of evolution, can you explain why this is always not the case under the context of TOE?
Finally, can you apply your conclusions to the following.
result from the movement of mobile genetic elements".
A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?
The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.
"The results are extremely surprising and unexpected," says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain's ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. "This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity."
04-14-10, 06:58 PM #484
04-14-10, 07:03 PM #485
04-14-10, 07:07 PM #486
All of my posts are not showing sequential mutation. This also is now the accepted mainstream.
Then based on your views, I am quite confident if you pursue this with me, I will run you into a contradiction.
Currently, you are sitting on a stable "inertial" evolution pattern that is now not part of the mainstream.
04-14-10, 07:09 PM #487
04-14-10, 08:11 PM #488
04-14-10, 08:34 PM #489
Mod note: No, I think not. You have gone far enough with this stuff.
You have the troll pseudoscientist’s playbook and you’ve been running it step by step....
Step 1: Cherry pick an isolated out-of-context piece of scientific evidence that you think might support your crackpot viewpoint.
Step 2: Misinterpret it to fit your crackpot viewpoint.
Step 3: Present it as solid evidence for your woo-woo crackpotism.
Step 4: Challenge people to refute it.
Step 5: When people do refute it with real science (which multiple people have done), either ignore them, state that they have misunderstood your pseudoscience or there own examples, or reply with a non-sequitor or unintelligible response.
Step 6: Re-challenge people to refute your pseudoscience.
Step 7: Go to step 5.
Last edited by Hercules Rockefeller; 05-14-10 at 02:27 AM.
06-23-10, 08:15 PM #490
I think there is still no convincing evidence for the occurrence of dramatic macro-evolution in larger organisms over long periods of time.
Last edited by Big Chiller; 06-24-10 at 04:23 PM.
06-23-10, 08:41 PM #491
Are you contrasting that with the process of micro-evolution, or do you mean all evolution/descent with modification?
06-23-10, 09:43 PM #492
06-23-10, 09:54 PM #493
Ahh. Well, major mutations do happen, you know.
Or wait, because now I have another question: do you mean you are refuting the idea of (Darwinian) descent with modification?
06-24-10, 06:48 AM #494
Didn't know that macro-evolution was a special event.
06-24-10, 08:16 AM #495
06-24-10, 12:19 PM #496
special as in developmental delayed?
06-24-10, 12:42 PM #497
...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.
A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.
06-24-10, 01:26 PM #498
06-24-10, 02:23 PM #499
If man brings those two slightly different in appearance US & Russian birds together, their fertilized eggs are sterile - they cannot mate. - Therefore must be a different species.
However, the Alaskan one can mate with those of Western Canada and does so. They can mate with those of Central Arctic Canada and those can mate with those of Eastern Canada. The E. Canadian ones can fly over the water to Greenland and mate with the birds there, which mate successfully with those of Iceland; and they can mate with those of Norway, (via the Faeros & Shetland Islands probably) and so on all across Norther Europe and then across the top of Russia to the east Russian birds. - Therefore they must all be of the same species.
Summary every bird can mate with those east or west of it within its normal range of flight, all around the Arctic, but Alaskan ones cannot mate with East Russian ones.
Which "therefore" is correct?
SUMMARY: What we have here is a case where geographic separation as you go East/ West (or West/ East) around the Arctic land has preserved samples of the small genetic difference that accumulated over time to make that Trans-Bering Strait pairing sterile.
Normally it is time that does this (and of course time did here too, I assume). I.e. Normally species B descended from species A via accumulation of small genetic changes and now are different species, but any of generation N could mate with those of generation N+1 or generation N-1, but we rarely now have samples of all those intermediates to show this. The genetic variation that has accumulated in these Arctic birds was not "adaption to changing environment" - All are well adapted to ice and cold. It was just simple random drift that did not dis-adapt them to their enviroment.
Last edited by Billy T; 06-24-10 at 03:05 PM.
06-25-10, 10:06 PM #500
[...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same.
By 786 in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 12-14-09, 12:22 PMReplies: 104
By Tnerb in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 01-12-09, 03:48 PMReplies: 13
By w1z4rd in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 11-17-08, 02:43 AMReplies: 12
By w1z4rd in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 11-07-08, 02:38 PMReplies: 2
By Cortex_Colossus in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 03-24-08, 10:34 AMReplies: 4