Denial of evolution III

[Ophiolite]

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

You folks will now need to use genetics and natural selection to explain this acceleration of human evolution.

How do you explain acceleration in TOE? I want to see the math.

You don't seem to understand the research you are presenting. The authors of this study provide the answers to the questions you pose.

"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.

[Kennyc]

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)

[GeoffP]

OK, can you demonstrate an algorithm to show how these will produce the desired results of the experiments.

What kind of algorithm are you looking for, exactly? As a quantitative geneticist, my immediate response would be a standard GxE model:

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?

?? What do you mean by "superior"? Within what range? Within what context?

Finally, can you apply your conclusions to the following.

Thanks.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/4/887.pdf

Sequential mutation. Bacteria produce a shitload of individuals. Billions and billions. Probably why they've survived for so long. You'll notice that the study is about adaptation as the movement of DNA elements - translocation of segments, in other words. From page 1: "This study focuses on adaptive mutations that
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."

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/?a=f

Yes, methylation. Reaction norms in progeny variance, and/or imprinting, depending on the stage. This is what I was saying above. There's really little opposition to non-classical heredity in biology these days. I can't think of anyone who opposes it in any real sense (except for me, with my objections to some of the data that Pigliucci cites in defense of phenotypic plasticity). These things are explicitly in neo-Darwinian theory; I work in the same area myself. In the old days, people just consigned such effects to error among or even within subjects. Now, workers in the field - myself included - are interested in the subject. To say it's Lamarckian might be true: now, can you demonstrate Lamarckianism in discrete stages from a tadpole to a Triceratops, please?

[Jack_]

You don't seem to understand the research you are presenting. The authors of this study provide the answers to the questions you pose.

"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.

Darn, it seems I am over my head.

What do you mean?

Which reference of the posts are you using?

[Jack_]

What kind of algorithm are you looking for, exactly? As a quantitative geneticist, my immediate response would be a standard GxE model:

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".



?? What do you mean by "superior"? Within what range? Within what context?




Sequential mutation. Bacteria produce a shitload of individuals. Billions and billions. Probably why they've survived for so long. You'll notice that the study is about adaptation as the movement of DNA elements - translocation of segments, in other words. From page 1: "This study focuses on adaptive mutations that
result from the movement of mobile genetic elements".

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?



Yes, methylation. Reaction norms in progeny variance, and/or imprinting, depending on the stage. This is what I was saying above. There's really little opposition to non-classical heredity in biology these days. I can't think of anyone who opposes it in any real sense (except for me, with my objections to some of the data that Pigliucci cites in defense of phenotypic plasticity). These things are explicitly in neo-Darwinian theory; I work in the same area myself. In the old days, people just consigned such effects to error among or even within subjects. Now, workers in the field - myself included - are interested in the subject. To say it's Lamarckian might be true: now, can you demonstrate Lamarckianism in discrete stages from a tadpole to a Triceratops, please?

Your equation is stable and does not explain accelerations.

Further, can you use this equation to explain the results of John Cairns?

I want to see your acceleration equations.

[Jack_]

Sequential mutation. Bacteria produce a shitload of individuals. Billions and billions. Probably why they've survived for so long. You'll notice that the study is about adaptation as the movement of DNA elements - translocation of segments, in other words. From page 1: "This study focuses on adaptive mutations that
result from the movement of mobile genetic elements".

You have missed what I have been posting.

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.

Continue.

[Jack_]

Jack-

GeoffP is right in post 464.... There are other alternative probable explanations (which he listed) which have not been exhausted... There is no reason to assume that it is outside of TOE unless all other explanations, as pointed out by GeoffP, are exhausted...

Your claim, and perhaps Cairns conclusion are pre-mature...

You may be right in your hypothesis BUT at the moment there are other alternatives which must be tested to show that it is not because of other factors. Which by the way is not going to be soon because there is too much unknown about the genome and gene function. So even if the alternatives posed by GeoffP are refuted there is still other possible alternatives which are currently unknown... For example we don't understand introns too well- who knows if they are playing a role which we don't know they play....

There are simply too many possible alternatives that it is unscientific to assume that your conclusion is the only plausible explanation..

Peace be unto you

Bring all this to bear.

I am betting I have an endgame.

[Kennyc]

Bring all this to bear.

I am betting I have an endgame.

My money's on the other side.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Continue.

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.

[Big Chiller]

I think there is still no convincing evidence for the occurrence of dramatic macro-evolution in larger organisms over long periods of time.

[GeoffP]

Are you contrasting that with the process of micro-evolution, or do you mean all evolution/descent with modification?

[Big Chiller]

Are you contrasting that with the process of micro-evolution, or do you mean all evolution/descent with modification?

I am contrasting with the process of micro-evolution.

[GeoffP]

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?

[Mr MacGillivray]

Didn't know that macro-evolution was a special event.

[GeoffP]

It is "special". They only let the "special" taxa participate in it.

[Mr MacGillivray]

special as in developmental delayed?

[spidergoat]

I think there is still no convincing enough evidence for a dramatic macro-evolution in larger organisms regardless of the long periods of time required for evolution.

...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.

Conclusion:
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.

[GeoffP]

special as in developmental delayed?

We try not to use that phrase.

[Billy T]

[I][INDENT]... 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...

My favorite example of this "definition problem" is a type of bird found in the arctic, all around the arctic. It is not a good flier (as is true of most arctic birds, I think, as flying takes a lot of energy and food is in short supply for land birds there) so did not make it across the ocean between the east most part of Russia and the west most part of US (Alaska). Perhaps there just were not many in East Russia or West US?

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.

[Big Chiller]

Hi spidergoat,

[...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

Call it macro-evolution or evolution there is no convincing evidence for such dramatic changes in large organisms.

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.

There maybe no known mechanism that would prevent micro-evolution to result into macro-evolution but such changes in larger organisms are entirely unsupported by fossil evidences, because there should be far more fossils that mark this gradual process of a large organism's every step of transition in it's evolution to a very different organism. I'm not saying that something prevents evolution, but that there are just no convincing evidences.

,Big Chiller