A devastating critique of population genetics? The Discovery Institute thinks so

It's like probabilities are magic to them--not understandable, not predictable, yet somehow devastating to evolution.

Imagine, though, if human brains had evolved. Then some people might not really be reliable arbiters of issues like evolution and probability, unlike if God gave people certain knowledge, in at least the crucial matters. Fortunately, they know that they must be right, no matter how confused they may seem about basic issues.

Glen Davidson

I admit I am a total novice at this, but may I ask the following query:

A population has a certain environmental distribution and produces a number of offspring - each of which finds itself in a different environment - in that environment there is a probability p(E) they will survive.

The population has two allelles A and a. Overall there is a p(A) and p(a) that an individual will survive - lets say p(A) is greater.

But in some environments p(E|a) is higher than p(E|A); in others the opposite is the case - which shakes out to give the overall p(A) and p(a).

So whether the population prospers or declines depends upon two things - its distribution within the environment (if the population has all been washed to a hostile environment its prospects are dim) and the fitness of the genes to survive in that environment.

After a generation there is a new population - again distributed (most likely differently now) within the environment.

My untutored feeling is that the variation in environments will have a very significant impact on whether the species prospers or declines - I'm also fascinated by the assumption of a constant population in the population genetics model - it seems such an unrealistic constraint.

Gene fitness clearly affects survivability, but so too does environmental variation - which of these two factors has a greater effect on the survivability of the entire species seems very complex and not to me obvious.

The distribution of the species may be such that the environmental constraints have a far bigger impact on its survival than genetic ones.

I don't want to give any support to creationists - and I assume far more complex modelling has been done in the last 75 years building on the models of Haldane, Wright and Fisher, but I can't help feeling the OP misses a point

I'd love to understand how Modern evolutionary theory has built on the shoulders of these giants adding environmental issues into their models to help us try to understand when evolution is driven by Natural Selection, when it is driven by genetic drift and when it is driven by environmental factors - remember those poor dinosaurs and the radiations after their removal from the environment.

A model with a static population in a constant environment where population distributions can depend upon tiny variations in genes which even though tiny give statistical guarantees of gene success are all very well, but effective population sizes and environments show these assumptions don't hold very well for the real world - have we built better assumptions into our models since these early models - I'd love to know.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PkZsUe11rOBbyBPTMFoa6pUDJUQQjTxv#0c747 said: The population has two allelles A and a. Overall there is a p(A) and p(a) that an individual will survive - lets say p(A) is greater. But in some environments p(E|a) is higher than p(E|A); in others the opposite is the case - which shakes out to give the overall p(A) and p(a).... ...My untutored feeling is that the variation in environments will have a very significant impact on whether the species prospers or declines... ...The distribution of the species may be such that the environmental constraints have a far bigger impact on its survival than genetic ones.

I guess that no creationist is capable of understanding the concept of "random". They seem to mangle it every time. You would think that someone who studied mutations for a living would at least have a clue. Oh well, yet another creationist spouting off about things he knows nothing about shouldn't do too much harm. After all, he con only convince the willfully ignorant.

Of course, many potentially beneficial mutations are lost due to drift. Of course natural selection still operates. Of course evolution still works. Of course these issues have already =been dealt with mathematically. Of course creationists are completely ignorant of this history. CUltivating and propagating ignorance is apparently their job description. SInce the guy apparently didn't use any math to support his preconceptions, it is obvious that he was just using his incredulity as evidence, same as always. Next he'll be saying that the human eye couldn't evolve!

(I have added subheadings to my post, to break up the big block of text).

Masked Panda c747: I am not sure what you are asking. Your notation is unusual. I normally would use p(A) and p(a) as the frequencies of the two genotypes, not their fitnesses, for example. And my objective here is to analyze Lönnig's assertions that in simple cases genetic drift will eliminate the effect of natural selection, not to ask whether the population survives. (In these models it does survive because there is a large reproductive excess, and a strong density-dependent population size regulation).

eric: Yes, you can analyze cases where environments change, and cases where the population is distributed over environments. Lots of work on this has been done. In fact I wrote a review article in 1976 in Annual Review of Genetics entitles "The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration" with 152 references. That was 40 years ago and there have been many more papers on those topics since.

The present simple model, with one population and the same fitnesses every generation is sufficient to show that Lönnig doesn't know the theory relevant to predicting outcomes in even simple cases.

Joe Felsenstein said: The present simple model, with one population and the same fitnesses every generation is sufficient to show that Lönnig doesn't know the theory relevant to predicting outcomes in even simple cases.

Michael Fugate said: ... And that this result was known close to 100 years ago - once again creationists who neither know science nor history.

It's almost like they don't understand how does a casino make money when they only have a 2% house advantage on their games

If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive.
i think he's saying there is no reason these few aree more fit then all those who didn't survive. They couldn't be recognized by nature as more fit. Its a common sense thing against math/probability ideas.
he is a sharp scientist and knows in practical ways about mutations.
Thats where he is coming from. Indeed not the blackboard but real biology. a wee bit of instinct too.

Robert Byers said: If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive. i think he's saying there is no reason these few aree more fit then all those who didn't survive. They couldn't be recognized by nature as more fit. Its a common sense thing against math/probability ideas. he is a sharp scientist and knows in practical ways about mutations. Thats where he is coming from. Indeed not the blackboard but real biology. a wee bit of instinct too.

phhht said: Gods you're ignorant, Byers.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately describe the mechanism of natural selection as biologists conceive it. Natural selection is differential reproduction (not just survival) and the object of scientific study is usually differential reproduction resulting from traits that have a genetic basis under the circumstances in which the organism finds itself, which is called fitness, but in a technical sense which is quite different from the common meaning of the word. -- Wikipedia

Yeah, that word "fittest" is a huge oversimplification of what it means in this context.

Robert Byers said: If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive. i think he's saying there is no reason these few aree more fit then all those who didn't survive. They couldn't be recognized by nature as more fit. Its a common sense thing against math/probability ideas. he is a sharp scientist and knows in practical ways about mutations. Thats where he is coming from. Indeed not the blackboard but real biology. a wee bit of instinct too.

Gods you're ignorant, Byers.

Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive.

An yet, I notice that somehow you fail to address the actual math, which rather convincingly demonstrates that even a tiny advantage eventually prevails when applied to large numbers and many trials. Math is a pesky, pesky thing, Robert, because it seems to demonstrate that you are wrong, no matter how much it "makes sense" to you. This isn't even hard math, Robert. Look in the corner of the computer you're typing on, open the "All programs" then "accessories" menus. There will be a program in there called "calculator".

If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive.

or rather all the rest didn’t survive and so why would these FIT ones survive

Anton Mates said: Winners and losers, and the fitter individuals are more likely to win.

gnome de net said:

Anton Mates said: Winners and losers, and the fitter individuals are more likely to win.

Or just the lucky ones. I often wonder about the insects that splatter on my windshield, if one of them might have the perfect genome that would enable it to survive every predator or natural hazard that it might encounter, resulting eventually in creatures that would dominate the world a la the dinosaurs.

gnome de net said:

Anton Mates said: Winners and losers, and the fitter individuals are more likely to win.

Or just the lucky ones. I often wonder about the insects that splatter on my windshield, if one of them might have the perfect genome that would enable it to survive every predator or natural hazard that it might encounter, resulting eventually in creatures that would dominate the world a la the dinosaurs.

gnome de net said:

Anton Mates said: Winners and losers, and the fitter individuals are more likely to win.

Or just the lucky ones. I often wonder about the insects that splatter on my windshield, if one of them might have the perfect genome that would enable it to survive every predator or natural hazard that it might encounter, resulting eventually in creatures that would dominate the world a la the dinosaurs.

I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Cat food. Glen Davidson

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Cat food. Glen Davidson

So 70,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs were eating small mammals. Now, small mammals are eating the dinosaurs!

John Harshman said:

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Cat food. Glen Davidson

So 70,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs were eating small mammals. Now, small mammals are eating the dinosaurs!

Dinosaurs are still eating small mammals too.

quentin-long said:

... it's not at all accurate for Macintosh...

Pierce R. Butler said:

quentin-long said:

... it's not at all accurate for Macintosh...

Apple includes a basic calculator among the "widgets" provided with each version of MacOSX, and has for decades.

Anton Mates said:

If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive.

The survivors don't have to be the fittest, just fitter on average than the ones who didn't make it.

or rather all the rest didn’t survive and so why would these FIT ones survive

...because it's a competition? There's enough resources for somebody to survive and reproduce, but not enough for everybody to do that. Winners and losers, and the fitter individuals are more likely to win.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: If only a few out of millions/billions survive to reproduce it does not make sense that in such a small number the fittest would survive. its too small or rather all the rest didn't survive and so why would these FIT ones survive.

An yet, I notice that somehow you fail to address the actual math, which rather convincingly demonstrates that even a tiny advantage eventually prevails when applied to large numbers and many trials. Math is a pesky, pesky thing, Robert, because it seems to demonstrate that you are wrong, no matter how much it "makes sense" to you. This isn't even hard math, Robert. Look in the corner of the computer you're typing on, open the "All programs" then "accessories" menus. There will be a program in there called "calculator". It is a tool for manipulating actual numbers, and it both functions you need - division and raising things to a power - to allow you to work out an actual example, like Joe Felsenstein does at the head of the page. Take an arbitrarily small fitness difference in a reasonably large population. Take that ratio and 'breed' it through a series of generational steps and when you get one that works the way things "make sense" to you, rather than the way it seems to work when we do the math, show us your numbers. This should not be hard, Robert. This is not arcane math in any sense of the word. Some local kid who got decent grades in algebra should be able to help you work your way through it, especially given an example to follow. Give us an example where Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is right and we're wrong, Robert. It should be trivial, you have the formula in front of you, you just have to find the point at which it collapses in the real world.

Seems Robert is lost way out in the woods here. It doesn't matter which of the advantaged ones survive. It follows from the advantage of being advantaged that they will have a higher reproductive success rate. That means that percentwise they will producing more desendants that the not-so-advantaged ones.

A process like that means a percentwise higher number of advantaged ones survive and produce offspring in the population. In the long run the less advantaged varity faces the risk of disappearance, swamped by the advantaged ones.

It goes without saying that there always will be an element of "luck" and chance in reproduction within a population but that doesn't eliminate the effect of differential reproductive success due to genetic differences.

There is no picking going on, there is a process of survival and propagation going on.

I suspect that Mac is too socialist.

John Harshman said:

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Cat food. Glen Davidson

So 70,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs were eating small mammals. Now, small mammals are eating the dinosaurs!

Dinosaurs are still eating small mammals too.

I suspect that Mac is too socialist.

John Harshman said:

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry J said: I thought birds were the successors to dinosaurs.

Cat food. Glen Davidson

So 70,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs were eating small mammals. Now, small mammals are eating the dinosaurs!

Dinosaurs are still eating small mammals too.

There is one simple observation that if any IDiot can read this should be understandable to any such IDiot.

Why didn't this guy ever publish and become as famous as Fisher and Wright?

He would really have something if he could demonstrate that he submitted such papers, but they were always rejected. It would be even better if he posted the reviewers comments and could demonstrate that they were incorrect or off topic.

It is really unbelievable to me that anyone could even have second thoughts on the situation. We have genetic theory put forward over 80 years ago, and this guy thinks that something is wrong with it, but never tried to demonstrate it.

Now, when his only audience are the cretins that are still IDiots when the bait and switch has been going down for over 14 years and not a single IDiot has ever gotten the promised ID science when they have needed it, he makes his claims. Who would believe the guy?

Really, the ISCID died 8 years ago, and they stopped publishing their "science" journal in 2005. That was supposed to be the IDiot science organization, and my bet is that this guy was a member, and he never presented this stupidity to his IDiot peers, or even they laughed him down.

Whenever the guys that sold the ID scam need to put forward the science of intelligent design all any IDiot ever gets is a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Every single time with not a single exception for nearly a decade and a half. There never was any ID science worth discussing, so what is the draw, and why would anyone take anything like this seriously? What possible legitimate excuse could anyone have at this point in the history of the creationist ID scam?

Really, the ISCID died 8 years ago, and they stopped publishing their “science” journal in 2005. That was supposed to be the IDiot science organization

Pierce R. Butler said:

quentin-long said:

... it's not at all accurate for Macintosh...

Apple includes a basic calculator among the "widgets" provided with each version of MacOSX, and has for decades.

I activate the "widgets" (a term Apple stole from small developers who couldn't fight back) by moving the pointer to a (user-selectable) corner, so stevaroni's directions - though including extra steps unnecessary on a Mac - could apply in a broad sense.

As stevaroni points out, Apple's calculator is pretty light-duty - but then, so is the number-crunching required in the original post here.

quentin-long said:

Pierce R. Butler said:

quentin-long said:

... it's not at all accurate for Macintosh...

Apple includes a basic calculator among the "widgets" provided with each version of MacOSX, and has for decades.

Of course—but stevaroni said "Look in the corner of the computer you’re typing on, open the 'All programs' then 'accessories' menus. There will be a program in there called 'calculator'." The "look in the corner" instruction is probably a reference to Windows' Start Menu, which doesn't exist on OS X. Thus, if Byers is using a non-Windows machine, stevaroni's instructions are unlikely to apply to it.

I don't think I've been banned, although I haven't posted in a while. Please don't tell me we're taking a leaf out of UD's posting manifesto with a long moderation que.

Apolgies for the unfounded accusation. I posted on the previous article and all is well; my mistake!

Rolf said: Seems Robert is lost way out in the woods here. It doesn't matter which of the advantaged ones survive. It follows from the advantage of being advantaged that they will have a higher reproductive success rate. That means that percentwise they will producing more desendants that the not-so-advantaged ones. A process like that means a percentwise higher number of advantaged ones survive and produce offspring in the population. In the long run the less advantaged varity faces the risk of disappearance, swamped by the advantaged ones. It goes without saying that there always will be an element of "luck" and chance in reproduction within a population but that doesn't eliminate the effect of differential reproductive success due to genetic differences. There is no picking going on, there is a process of survival and propagation going on.

harold said:

Really, the ISCID died 8 years ago, and they stopped publishing their “science” journal in 2005. That was supposed to be the IDiot science organization

ID was and I suppose still is the animated corpse of Creation Science. ID per se became largely irrelevant to society with Dover.

The latest significant creationist thing has been COPE. They didn't even get to court. But notably, they didn't at all use the ID methodology (which is to make some false science-y sounding claim that evolution can't explain something, then say if it wasn't evolution it must have been "the designer", and then try to sneak out the message to your supporters that "the designer" is the Fox News version of God, while claiming you aren't being religious so this should be taught as science). COPE resorted to a different post-Edwards strategy, the nihilistic, post-modern claim that "science is religion", so therefore, you have to teach exactly their religion as science (but oddly no-one else's), or not teach science at all. COPE is using an almost anti-ID strategy. Instead of trying to disguise the sectarian nature of creationism, they're going for the "oh, yeah, while science is religious too" strategy.

Although we do not reach the merits, we note that COPE asks the court to implement a requirement identical to the one imposed by the statute in Edwards. COPE frames the materialism of evolutionary theory as a religious belief competing with COPE’s own teleological religion, and demands that if evolution is taught, teleological origins theories must also be taught. The Edwards Court expressly held such a requirement unconstitutional.

However, the current that keeps the animated corpse lurching around is money, and until the money stops, there will be a DI, and presumably new posts at ENV and UD.

If the DI has or gets some kind of perpetual trust, they could literally sit there forever. However, there is weak evidence - particularly the odd departure of Casey Luskin - that their failure to actually make the slightest dent in "materialism" may be annoying the contributors.

Tom English said: I recommend watching Lessons 5(1) and 5(2) (an hour each) of Focus on the Family's The Truth Project.

What the IDiots are saying and maybe even believe is that the universe is a barren, sterile "creation" that needs a deity to operate in the same way that a car needs someone with a foot on the accelerator.

They are a fifth column at the heels of science.

Rolf said: What the IDiots are saying and maybe even believe is that the universe is a barren, sterile "creation" that needs a deity to operate in the same way that a car needs someone with a foot on the accelerator. They are a fifth column at the heels of science.

Tom English said:

harold said:

Really, the ISCID died 8 years ago, and they stopped publishing their “science” journal in 2005. That was supposed to be the IDiot science organization

ID was and I suppose still is the animated corpse of Creation Science. ID per se became largely irrelevant to society with Dover.

You're evidently not in touch with the evangelical grassroots. I recommend watching Lessons 5(1) and 5(2) (an hour each) of Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. That's a lot of time to ask you to spend. But I'm saying that you really can't appreciate the impact without experiencing it. Folks like my brother, the Deacon John Mark (not an idiot), end up convinced that the mainstream evolutionary theory is bad science, not merely that ID should have a place at the table. They genuinely believe that the truth is being suppressed in the public schools, and that the anti-science bills introduced each year in the legislature are meant to rectify that.

You’re evidently not in touch with the evangelical grassroots. I recommend watching Lessons 5(1) and 5(2) (an hour each) of Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project. That’s a lot of time to ask you to spend. But I’m saying that you really can’t appreciate the impact without experiencing it. Folks like my brother, the Deacon John Mark (not an idiot), end up convinced that the mainstream evolutionary theory is bad science, not merely that ID should have a place at the table. They genuinely believe that the truth is being suppressed in the public schools, and that the anti-science bills introduced each year in the legislature are meant to rectify that.

harold said: Virtually no-one supports ID except the exact same people who would support teaching that the KJV Noah's Ark passages are literally true, and anyone who denies that will go to Hell, in public school science class, as science. ID is thus irrelevant as an independent factor, and those who specialized in it are feeling the consequence of that. Evolution denial per se is not, of course; it is part of a general authoritarian religio-political ideology which continues to cause harm. In the case of evolution denial, mainly in indirect ways.

The problem arises from the tendency to treat evolution-denial as if it were a difference of opinion: an alternative account for the diversity of life, a mistake in understanding science, or even a theological dispute. But what is really going on is a social and political movement, being waged with advertising (and often with negative advertising) slogans.

TomS said:

Rolf said: What the IDiots are saying and maybe even believe is that the universe is a barren, sterile "creation" that needs a deity to operate in the same way that a car needs someone with a foot on the accelerator. They are a fifth column at the heels of science.

But, they will also argue that the universe is fine tuned for living things. Do they have a consistent view of the way that the universe runs?

stevaroni said: Oddly, though I grump a lot about the Windows platform, I really like their calculator, if you pull up the "programmer" view it has a bunch of very usable binary and hexadecimal features. Since I'm in hex and binary all day long, I've really come to appreciate it. The stock Mac version, like everything Mac, has a distinct "don't you worry your pretty little head" aspect about it if you try to do anything serious.

harold said: I know we both agree that there are only two consistencies in the entire evolution denial world.

TomS said:

harold said: I know we both agree that there are only two consistencies in the entire evolution denial world.

As usual, I agree with you. But I have to point out that there are two different meanings of the word "consistency": the logical coherence between statements; a group of people who provide political support.

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: Seems Robert is lost way out in the woods here. It doesn't matter which of the advantaged ones survive. It follows from the advantage of being advantaged that they will have a higher reproductive success rate. That means that percentwise they will producing more desendants that the not-so-advantaged ones. A process like that means a percentwise higher number of advantaged ones survive and produce offspring in the population. In the long run the less advantaged varity faces the risk of disappearance, swamped by the advantaged ones. It goes without saying that there always will be an element of "luck" and chance in reproduction within a population but that doesn't eliminate the effect of differential reproductive success due to genetic differences. There is no picking going on, there is a process of survival and propagation going on.

AHA. Thats the criticism. This scientist isw saying the advantaged ones are so few and far between relative to the whole population that its not the advantaged surviving.

This scientist is not saying there is not advantage but its not possible it effects anything due to the math of the population. He is saying on a curve the advantages eventually are meaningless in great numbers. Then he says it is great numbers that we are dealing with. its his instinct about probability.

eric said:

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: Seems Robert is lost way out in the woods here. It doesn't matter which of the advantaged ones survive. It follows from the advantage of being advantaged that they will have a higher reproductive success rate. That means that percentwise they will producing more desendants that the not-so-advantaged ones. A process like that means a percentwise higher number of advantaged ones survive and produce offspring in the population. In the long run the less advantaged varity faces the risk of disappearance, swamped by the advantaged ones. It goes without saying that there always will be an element of "luck" and chance in reproduction within a population but that doesn't eliminate the effect of differential reproductive success due to genetic differences. There is no picking going on, there is a process of survival and propagation going on.

AHA. Thats the criticism. This scientist isw saying the advantaged ones are so few and far between relative to the whole population that its not the advantaged surviving.

No he's saying that statistically the advantage wins out...but that on the individual level, this may not be the case. Any casino aficionado knows the difference. The casino plays the odds, and makes money. But you, who may have a slight statistical disadvantage, can make money on any given night. Repeat this pattern over and over again, across thousands of individuals and hundreds or thousands of generations, and "what the house plays" is practically guaranteed to occur. Its even more probable than "Vegas makes money this year."

This scientist is not saying there is not advantage but its not possible it effects anything due to the math of the population. He is saying on a curve the advantages eventually are meaningless in great numbers. Then he says it is great numbers that we are dealing with. its his instinct about probability.

There's no instinct involved here; its' just math. And there are billion dollar industries that make money off the same math that predicts evolution will improve species (ability to function within a specific ecosystem...)

Uh... guys, language pedant hat on.

"Consistency" means the property of holding two or more propositions at the same time in the same way without logical contradiction. (It also means the physical graininess of a substance, smooth to rough, but that need not concern us here.)

A word that means "a group of people who provide political support" is "constituency".

Language pedant hat now removed. Carry on.

Hi: I differ in understanding the points at stake.

Natural Selection is a general functioning terminology, that generally applies.

But the particulars are quite the contrary to Natural Selection.

For example GENE POOL, interbreeding, does not rely on Natural Selection as such. Though a stronger male of degraded GENE Pool might win out in breeding, this male is already in a downward road, that NATURAL SELECTION is not going to improve...!!!

The HUMAN GENE POOL is also on a downward road...!

SO the QUESTION would be rather, how does NATURAL SELECTION "create" a improved GENE POOL...! And we are not talking about the BIBLE or any RELIGION...!

Cheers,
George.
purelogic.

Your difficulty, 813f, lies in your definition of "stronger", as in "stronger male". Larger, more physically powerful males only succeed differentially where the environment selects for strength and size. It often does not. Metabolic economy, dexterity, light weight (as in species that fly or climb or use extended tree limbs), efficiency in food gathering or feeding (large teeth might detract, however impressive they are), speed or endurance or hardiness (often opposed by size or mass), reproductive efficiency (how good is your sperm at defeating the sperm of other males), sexual selection by the female, the relative success of opposed mating strategies, and so on. All these, and many other characteristics, have nothing to do with "strength", but they may - and do - produce greater "fitness".

That is how natural selection creates an improved gene pool - by selecting the characteristics that actually succeed in the extant environment. That environment includes many other species, and other members of the same species. And no, we are not talking about the Bible. Or at least, I'm not.

I can only guess at what you mean by "Though a stronger male of degraded GENE Pool might win out in breeding, this male is already in a downward road, that NATURAL SELECTION is not going to improve…!!!" Does "this male" mean you? If so, I can only infer that your complaint is that you're not getting any. My commiserations, if that is the case.

Oh, I see. Sorry. I misconstrued 813f. He means, I think, that a male of "degraded GENE pool" (sic) might have greater reproductive success, even though he is on a "downward road".

No. Wrong. Statistically, the male who enjoys greater reproductive success does so because he has better genes, not "degraded" ones. Better at thriving in the environment, that is. The whole point made by population genetics, as the head post demonstrates, is that despite the occasional reproductive success of individuals (not only males) who have less successful genetic traits, any genetic advantage in a given environment, however small, will create greater reproductive success and will rapidly diffuse through a population.

Dave Luckett said: Uh... guys, language pedant hat on. "Consistency" means the property of holding two or more propositions at the same time in the same way without logical contradiction. (It also means the physical graininess of a substance, smooth to rough, but that need not concern us here.) A word that means "a group of people who provide political support" is "constituency". Language pedant hat now removed. Carry on.

Consistently, evolution denial is supported by right wing authoritarians.

No. Wrong. Statistically, the Better at thriving in the environment, that is.male who enjoys greater reproductive success does so because he has better genes, not “degraded” ones.

Robert Byers said: The ones who survive is just the lucky. there is no curve on survival based on advantage in individuals. He actually is saying the probability of survival is always based on randomness. No selection on traits at all. Thats his instinct and what he saw in his work. On this thread folks here where saying his math was wrong. That even just a little advantage in a population would allow selection on it to make a new population withy the new trait(s). yet he is saying no selection is grabbing any trait. the population is too great to allow any advantaged ones to be selected.

harold asks: Are you referring to this? "Consistently, evolution denial is supported by right wing authoritarians."

there are two different meanings of the word “consistency”: the logical coherence between statements; a group of people who provide political support.

Dave Luckett said:

harold asks: Are you referring to this? "Consistently, evolution denial is supported by right wing authoritarians."

No, harold. To this, from TomS:

there are two different meanings of the word “consistency”: the logical coherence between statements; a group of people who provide political support.

I suspect that English is a second language for TomS. He does a great deal better than I would, if I had to use any other than my native tongue.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Hi: I differ in understanding the points at stake. Natural Selection is a general functioning terminology, that generally applies. But the particulars are quite the contrary to Natural Selection. For example GENE POOL, interbreeding, does not rely on Natural Selection as such. Though a stronger male of degraded GENE Pool might win out in breeding, this male is already in a downward road, that NATURAL SELECTION is not going to improve...!!! The HUMAN GENE POOL is also on a downward road...! SO the QUESTION would be rather, how does NATURAL SELECTION "create" a improved GENE POOL...! And we are not talking about the BIBLE or any RELIGION...! Cheers, George. purelogic.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Hi: I differ in understanding the points at stake. Natural Selection is a general functioning terminology, that generally applies. But the particulars are quite the contrary to Natural Selection. For example GENE POOL, interbreeding, does not rely on Natural Selection as such. Though a stronger male of degraded GENE Pool might win out in breeding, this male is already in a downward road, that NATURAL SELECTION is not going to improve...!!! The HUMAN GENE POOL is also on a downward road...! SO the QUESTION would be rather, how does NATURAL SELECTION "create" a improved GENE POOL...! And we are not talking about the BIBLE or any RELIGION...! Cheers, George. purelogic.

Dave Luckett said: No, harold. To this, from TomS:

there are two different meanings of the word “consistency”: the logical coherence between statements; a group of people who provide political support.

I suspect that English is a second language for TomS. He does a great deal better than I would, if I had to use any other than my native tongue.

For all the loyal Robert Byers fans at this site, I have to concede that, for once, he has a point, in his first post in this thread. Mootoo Kimura showed in a classic paper (http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/~gerton/Gulbenkian/kimura-diffusion.pdf) that even advantageous genes are unlikely to become established. In an admittedly simplified model, he calculated the probability of fixation as 2s/(1-exp(-4Ns)), where s is the selective advantage. For a large population, and small s, that means that the probability of a gene reaching fixation is 2s. For s=0.01, quoted in Joe Felsenstein's post, the probability is only 0.02. The calculations that demonstrate the inexorable progress of even a quite small advantage only come into play once the gene has spread through quite a large proportion of the population.

0.02 is 1 in 50 - not bad odds. Better than Leicester City winning the EPL!

I don't think Robert Byers made a valid point here. (It was, however on topic so I did not exile it to the Wall).

Yes, the fixation probability Kimura calculated for a single copy was (1-exp(-2s))/(1-exp(-4Ns)) which for N = 10,000 and s = 0.01 works out to 0.0198013 (2s, which is Haldans's 1927 approximation, is near that value).

But if the allele is instead neutral, the fixation probability is 1/20,000 which is 0.00005. That is more than 396 times smaller. So natural selection has a big effect, in spite of what Byers says.

We have been this way before, with the role of Byers played by Salvador Cordova. See my post on this at PT: here.

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: No, harold. To this, from TomS:

there are two different meanings of the word “consistency”: the logical coherence between statements; a group of people who provide political support.

I suspect that English is a second language for TomS. He does a great deal better than I would, if I had to use any other than my native tongue.

Tom I believe the word you were looking for was 'constituency.' Also, 'constituency' does not refer only to a politician's supporters, it refers to all the voters in their district or in the area they represent.

Joe Felsenstein said: I don't think Robert Byers made a valid point here. (It was, however on topic so I did not exile it to the Wall). Yes, the fixation probability Kimura calculated for a single copy was (1-exp(-2s))/(1-exp(-4Ns)) which for N = 10,000 and s = 0.01 works out to 0.0198013 (2s, which is Haldans's 1927 approximation, is near that value). But if the allele is instead neutral, the fixation probability is 1/20,000 which is 0.00005. That is more than 396 times smaller. So natural selection has a big effect, in spite of what Byers says. We have been this way before, with the role of Byers played by Salvador Cordova. See my post on this at PT: here.

even advantageous genes are unlikely to become established

eric: Tom I believe the word you were looking for was 'constituency.' Also, 'constituency' does not refer only to a politician's supporters, it refers to all the voters in their district or in the area they represent. TomS Yes, I was mistaken.

Richard Bond said: For all the loyal Robert Byers fans at this site, I have to concede that, for once, he has a point, in his first post in this thread. Mootoo Kimura showed in a classic paper (http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/~gerton/Gulbenkian/kimura-diffusion.pdf) that even advantageous genes are unlikely to become established. In an admittedly simplified model, he calculated the probability of fixation as 2s/(1-exp(-4Ns)), where s is the selective advantage. For a large population, and small s, that means that the probability of a gene reaching fixation is 2s. For s=0.01, quoted in Joe Felsenstein's post, the probability is only 0.02. The calculations that demonstrate the inexorable progress of even a quite small advantage only come into play once the gene has spread through quite a large proportion of the population.

Joe Felsenstein said: I don't think Robert Byers made a valid point here. (It was, however on topic so I did not exile it to the Wall). Yes, the fixation probability Kimura calculated for a single copy was (1-exp(-2s))/(1-exp(-4Ns)) which for N = 10,000 and s = 0.01 works out to 0.0198013 (2s, which is Haldans's 1927 approximation, is near that value). But if the allele is instead neutral, the fixation probability is 1/20,000 which is 0.00005. That is more than 396 times smaller. So natural selection has a big effect, in spite of what Byers says. We have been this way before, with the role of Byers played by Salvador Cordova. See my post on this at PT: here.

harold said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I don't think Robert Byers made a valid point here. (It was, however on topic so I did not exile it to the Wall). Yes, the fixation probability Kimura calculated for a single copy was (1-exp(-2s))/(1-exp(-4Ns)) which for N = 10,000 and s = 0.01 works out to 0.0198013 (2s, which is Haldans's 1927 approximation, is near that value). But if the allele is instead neutral, the fixation probability is 1/20,000 which is 0.00005. That is more than 396 times smaller. So natural selection has a big effect, in spite of what Byers says. We have been this way before, with the role of Byers played by Salvador Cordova. See my post on this at PT: here.

Byers has rarely made valid points in the past, by the way, this just isn't one of them. Nor are any of his defenses of science denial valid points. This is not a compliment to Byers - he has a much better track record of making valid points than Salvador Cordova or many other "more sophisticated" creationists.

even advantageous genes are unlikely to become established

Right, but that's completely different from saying advantageous genes are no more likely to become established than any other genes.

Robert Byers said: is this really how evolution created the diversity and complexity of biology?

Rolling the dice(mutations) for every advantage ever used to go from this to that seems unlikely. I mean impossible.

Why is not happening now?

Robert Byers said: Advantaged genes in a hugh population are not a advantage. They are chump change. How big does the pop have to be? is this really how evolution created the diversity and complexity of biology? Rolling the dice(mutations) for every advantage ever used to go from this to that seems unlikely. I mean impossible. Its not believable or reasonable.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: Advantaged genes in a hugh population are not a advantage. They are chump change. How big does the pop have to be? is this really how evolution created the diversity and complexity of biology? Rolling the dice(mutations) for every advantage ever used to go from this to that seems unlikely. I mean impossible. Its not believable or reasonable.

Robert, is it really that hard to understand this? This is EXACTLY how a casino makes money. Not "similar", not "like"... but EXACTLY how a casino operates. On each game, they have a teenie tiny advantage, as low as 0.5%. Yet, on a huge population, they make millions a day. In your own words, the casino has "advantaged genes". Just the bare minimum, mind you. But they are enough to make them extremely profitable. You may not find believable or reasonable... which makes you exactly the kind of person a casino wants playing.

Michael Fugate said: 0.02 is 1 in 50 - not bad odds. Better than Leicester City winning the EPL!

Byers is raising the issue of species that are divided into multiple populations, with fitnesses that differ in different populations. He imagines that this prevents advantageous mutations from being incorporated.

Back in the 5th comment on this thread, in response to eric, I mentioned that there is a substantial literature in theoretical population genetics on natural selection that varies in time and space. In fact, in 1976, a mere 40 years ago, I published a review article on this literature, and I managed to cover 152 theoretical papers. Since then four decades have elapsed -- the literature has probably at least tripled.

I think that I will reserve comment on the general issue until Robert has read more of this literature. Right now I think he has read approximately zero of these papers.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: Advantaged genes in a hugh population are not a advantage. They are chump change. How big does the pop have to be? is this really how evolution created the diversity and complexity of biology? Rolling the dice(mutations) for every advantage ever used to go from this to that seems unlikely. I mean impossible. Its not believable or reasonable.

Robert, is it really that hard to understand this? This is EXACTLY how a casino makes money. Not "similar", not "like"... but EXACTLY how a casino operates. On each game, they have a teenie tiny advantage, as low as 0.5%. Yet, on a huge population, they make millions a day. In your own words, the casino has "advantaged genes". Just the bare minimum, mind you. But they are enough to make them extremely profitable. You may not find believable or reasonable... which makes you exactly the kind of person a casino wants playing.

Joe Felsenstein said: Byers is raising the issue of species that are divided into multiple populations, with fitnesses that differ in different populations. He imagines that this prevents advantageous mutations from being incorporated. Back in the 5th comment on this thread, in response to eric, I mentioned that there is a substantial literature in theoretical population genetics on natural selection that varies in time and space. In fact, in 1976, a mere 40 years ago, I published a review article on this literature, and I managed to cover 152 theoretical papers. Since then four decades have elapsed -- the literature has probably at least tripled. I think that I will reserve comment on the general issue until Robert has read more of this literature. Right now I think he has read approximately zero of these papers.

Robert Byers said: My side is saying the odds are against advantageous genes changing a population. evolving it therefore. The instinct and so the odds thereof. Your side says the odds are fine. Like in the casino for the house. Yet its so small I don't see why you care about how small. Just a single couple/or individual would equally introduce the new genes in a new population.

It seems too small and our instinct is right.

Well my gut feeling is that booby will never be right about anything. Therefore, if I follow my gut feeling, all of his incoherent blubbering can be dismissed as ignorant nonsense. So, according to the logic being used by booby himself, he should be ridiculed or ignored. My intuition tells me that someone who refuses to learn proper grammar and spelling will never learn math either. My intuition tells me that, if the house edge in blackjack is 0.28% and the house almost always wins, that the odds of booby ever understanding the argument are much less than 0.28%. That and he should stay out of casinos, if he knows what is good for him.

Like Mikey, booby should come back when he has read the relevant literature. Maybe then someone will care what he thinks.

Robert, the whole human race's instinct told us for almost all of history that the Earth does not move, and that the sun, moon, and stars travel around our unmoving Earth, which is at the center of the solar system and the entire universe. That's when all of humanity was on "your side," including Bible writers.

That instinct was WRONG. Some people still go with that instinct, and some of them do it because that's what the Bible tells them. But they're still WRONG.

So what do you think? Did our instinct that the Earth doesn't move mislead us for all that time? Or do you go with your instinct (and the Bible) on that, too? Is astronomy also "atomic and unproven"?

My side is saying that selection on the tiny advantage of some individuals would NOT affect the great, great, population.

DS said: My intuition tells me that, if the house edge in blackjack is 0.28% and the house almost always wins, that the odds of booby ever understanding the argument are much less than 0.28%. That and he should stay out of casinos, if he knows what is good for him.

Robert Byers said: It seems too small and our instinct is right. The probability is against any possibility of populations being changed by so few mutations in so few.

Rolf said: Robert, you keep refering to

My side is saying that selection on the tiny advantage of some individuals would NOT affect the great, great, population.

Robert, if a particular group of people within a population give birth to more offspring than average for the rest of the population, will the percentagewise size of that group within the population increase, decrease, or remain static? Think it over and tell us what you think. Who are "Your side", can you show us where anyone on your side have said what you are saying, or are you the ultimate YEC authority?

Dave Luckett said: Oh, I see. Sorry. I misconstrued 813f. He means, I think, that a male of "degraded GENE pool" (sic) might have greater reproductive success, even though he is on a "downward road". No. Wrong. Statistically, the male who enjoys greater reproductive success does so because he has better genes, not "degraded" ones. Better at thriving in the environment, that is. The whole point made by population genetics, as the head post demonstrates, is that despite the occasional reproductive success of individuals (not only males) who have less successful genetic traits, any genetic advantage in a given environment, however small, will create greater reproductive success and will rapidly diffuse through a population.

The HUMAN GENE POOL is also on a downward road…!

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said: It seems too small and our instinct is right. The probability is against any possibility of populations being changed by so few mutations in so few.

Your instinct is dead wrong. The situation with a huge population and a very small number of survivors is precisely where tiny advantages become fixed the fastest. To understand this, first it is important to remember that we are talking about mutations that are heritable. These won't provide an advantage to the individual in which they first arise, but will effect their offspring. If a beneficial mutation has a 1 in a million chance of arising in a population of one thousand, where ten percent survive to breed, It will take take long time before anything interesting happens. On the other hand if the population is in the billions, and the number that breed even lower, there will be thousands of beneficial mutations per generation. This is where luck becomes irrelevant. Luck effects every individual equally, so the chance of any one of those mutated individuals breeding is low, but the chance that at least 1 of them does is high. At that point, due to there being so few parents, the percentage of the next generation carrying that mutation will be high. Even a minor advantage will mean that the following generations will most likely almost all carry that mutation. This is basic population genetics.

Who are “Your side”, can you show us where anyone on your side have said what you are saying, or are you the ultimate YEC authority?

From now on, I'll pretend Robert Byers doesn't exsist. I think all his posts should default to the Wall, except maybe his first in a thread to forestall censorship claims.

He's only a Drosophila in the ointment.

Robert Byers said: Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

Completely untrue; all it takes is for those individuals to average more offspring. Two comparatively recent examples would be blond hair and lactose persistance. The first started (we think) out about 5,000 years ago in Lithuania or Scandinavia; at that time the world population was 14 million, yet it evolved in one small group. Did it's spread require some massive extermination of black-haired people? No! Blond hair has spread through the global human gene pool simply through sexual selection (probably). Lactose tolerance arose further back in time, probably about 12,000 years ago. Again, in one or a few small populations. Again, there was not mass deaths of the humans who didn't have it. Instead, it propagated through gene pools with animal husbandry - being able to survive off your cow's milk for years rather than slaughter it immediately conferred a natural selection advantage. Basically, it allowed those who had it to live as dairy farmers. Now about 80% of Europeans have this gene. This should be obvious, Robert, but genes make a dent any time the people who have them have more surviving kids, statistically/on average, than the people who don't. Over thousands of years, that's all it takes. It doesn't require some huge die-off.

I concur. I found an escape hatch with My Dear Aunt Sally, and parantheses. I assume that would be too much for Robert.

As a layman, this is my understanding.

Yes, of course in a single generation a beneficial mutation is chump change compared to the randomness throughout the gene pool. However, the power of natural selection becomes apparent as it gets magnified through successive generations.

Here's how: The randomness is always still there but it’s always different and never the same in subsequent generations, that’s the essence of “randomness”. On the other hand, the beneficial mutation plays the same advantage again and again in each subsequent generation bestowing the same advantage to an ever increasing proportion of the gene pool and eventually overwhelming the effect of any random noise variation.

Layman addendum: If the insect with the beneficial mutation that smashed against your windshield had not yet reproduced, then there is no beneficial mutation in the gene pool.

However, if that insect already had offspring, and that offspring had a minuscule reproductive advantage due to one or more of any circumstances; environment, biology, behavior, prey or predator to name a few; unless circumstances change again, the benefit derived from the mutation cannot be denied the gene pool. It’s inevitable. Success breeds success.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said: It seems too small and our instinct is right. The probability is against any possibility of populations being changed by so few mutations in so few.

Your instinct is dead wrong. The situation with a huge population and a very small number of survivors is precisely where tiny advantages become fixed the fastest. To understand this, first it is important to remember that we are talking about mutations that are heritable. These won't provide an advantage to the individual in which they first arise, but will effect their offspring. If a beneficial mutation has a 1 in a million chance of arising in a population of one thousand, where ten percent survive to breed, It will take take long time before anything interesting happens. On the other hand if the population is in the billions, and the number that breed even lower, there will be thousands of beneficial mutations per generation. This is where luck becomes irrelevant. Luck effects every individual equally, so the chance of any one of those mutated individuals breeding is low, but the chance that at least 1 of them does is high. At that point, due to there being so few parents, the percentage of the next generation carrying that mutation will be high. Even a minor advantage will mean that the following generations will most likely almost all carry that mutation. This is basic population genetics.

Hmm. If its about survivors then only a single couple surviving would create a new population. This would not be denied and so its not the point. Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

Yet in biology reality this doesn't happen because populations never go extinct suddenly enough for the few . with the beneficial mutation,

The evolutionists are forced to see very tiny numbers of individuals/couples bring great steps forward in the evolution of populations of something. Constantly and more. its not survival of the fittest genes but the fantastic non survival of genes just slightly different but were doing fine for a while.

This is against instinct to this dI scientist who studied mutations in plant populations.

Rolf said: From now on, I'll pretend Robert Byers doesn't exsist. I think all his posts should default to the Wall, except maybe his first in a thread to forestall censorship claims. He's only a Drosophila in the ointment.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

Completely untrue; all it takes is for those individuals to average more offspring.

Two comparatively recent examples would be blond hair and lactose persistance. The first started (we think) out about 5,000 years ago in Lithuania or Scandinavia; at that time the world population was 14 million, yet it evolved in one small group. Did it's spread require some massive extermination of black-haired people? No! Blond hair has spread through the global human gene pool simply through sexual selection (probably). Lactose tolerance arose further back in time, probably about 12,000 years ago. Again, in one or a few small populations. Again, there was not mass deaths of the humans who didn't have it. Instead, it propagated through gene pools with animal husbandry - being able to survive off your cow's milk for years rather than slaughter it immediately conferred a natural selection advantage. Basically, it allowed those who had it to live as dairy farmers. Now about 80% of Europeans have this gene.

This should be obvious, Robert, but genes make a dent any time the people who have them have more surviving kids, statistically/on average, than the people who don't. Over thousands of years, that's all it takes. It doesn't require some huge die-off.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

Completely untrue; all it takes is for those individuals to average more offspring. Two comparatively recent examples would be blond hair and lactose persistance. The first started (we think) out about 5,000 years ago in Lithuania or Scandinavia; at that time the world population was 14 million, yet it evolved in one small group. Did it's spread require some massive extermination of black-haired people? No! Blond hair has spread through the global human gene pool simply through sexual selection (probably). Lactose tolerance arose further back in time, probably about 12,000 years ago. Again, in one or a few small populations. Again, there was not mass deaths of the humans who didn't have it. Instead, it propagated through gene pools with animal husbandry - being able to survive off your cow's milk for years rather than slaughter it immediately conferred a natural selection advantage. Basically, it allowed those who had it to live as dairy farmers. Now about 80% of Europeans have this gene. This should be obvious, Robert, but genes make a dent any time the people who have them have more surviving kids, statistically/on average, than the people who don't. Over thousands of years, that's all it takes. It doesn't require some huge die-off.

Bobsie said: As a layman, this is my understanding. Yes, of course in a single generation a beneficial mutation is chump change compared to the randomness throughout the gene pool. However, the power of natural selection becomes apparent as it gets magnified through successive generations. Here's how: The randomness is always still there but it’s always different and never the same in subsequent generations, that’s the essence of “randomness”. On the other hand, the beneficial mutation plays the same advantage again and again in each subsequent generation bestowing the same advantage to an ever increasing proportion of the gene pool and eventually overwhelming the effect of any random noise variation.

malcome.
You say its not the first generation that must die but IT must be eventually the whole population dies otherwise the few advantaged are always a trivial minority.
Evolutionary genetics is not based on casino math.
its based on a necessary oTHER event going on. the demise of the population without the advantage. It doesn't matter how many generations and indeed your predicting generations can keep going but are in decline for some reason. Why/ Until the decline there is no impact on that population and no evolution.

I think everyone here missed something.
Mutations will not change a population/evole it based on minor breeding events.Its essential the oTHER SIDE does not breed.
if it does breed there is no evolution of that type of creature.
So instinct rightly kicks in that too few won't change things.
Thats the point from the DI scientist.
Your side dOES need extinction and right quick.

Eric Finn said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Even if in billions there are thousands of offspring with a new mutation however beneficial I don't see why it would make a dent. The rest must perish.

Completely untrue; all it takes is for those individuals to average more offspring.

I will be bending in all directions simultaneously, but strictly speaking it is true that any mutation makes practically zero dent in the first or second generation. Further, most of them, even the “beneficial” mutations, will have zero impact even in the long run.

Two comparatively recent examples would be blond hair and lactose persistance. The first started (we think) out about 5,000 years ago in Lithuania or Scandinavia; at that time the world population was 14 million, yet it evolved in one small group. Did it's spread require some massive extermination of black-haired people? No! Blond hair has spread through the global human gene pool simply through sexual selection (probably). Lactose tolerance arose further back in time, probably about 12,000 years ago. Again, in one or a few small populations. Again, there was not mass deaths of the humans who didn't have it. Instead, it propagated through gene pools with animal husbandry - being able to survive off your cow's milk for years rather than slaughter it immediately conferred a natural selection advantage. Basically, it allowed those who had it to live as dairy farmers. Now about 80% of Europeans have this gene.

These are good examples of traits that have been established (but not fixed ?) in the human population. It has been predicted (in popular press) that blond hair and blue eyes will disappear in a few centuries. (I presume, gray does not count as blond.) I have not seen predictions concerning the lactose tolerance.

This should be obvious, Robert, but genes make a dent any time the people who have them have more surviving kids, statistically/on average, than the people who don't. Over thousands of years, that's all it takes. It doesn't require some huge die-off.

I will go with Joe Felsenstein that it is useless to argue with a person, who denies all logic, including mathematics. Even so, your nicely presented examples serve well to enlighten on the probabilities in biology for those who are not instinctly fluent in estimating them (i.e. all of us).

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The ones who survive is just the lucky. there is no curve on survival based on advantage in individuals. He actually is saying the probability of survival is always based on randomness. No selection on traits at all. Thats his instinct and what he saw in his work. On this thread folks here where saying his math was wrong. That even just a little advantage in a population would allow selection on it to make a new population withy the new trait(s). yet he is saying no selection is grabbing any trait. the population is too great to allow any advantaged ones to be selected.

I believe you have accurately described his original argument, and our criticism of it. You have not, however, said how or why our criticism is incorrect. Your response has just been to repeat what he said.

813f
Hi. No doubt that wishful thinking and babbling big words and no reality is as easy as your ill fetched Evolution!

I do not believe in Evolution as such nor in JESUS! As I do not believe in “magic” from a dead MOTHER NATURE…!!! In logic and purelogic all physical or matter should have a known logic explanation or a not known one beyond our minds!

But to infer Evolution directly because your small brain cannot explain a God or gods or entities, is proof or your small Intelligence source…!

http://anagrammatt3.blogspot.ca/

But believe Science has been assaulted by MAGICIANS and ALCHEMISTS, and you name what…!

INTERBREEDING, implies depleted numbers, etc…! What does it cause? IMPROVEMENT in GENETICS…???

Oh…! You guys talk bigger than your head or shoes!

Cheers. Ask Mother Nature to better your minds intelligence!

George.

Here's a big word, George: intelligibility. Look it up.

Robert Byers said: I don't see how a new gene beifit helps some indivuduals unless they have already formed another population. Otherwise it will vanish by breeding.

ID/YEC here is saying the math doesn't work for evolution . Unless there is great extinction.

Thats why the scientist used the idea of billions of creatures in a group. IT will not be affected by the few. The billions. unless the billions cease to exist. any benefit must work right away or its not a benefit to the population.

If its not then those GENES will vanish into the mix. Why is the logic wrong here? Popgenetics is not my subject but the math must add up.

Robert Byers said: malcome. You say its not the first generation that must die but IT must be eventually the whole population dies otherwise the few advantaged are always a trivial minority. Evolutionary genetics is not based on casino math. its based on a necessary oTHER event going on. the demise of the population without the advantage. It doesn't matter how many generations and indeed your predicting generations can keep going but are in decline for some reason. Why/ Until the decline there is no impact on that population and no evolution. I think everyone here missed something. Mutations will not change a population/evole it based on minor breeding events.Its essential the oTHER SIDE does not breed. if it does breed there is no evolution of that type of creature. So instinct rightly kicks in that too few won't change things. Thats the point from the DI scientist. Your side dOES need extinction and right quick.

Eric Finn said:

Robert Byers said: I don't see how a new gene beifit helps some indivuduals unless they have already formed another population. Otherwise it will vanish by breeding.

Mendel came to a conclusion that genetically based traits are not diluted away by crossbreeding.

ID/YEC here is saying the math doesn't work for evolution . Unless there is great extinction.

As eric already pointed out, the rise of lactose tolerance did not involve any mass extinctions.

Thats why the scientist used the idea of billions of creatures in a group. IT will not be affected by the few. The billions. unless the billions cease to exist. any benefit must work right away or its not a benefit to the population.

The mathematics works the same way in a group of millions, billions or trillions of creatures. Some (only a few) of the “beneficial” mutations will be fixed in the population, while most of them are lost. And yes, it is rather wasteful.

If its not then those GENES will vanish into the mix. Why is the logic wrong here? Popgenetics is not my subject but the math must add up.

Maybe you could start with the work by Mendel.

Robert Byers said: Logic to the front. If any mutation fails to affect a pop in the first/second generation THEN why a hundred generations?

I don't see how a new gene beifit helps some indivuduals unless they have already formed another population. Otherwise it will vanish by breeding.

ID/YEC here is saying the math doesn't work for evolution . Unless there is great extinction.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: But believe Science has been assaulted by MAGICIANS and ALCHEMISTS, and you name what...!

INTERBREEDING, implies depleted numbers, etc...! What does it cause? IMPROVEMENT in GENETICS...???

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

Robert Byers said: Popgenetics is not my subject but the math must add up.

Many others have done a good job of answering Robert Byers when he says that, unless there is a great die-off of others, a beneficial mutant will not spread.

I do just want to mention that Byers's mistake is also committed by many other creationists and ID supporters. They often say that natural selection cannot create, it can only destroy, It eliminates the less fit but does not increase the more fit. There are two problems with this:

1. It ignores the role of differential fertility, as it assumes that all fitness differences are differential viability, and

2. It commits Byers's fallacy. It ignores the change of the frequencies of genotypes as the less fit are eliminated.

When the genotype frequencies change, and with them the gene frequencies, the composition of the population changes. Even if there were only one generation of this change, future gene frequencies would reflect the change.

These folks do not understand that populations generally have a excess reproduction. They seem never to have heard of density-dependent population size regulation. Eliminating the less viable does mean that, in the presence of density regulation, the more viable will increase. Not only in frequency, but also in actual numbers.

And of course this has been discussed, all the way back to Darwin, who made it an essential part of his arguments.

Joe Felsenstein said: Many others have done a good job of answering Robert Byers when he says that, unless there is a great die-off of others, a beneficial mutant will not spread. I do just want to mention that Byers's mistake is also committed by many other creationists and ID supporters. They often say that natural selection cannot create, it can only destroy, It eliminates the less fit but does not increase the more fit. There are two problems with this: 1. It ignores the role of differential fertility, as it assumes that all fitness differences are differential viability, and 2. It commits Byers's fallacy. It ignores the change of the frequencies of genotypes as the less fit are eliminated. When the genotype frequencies change, and with them the gene frequencies, the composition of the population changes. Even if there were only one generation of this change, future gene frequencies would reflect the change. These folks do not understand that populations generally have a excess reproduction. They seem never to have heard of density-dependent population size regulation. Eliminating the less viable does mean that, in the presence of density regulation, the more viable will increase. Not only in frequency, but also in actual numbers. And of course this has been discussed, all the way back to Darwin, who made it an essential part of his arguments.

Robert, do you know why we had to invent science? It was because our "instincts" were so often WRONG. Instinct couldn't tell us that the Earth rotates, or that there are micro-organisms that make you sick, or that smaller objects fall as fast as large ones, or that matter is made of atoms, or that that little static electric spark was something that could power a whole civilization -- and allow you to complain on the internet about how your instinct says science is wrong.

I keep getting the impression that Byers is visualizing competition among seeds, or the seed-equivalent of any species whose reproductive strategy is to crank out enormous numbers of potential reproducers, almost none of which will ever reach the breeding stage. He doesn't seem to grasp that the selection isn't between seeds, but between breeding adults. And that the adults that tend to survive to breed (if this occurred because they are of a variety that gives them a very slight edge) will then generate enormous numbers of seeds ALL of which possess this favorable variant. And if they all have it, it really doesn't matter which of them randomly reach the breeding stage.

Bobsie said:

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

No die off necessary, it's the population carrying the beneficial mutation that produce deferentially more offspring that increases their ratio exponentially over successive generations. You can't see beyond the initial generation. That's where you have blinded yourself.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Logic to the front. If any mutation fails to affect a pop in the first/second generation THEN why a hundred generations?

Well that probably revolves around what we mean by 'a dent.' Eric Finn et al. are taking issue with me saying it makes 'a dent' immediately. They're pointing out that a gene will not propagate through a significant proportion of the gene pool in the first few generations. But if its propagating (for whatever reason - selection or drift), then eventually, barring some externality, it will. Its very much like compound interest in your bank account. Put $100 away at 2% compound interest and the first year, you may not consider the $2 extra a 'dent' on your original investment. Its a change, an increase, sure. But 'a dent'? Maybe too small to qualify for that label. Keep it in there for 30 years, though, and probably everyone will agree that the $81 extra you've now accumulated counts as 'a dent'.

I don't see how a new gene beifit helps some indivuduals unless they have already formed another population. Otherwise it will vanish by breeding.

Your understanding of genetics seems on par with your understanding of statistics. No, that's not how it works. Find a textbook or mainstream source of information about genetics and learn. However to end on a more positive note, you may be interested to learn that that problem stumped Darwin too. He didn't have our knowledge of how inheritance works, of course, so his being stumped is a bit more understandable. But nevertheless, its curious that of all the mistakes about genetics you could make, you made that one.

ID/YEC here is saying the math doesn't work for evolution . Unless there is great extinction.

So how do you explain the growth of lactose tolerance in the global population, which has happened without any great extinction? How do you explain the fact that blond hair is no longer uniquely Scandinavian?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I don't see how a new gene beifit helps some indivuduals unless they have already formed another population. Otherwise it will vanish by breeding.

Your understanding of genetics seems on par with your understanding of statistics. No, that's not how it works. Find a textbook or mainstream source of information about genetics and learn. However to end on a more positive note, you may be interested to learn that that problem stumped Darwin too. He didn't have our knowledge of how inheritance works, of course, so his being stumped is a bit more understandable. But nevertheless, its curious that of all the mistakes about genetics you could make, you made that one.

Robert Byers said: I don't see how ...

Bobsie said:

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

No die off necessary, it's the population carrying the beneficial mutation that produce deferentially more offspring that increases their ratio exponentially over successive generations. You can't see beyond the initial generation. That's where you have blinded yourself.

Joe Felsenstein said: Many others have done a good job of answering Robert Byers when he says that, unless there is a great die-off of others, a beneficial mutant will not spread. I do just want to mention that Byers's mistake is also committed by many other creationists and ID supporters. They often say that natural selection cannot create, it can only destroy, It eliminates the less fit but does not increase the more fit. There are two problems with this: 1. It ignores the role of differential fertility, as it assumes that all fitness differences are differential viability, and 2. It commits Byers's fallacy. It ignores the change of the frequencies of genotypes as the less fit are eliminated. When the genotype frequencies change, and with them the gene frequencies, the composition of the population changes. Even if there were only one generation of this change, future gene frequencies would reflect the change. These folks do not understand that populations generally have a excess reproduction. They seem never to have heard of density-dependent population size regulation. Eliminating the less viable does mean that, in the presence of density regulation, the more viable will increase. Not only in frequency, but also in actual numbers. And of course this has been discussed, all the way back to Darwin, who made it an essential part of his arguments.

Robert Byers said:

Bobsie said:

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

No die off necessary, it's the population carrying the beneficial mutation that produce deferentially more offspring that increases their ratio exponentially over successive generations. You can't see beyond the initial generation. That's where you have blinded yourself.

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

I see it this the evolutionists have missed they must get rid of the original population. Something must be wrong with them in breeding. NOT JUST outbreeded. I think this is the DI scientist instinct and then his aggressive questioning of the historical math on this.

Your side sees not just a benefit but a very needed benefit for the whole groups survival at a hugh population level. SO you do need a denise in the original population. The mere casino math will not do it. The original group would not got anywhere. A new population would be created in fact.

Robert Byers said: In all these ideas of evolution the improved individuals/population must outcompete and so kill off the reproduction of the original group. I think this is the rub here.

One thing which I disagree with you on.

Any mathematics at all is off-putting for very many people. Even middle-school level math.

That is why people patronize casinos, why they accept huge interest rates, etc. etc.

Robert Byers said:

Bobsie said:

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

No die off necessary, it's the population carrying the beneficial mutation that produce deferentially more offspring that increases their ratio exponentially over successive generations. You can't see beyond the initial generation. That's where you have blinded yourself.

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

Mr. Byers, your "original" group doesn't ever die off; they all eventually "marry" off and join the successful "new" clan.

Dave Luckett said: Here's a big word, George: intelligibility. Look it up.

Author Profile Page A Masked Panda (813f) replied to a comment from Dave Luckett | May 14, 2016 11:21 AM | Reply
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/05/a-devastating-c.html#comment-353005

Dave Luckett said:

Here’s a big word, George: intelligibility. Look it up.

Oh!

Yes, I looked up intelligibility, and it says something about SIGN LANGUAGE and ANALPHABETISM!

Can somebody explain, after SELF-developing REPRODUCTION methods, then the CELL increases in complexity, to the biggest GENOMICS, accepted of THE SALAMANDER?

ALSO rubbish DNA, is not a “negative load”, but useful?

So there were not enough numbers to better genetics, if that is a statement.

So how do you make billions of numbers to occur? That is what must have happened is what you guys are presumptively saying!

FIRST LETS MAKE LIFE IN A LABORATORY, THEN TELL YOUR SCIENCE EVOLUTION AND RELIGION “STORIES”…! MAGICIANS!

George. Pure Logic and Logic. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/presumptively

Robert, you have a competitor. Actually I can make more sense out of your writing than George's.

And you don't yell in our faces with CAPS LOCK in random places.

George is either a raging loony, or he's imitating one. It's impossible to say which, but my instinct is that he might be a bit too good to be true.

@ Robert Byers

You continue to insist that the math doesn’t work for evolution's influence on population genetics; that the math must add up.

We're still waiting for you to show us that failed math.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: In all these ideas of evolution the improved individuals/population must outcompete and so kill off the reproduction of the original group. I think this is the rub here.

You keep saying and repeating that we need an "equation" for the other population to die off, to be destroyed. Of course not, that is your strawman idea of evolution. What you are also missing is that the non-mutant population does not have to die either. Both populations can, and usually do, split, and continue to grow along, diverging more and more each generation. That's why we got multiple species of, say, mouse. Or of salamanders. Or how we still have europeans when americans are descended from them. Basically, it's the "why are there still monkeys" idiocy. Christ, really, this has got to be one of the easiest things for even a high-schooler to understand. It's got easy math. It's got an analogy that everyone could understand, casinos. But one creationist back in the first comment page said that casinos make no money from gambling. I guess that is your brain on creationism... having denied every branch of science, they have now denied that gambling is a good business. This is how far they have fallen. I mean, Byers has repeated the same idiotic argument 10 times. He posts incomprehensible gibberish such as "The beneficial mutation is only a benefit is it is". He keeps misspelling the word "huge". He has enormous problems just constructing his sentences and making something barely legible, let alone coherent. I honestly can't even discern what he is trying to say half the time. Are we sure we are not dealing with a mentally challenged individual??

Bobsie said:

Robert Byers said:

Bobsie said:

The next generations would not change the ratio UNLESS thee was a serious problem with the vast majority. Your side must always see a great die off or great failure in breeding in some great population.

No die off necessary, it's the population carrying the beneficial mutation that produce deferentially more offspring that increases their ratio exponentially over successive generations. You can't see beyond the initial generation. That's where you have blinded yourself.

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

So you are asserting that your original group will never ever mate with any of the "new population" and consequently their genetic pool will always remain separated, isolated and pure; never to be tainted by the exponentially growing population with the beneficial trait? How do you propose keeping them separated and pure? Species enforced apartheid?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PkZsUe11rOBbyBPTMFoa6pUDJUQQjTxv#0c747 said: I admit I am a total novice at this, but may I ask the following query: A population has a certain environmental distribution and produces a number of offspring - each of which finds itself in a different environment - in that environment there is a probability p(E) they will survive. The population has two allelles A and a. Overall there is a p(A) and p(a) that an individual will survive - lets say p(A) is greater. But in some environments p(E|a) is higher than p(E|A); in others the opposite is the case - which shakes out to give the overall p(A) and p(a). So whether the population prospers or declines depends upon two things - its distribution within the environment (if the population has all been washed to a hostile environment its prospects are dim) and the fitness of the genes to survive in that environment. After a generation there is a new population - again distributed (most likely differently now) within the environment. My untutored feeling is that the variation in environments will have a very significant impact on whether the species prospers or declines - I'm also fascinated by the assumption of a constant population in the population genetics model - it seems such an unrealistic constraint. Gene fitness clearly affects survivability, but so too does environmental variation - which of these two factors has a greater effect on the survivability of the entire species seems very complex and not to me obvious. The distribution of the species may be such that the environmental constraints have a far bigger impact on its survival than genetic ones. I don't want to give any support to creationists - and I assume far more complex modelling has been done in the last 75 years building on the models of Haldane, Wright and Fisher, but I can't help feeling the OP misses a point I'd love to understand how Modern evolutionary theory has built on the shoulders of these giants adding environmental issues into their models to help us try to understand when evolution is driven by Natural Selection, when it is driven by genetic drift and when it is driven by environmental factors - remember those poor dinosaurs and the radiations after their removal from the environment. A model with a static population in a constant environment where population distributions can depend upon tiny variations in genes which even though tiny give statistical guarantees of gene success are all very well, but effective population sizes and environments show these assumptions don't hold very well for the real world - have we built better assumptions into our models since these early models - I'd love to know.

Robert Byers said: It is about spreading a beneficial mutation into the original population and so a new population is created with the new mutation. So evolution has occurred. All this without a die off/extinction. Just a outpacing/outbreeding program. The DI scientist, and me, question this. somethings wrong here. against instinct. I think i found it. We are not saying the better breeders will not prevail. Yet we say without a demise in the original pop, a problem occurring, then they never would be changed. JUST a new population of the mutated type would be created. No matter how much outbreeding there is still the original group would stay as hugh as ever. no reason for its demise. Within your sides math there must be a reason for why the original population fails to breed. Not just outbreeded. You bring up about excess reproduction. Well that means, I think your saying, this excess is a problem. There is failure to survive because of it. Heavy competition for a limited resource. Yet our original population got and stayed hugh despite the limited resources. Its fine. The beneficial mutation is only a benefit is it is. Its not a benefit unless the original pop is suddenly in distress to some degree. otherwise just another population , alongside, will be created. In short the few should not affect the many unless the many are being otherwise affected in a negative way. In all these ideas of evolution the improved individuals/population must outcompete and so kill off the reproduction of the original group. I think this is the rub here. Evolutionism needs a important nutation gain for survival and so evolution taking place in that creature. Not just a neutral casino outbreeding will do. your side must include a equation for demise in the original population. If you do then all your stats is just saying a single couple , with a advantage will bring a evolved change in some population. our complaint is it won't happen casually.always a problem is needed because its hugh populations. i think thats the DI scientist hunch abouyt the math being wrong. Whew that wore me out.

With or without evolution, the genomics within a population are in a constant flux.
A population is not a fixed thing, each day sees a new population replacing the old one. Births and deaths at work 24/7. They are what does the work, genomics have a free ride.

Robert,

If a beneficial dominant allele arises by mutation and the selection coefficient for homozygous recessives is 0.01, how many generations will be required for fixation of the new allele?

Look up the proper equation, do the math and tell us the answer. When you do, you will see how evolution works. Until you do, your intuition is worthless. You can go on ignoring the experts, that isn't gong to do you any good. You can go on in ignorance, ranting and raving that something is wrong somewhere, but that is not going to do you any good. You can go on thrashing up this thread for the next twenty pages, but that isn't going to do you any good either. Put up or shut up.

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

From what festering orifice did you pull THAT stupid idea out of ? Real world populations are FINITE - if one group is increasing in number, SANE and RATIONAL people know that the other group must be decreasing.

harold said:

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

From what festering orifice did you pull THAT stupid idea out of ? Real world populations are FINITE - if one group is increasing in number, SANE and RATIONAL people know that the other group must be decreasing.

Actually sometimes it does happen the way Robert Byers described in this comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciationa A new subpopulation can be selected for without the ancestral population going extinct. He's wrong in implying that natural selection never leads to extinction, of course. "Robert Byers said it so it must be wrong" is a pretty good heuristic, but it's just a heuristic.

harold said:

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

From what festering orifice did you pull THAT stupid idea out of ? Real world populations are FINITE - if one group is increasing in number, SANE and RATIONAL people know that the other group must be decreasing.

Actually sometimes it does happen the way Robert Byers described in this comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciationa A new subpopulation can be selected for without the ancestral population going extinct. He's wrong in implying that natural selection never leads to extinction, of course. "Robert Byers said it so it must be wrong" is a pretty good heuristic, but it's just a heuristic.

TomS said:

harold said:

I see the generation spectrum./ YES. The ratio must change. Yes the beneficial mutation in individuals will outpace the original group to a end result. Yet that original group will not decrease or vanish and so will never be effected. Never evole. So oNLY a new population will be made.

From what festering orifice did you pull THAT stupid idea out of ? Real world populations are FINITE - if one group is increasing in number, SANE and RATIONAL people know that the other group must be decreasing.

Actually sometimes it does happen the way Robert Byers described in this comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciationa A new subpopulation can be selected for without the ancestral population going extinct. He's wrong in implying that natural selection never leads to extinction, of course. "Robert Byers said it so it must be wrong" is a pretty good heuristic, but it's just a heuristic.

I fully agree with what you are saying, but (and I am not a scientist, so take this as a request for clarification for me) I would think that the distinction is between anagenesis vs. cladogenesis; not sympatric vs. allopatric.

To imply that emergence of a new adaptation forces the extinction of ancestors would not only be to commit the "why are there still monkeys" fallacy, but also, would raise the question "why is there more than one species on Earth", as, if every time a beneficial allele arose, it rapidly became fixed and the ancestral phenotype rapidly became extinct, there would be one or two species at any given time, although never the same species for long.

Nothing I am saying is in dispute with the basic points made by Joe Felsenstein or others, including PA Poland, nor should any agreement with the many very, very wrong statements made by Byers in this thread be imputed to me. Some of Byers' early points amounted to denial of math that has been proven since the 18th century, although he seems to have moved away from that as the thread progressed.

A lot of it comes down to what we define as the population.

If all individuals are still considered members of the population, then of course the frequency of all other alleles at that locus must decrease for the new beneficial allele at that locus to increase in frequency. (This is true regardless of changes in absolute population size.)

If we allow for new populations branching off of the old population, the new allele may come to define a new population.

DaveH said: Amazingly, I think Byers has not realised the fact that (aside from some micro-organisms) the mortality of the original population is 100%! Bobby, everything that is born will eventually die. The "Original Population" that you are so worried about will all die of accident, disease or just plain old age, and it will be replaced by some of the offspring. Some of those will have the advantageous allele. This number will increase in later generations...

Ravi said:

DaveH said: Amazingly, I think Byers has not realised the fact that (aside from some micro-organisms) the mortality of the original population is 100%! Bobby, everything that is born will eventually die. The "Original Population" that you are so worried about will all die of accident, disease or just plain old age, and it will be replaced by some of the offspring. Some of those will have the advantageous allele. This number will increase in later generations...

All evolutuionist population genetics models are predicated on a population that is static and not naturally increasing (differential survival). They also blindly accept the Darwinian-Malthusian dogma that there are always more offpsring than there are scarce resources to sustain them. That is clearly not true for large organisms like whales and elephants who don't produce many offspring and so there is less competition for the resources. Any survival advantage is therefore likely not to result in relatively more reproduction.

All evolutuionist population genetics models...

They also blindly accept the Darwinian-Malthusian dogma that there are always more offpsring ...

Ravi said: ... All evolutuionist population genetics models are predicated on a population that is static and not naturally increasing (differential survival). They also blindly accept the Darwinian-Malthusian dogma that there are always more offpsring than there are scarce resources to sustain them. That is clearly not true for large organisms like whales and elephants who don't produce many offspring and so there is less competition for the resources. Any survival advantage is therefore likely not to result in relatively more reproduction.

D Stowens said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PkZsUe11rOBbyBPTMFoa6pUDJUQQjTxv#0c747 said: I admit I am a total novice at this, but may I ask the following query: A population has a certain environmental distribution and produces a number of offspring - each of which finds itself in a different environment - in that environment there is a probability p(E) they will survive. The population has two allelles A and a. Overall there is a p(A) and p(a) that an individual will survive - lets say p(A) is greater. But in some environments p(E|a) is higher than p(E|A); in others the opposite is the case - which shakes out to give the overall p(A) and p(a). So whether the population prospers or declines depends upon two things - its distribution within the environment (if the population has all been washed to a hostile environment its prospects are dim) and the fitness of the genes to survive in that environment. After a generation there is a new population - again distributed (most likely differently now) within the environment. My untutored feeling is that the variation in environments will have a very significant impact on whether the species prospers or declines - I'm also fascinated by the assumption of a constant population in the population genetics model - it seems such an unrealistic constraint. Gene fitness clearly affects survivability, but so too does environmental variation - which of these two factors has a greater effect on the survivability of the entire species seems very complex and not to me obvious. The distribution of the species may be such that the environmental constraints have a far bigger impact on its survival than genetic ones. I don't want to give any support to creationists - and I assume far more complex modelling has been done in the last 75 years building on the models of Haldane, Wright and Fisher, but I can't help feeling the OP misses a point I'd love to understand how Modern evolutionary theory has built on the shoulders of these giants adding environmental issues into their models to help us try to understand when evolution is driven by Natural Selection, when it is driven by genetic drift and when it is driven by environmental factors - remember those poor dinosaurs and the radiations after their removal from the environment. A model with a static population in a constant environment where population distributions can depend upon tiny variations in genes which even though tiny give statistical guarantees of gene success are all very well, but effective population sizes and environments show these assumptions don't hold very well for the real world - have we built better assumptions into our models since these early models - I'd love to know.

Yes, the mathematics of evolution has progressed and become much more sophisticated that the simple system in the OP. Just wiki genetic drift or population genetics. The math may look daunting in the genetic drift article, but it really isn't bad if you keep reminding yourself what each symbol/letter means. The history part of the population genetics article is good to look at as it outlines the current controversies in evolution that anti-evolution people like to fixate on. I am particularly irritated when they talk about microevolution and macroevolution, totally misunderstanding that there is only evolution with changes over short time periods or long time periods. Your concern that population size and environmental effects are neglected in the simple math of the OP is unfounded. Yes, both of those features do enter into the arithmetic of real-life systems, but don't change the argument of the post. I like to use Darwin's famous finches to illustrate the fact that real-life evolution doesn't produce the simple pea-plant genetic pattern (genome in todays lingo). On one of the Galapagos islands, the birds have either large beaks or small beaks which provide different dietary efficiencies. During droughts the population size of the birds shrinks remarkably, and the average(!) beak size increases; with drought relief the opposite occurs. This, to me anyway, means that evolution has resulted in a species with a mixed genome (something I've learned is called "balanced genetic polymorphism") rather than a genome for a fixed beak size. What has evolved is a genome that allows the species as a whole to adapt to environmental changes.

DaveH said:

Robert Byers said: It is about spreading a beneficial mutation into the original population and so a new population is created with the new mutation. So evolution has occurred. All this without a die off/extinction. Just a outpacing/outbreeding program. The DI scientist, and me, question this. somethings wrong here. against instinct. I think i found it. We are not saying the better breeders will not prevail. Yet we say without a demise in the original pop, a problem occurring, then they never would be changed. JUST a new population of the mutated type would be created. No matter how much outbreeding there is still the original group would stay as hugh as ever. no reason for its demise. Within your sides math there must be a reason for why the original population fails to breed. Not just outbreeded. You bring up about excess reproduction. Well that means, I think your saying, this excess is a problem. There is failure to survive because of it. Heavy competition for a limited resource. Yet our original population got and stayed hugh despite the limited resources. Its fine. The beneficial mutation is only a benefit is it is. Its not a benefit unless the original pop is suddenly in distress to some degree. otherwise just another population , alongside, will be created. In short the few should not affect the many unless the many are being otherwise affected in a negative way. In all these ideas of evolution the improved individuals/population must outcompete and so kill off the reproduction of the original group. I think this is the rub here. Evolutionism needs a important nutation gain for survival and so evolution taking place in that creature. Not just a neutral casino outbreeding will do. your side must include a equation for demise in the original population. If you do then all your stats is just saying a single couple , with a advantage will bring a evolved change in some population. our complaint is it won't happen casually.always a problem is needed because its hugh populations. i think thats the DI scientist hunch abouyt the math being wrong. Whew that wore me out.

Amazingly, I think Byers has not realised the fact that (aside from some micro-organisms) the mortality of the original population is 100%! Bobby, everything that is born will eventually die. The "Original Population" that you are so worried about will all die of accident, disease or just plain old age, and it will be replaced by some of the offspring. Some of those will have the advantageous allele. This number will increase in later generations...

harold said: Nothing I am saying is in dispute with the basic points made by Joe Felsenstein or others, including PA Poland, nor should any agreement with the many very, very wrong statements made by Byers in this thread be imputed to me. Some of Byers' early points amounted to denial of math that has been proven since the 18th century, although he seems to have moved away from that as the thread progressed. A lot of it comes down to what we define as the population. If all individuals are still considered members of the population, then of course the frequency of all other alleles at that locus must decrease for the new beneficial allele at that locus to increase in frequency. (This is true regardless of changes in absolute population size.) If we allow for new populations branching off of the old population, the new allele may come to define a new population.

Ravi said:

DaveH said: Amazingly, I think Byers has not realised the fact that (aside from some micro-organisms) the mortality of the original population is 100%! Bobby, everything that is born will eventually die. The "Original Population" that you are so worried about will all die of accident, disease or just plain old age, and it will be replaced by some of the offspring. Some of those will have the advantageous allele. This number will increase in later generations...

All evolutuionist population genetics models are predicated on a population that is static and not naturally increasing (differential survival). They also blindly accept the Darwinian-Malthusian dogma that there are always more offpsring than there are scarce resources to sustain them. That is clearly not true for large organisms like whales and elephants who don't produce many offspring and so there is less competition for the resources. Any survival advantage is therefore likely not to result in relatively more reproduction.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ravi said: ... All evolutuionist population genetics models are predicated on a population that is static and not naturally increasing (differential survival). They also blindly accept the Darwinian-Malthusian dogma that there are always more offpsring than there are scarce resources to sustain them. That is clearly not true for large organisms like whales and elephants who don't produce many offspring and so there is less competition for the resources. Any survival advantage is therefore likely not to result in relatively more reproduction.

Well, do you know why we so easily assume that populations typically produce more offspring than can survive? Because they do. Because if they didn't, if they, say, produced a few fewer offspring than parents, then they would decline in numbers. And if that continues, guess what? They would go extinct. And then, after that, they would be not very interesting to model. Even whales and elephants produce a reproductive excess.

Robert Byers said: I think you are on to something here. i think this thread presumed the pop was static when in actual biology it isn't. that was the DI scientist complaint. he saw a thriving hugh population being said to be replaced by a tiny number of mutations in some individuals over time. Yet nothing stopping resources. For the casino math to work to bring evolution to the whole population there must be a decline in the original population as its replaced by the incoming new population.

As in whales this would not happen very much.It might be a serious flaw in evolutionary thinking. Darwin did see a packed system desperate to survive.

DS said: Robert, If a beneficial dominant allele arises by mutation and the selection coefficient for homozygous recessives is 0.01, how many generations will be required for fixation of the new allele? Look up the proper equation, do the math and tell us the answer. When you do, you will see how evolution works. Until you do, your intuition is worthless. You can go on ignoring the experts, that isn't gong to do you any good. You can go on in ignorance, ranting and raving that something is wrong somewhere, but that is not going to do you any good. You can go on thrashing up this thread for the next twenty pages, but that isn't going to do you any good either. Put up or shut up.

Joe Felsenstein said: Well, do you know why we so easily assume that populations typically produce more offspring than can survive? Because they do. Because if they didn't, if they, say, produced a few fewer offspring than parents, then they would decline in numbers. And if that continues, guess what? They would go extinct.

Even whales and elephants produce a reproductive excess.

Ravi said: It is a real flaw in Darwinist thinking - some organisms just don't reproduce in sufficient numbers for a slightly beneficial change to be "selected". The unrealistic cost of replacement, of course, is the dilemma faced by Haldane.

Ravi said: It is a real flaw in Darwinist thinking - some organisms just don't reproduce in sufficient numbers for a slightly beneficial change to be "selected". The unrealistic cost of replacement, of course, is the dilemma faced by Haldane.

Ravi said: ... People like Felsenstein model their populations as existing within a deteriorating environment where there is a shortage of resources or overpredation. There might be a time when this is indeed the case, but the fact is that populations usually exist under stable and normal conditions where there is a symbiotic balance between reproduction and the availabiity of food etc. ... It is a real flaw in Darwinist thinking - some organisms just don't reproduce in sufficient numbers for a slightly beneficial change to be "selected". The unrealistic cost of replacement, of course, is the dilemma faced by Haldane.

Joe Felsenstein said: Lönnig's argument is completely different than Ravi's. He argues that the substitution does not occur, especially in a large population that has a substantial reproductive excess, owing to the large number of deaths that must occur in the process of whittling the population down to its equilibrium size. Lönnig is wrong about that, as I have showed here. Ravi misunderstands both Lönnig's argument and mine.

Sorry if that link does not work for you. Here is the reference:

Grant and Flake (1974) Solutions to the cost of selection dilemma. PNAS 71(10):3863-5.

And I only hit submit once.

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Lönnig's argument is completely different than Ravi's. He argues that the substitution does not occur, especially in a large population that has a substantial reproductive excess, owing to the large number of deaths that must occur in the process of whittling the population down to its equilibrium size. Lönnig is wrong about that, as I have showed here. Ravi misunderstands both Lönnig's argument and mine.

If there is a huge population, thriving and with no scarcity of resources or competition, then any reproductive excess survives. Any survival benefit becomes superfluous and redundant. I get it.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ravi said: If there is a huge population, thriving and with no scarcity of resources or competition, then any reproductive excess survives. Any survival benefit becomes superfluous and redundant. I get it.

No. If there is a huge population, with no scarcity of resources and no competition, and a reproductive excess, then the population size increases even further, and so on until finally it gets big enough that its size increase is balanced by density-dependent mortality or infertility.

In effect, what Ravi is saying is that if you and the other runner are successfully outrunning the bear, then neither runner will get ahead of the other.

Ravi is implying that somehow, in a large and growing population, advantageous alleles won't increase in frequency. Ravi is wrong.

Wrong. Population geneticists model all kinds of cases. I know. I compiled the only bibliography ever compiled for the field.

See above comment by me about the two runners who are outrunning the bear.

Joe Felsenstein said: In effect, what Ravi is saying is that if you and the other runner are successfully outrunning the bear, then neither runner will get ahead of the other.

Ravi said: But even if those with the beneficial allele had more suriving offpsring, any "substiution" would only work if those without it produced fewer offspring than normal. And once the population stabilizes, the benefit of reproductive success becomes less.

Ravi, before you try to teach population genetics to scientists, see if you can teach Robert Byers to spell huge.

Why let facts get in the way of belief?

Ravi's and Robert's motto: "Why let facts get in the way of belief?"

Ravi said: Any survivial/reproductive benefit in a population where there is no significant competition ....

... will not propagate through the population much more than by random chance. {italics added for emphasis}

Michael Fugate said: Ravi's and Robert's motto: "Why let facts get in the way of belief?"

prongs said: "Just a little more than random" and you've got it! The Diversity of Life on Earth

Dave Luckett said: George is either a raging loony, or he's imitating one. It's impossible to say which, but my instinct is that he might be a bit too good to be true.

Particularly I still do not understand MEOSIS and MITOSOS! Nor chromosomes either! So ALELES is like pushing it!

No doubt good traits in a population, are expected to take first stage in the process.

Though in my case, my offspring are of lower genetic degree!

Can you explain this for me please?

George - Pure Logic and Logic.

sorry. MITOSIS!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: sorry. MITOSIS!

George, do you acknowledge that professional scientists probably know what they're talking about in their own fields of study? And are they more likely or less likely to be correct about facts in their fields than a non-scientist?

If you don't believe what biologists tell us about biology, why not?

Though in my case, my offspring are of lower genetic degree!

Joe Felsenstein said: Wrong. Population geneticists model all kinds of cases. I know. I compiled the only bibliography ever compiled for the field.

eric said: Its worth noting that even in this case, a favorable gene can spread through the population. Your descendants just have to become per capita more frequent than others'. As the joke goes, you don't have to outrun the bear to 'win,' you just have to outrun the guy standing next to you.

Ravi said: And a favorable gene can, in a small population, become lost whereas an unfavorable one can drift to fixation. A lot depends on the frequency of the mutation producing the variant.

Staying ahead of the bear is not the same thing as winning the race.

Ravi said: ... And a favorable gene can, in a small population, become lost whereas an unfavorable one can drift to fixation. A lot depends on the frequency of the mutation producing the variant.

To reiterate, if one looks at population genetics models - one will find that mutation, migration, population size, heritability, selection, etc. can be included. Even if selection is weaker than any or all of the other factors, selection is still acting and the result is different than if selection coefficient were = 0.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Lönnig's argument is completely different than Ravi's. He argues that the substitution does not occur, especially in a large population that has a substantial reproductive excess, owing to the large number of deaths that must occur in the process of whittling the population down to its equilibrium size. Lönnig is wrong about that, as I have showed here. Ravi misunderstands both Lönnig's argument and mine.

If there is a huge population, thriving and with no scarcity of resources or competition, then any reproductive excess survives. Any survival benefit becomes superfluous and redundant. I get it.

No. If there is a huge population, with no scarcity of resources and no competition, and a reproductive excess, then the population size increases even further, and so on until finally it gets big enough that its size increase is balanced by density-dependent mortality or infertility. But all the time, natural selection is working, and an allele with higher fitness is increasing in frequency. Lönnig is saying it won't increase, and he is wrong about that. Ravi is saying that population geneticists have incorrectly modeled the situation. Ravi is implying that somehow, in a large and growing population, advantageous alleles won't increase in frequency. Ravi is wrong.

Robert Byers said: "On Jupiter, a hugh place, there could be a scenario of never not having enough resources .... the casino equation."

Robert, did you just retire, so now you can turn your full attention to explaining to all the scientists why they're wrong about all the science they've studied and researched over long careers?

Do you have any other hobbies?

Or is this maybe a Mission from God?

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: sorry. MITOSIS!

So. Pure can be as the common use of the word, or the way you find a mineral purely in its form in nature, embedded into rock, etc! Pure Logic, hence is my use, of defining all complete logic, including non-logic, bad logic, evil logic, etc. George. You also misspelled meiosis, but never mind. I'll probably regret asking, but what is meant by "Pure Logic and Logic"?

Just Bob said: George, do you acknowledge that professional scientists probably know what they're talking about in their own fields of study? And are they more likely or less likely to be correct about facts in their fields than a non-scientist? If you don't believe what biologists tell us about biology, why not?

Yep, sorry I asked, and no wiser.

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Lönnig's argument is completely different than Ravi's. He argues that the substitution does not occur, especially in a large population that has a substantial reproductive excess, owing to the large number of deaths that must occur in the process of whittling the population down to its equilibrium size. Lönnig is wrong about that, as I have showed here. Ravi misunderstands both Lönnig's argument and mine.

If there is a huge population, thriving and with no scarcity of resources or competition, then any reproductive excess survives. Any survival benefit becomes superfluous and redundant. I get it.

No. If there is a huge population, with no scarcity of resources and no competition, and a reproductive excess, then the population size increases even further, and so on until finally it gets big enough that its size increase is balanced by density-dependent mortality or infertility. But all the time, natural selection is working, and an allele with higher fitness is increasing in frequency. Lönnig is saying it won't increase, and he is wrong about that. Ravi is saying that population geneticists have incorrectly modeled the situation. Ravi is implying that somehow, in a large and growing population, advantageous alleles won't increase in frequency. Ravi is wrong.

Possibly Ravi doesn't mean , in a large/growing pop, advantageous alleles won't increase but rather won't replace. You say natural selection is working on higher fitness but in a thriving, high, pop everyone is fit. Your saying the original pop doesn't need any interference with resources/competition but mere math will see it replaced. Indeed like natural selection has a mission. I don't understand the whole issue of the beneficial/genes/inmdivuduals interbreeding with the original ones. This passed me by. I imagined the new/improved individuals are making a new population BUT no reason to see the demise of the original. So no evolution affecting the original. I think thats what bothered Lonnig. Real populations are not affected, or must be, by a few advantageous genes in those and those outreproducing. Everyone is reproducing fine. So a hugh thriving original pop would not be changed. However i'm unsure about why the evolutionist side sees the outpacing reproduction REPLACING the original. Especially about interbreeding issue. By the way.The whole point to outreproducing is because the original must be under stress of rsources. On Jupiter, a hugh place, there could be a scenario of never not having enough resources and so why should out repropducing change or replace a original population. I still see the evolution side must have a competition/resource equation within the casino equation.

George Purelogic (Masked Panda 813f) : If you doubt the conclusions of science with regard to meiosis and mitosis, a matter which was settled 100 years ago to the satisfaction of almost all scientists, and hasn't gotten any more uncertain since, please take the matter to some other forum. It is off-topic to this thread, and even off-topic to this whole forum.

I am moderating this thread, and will send further discussion of this issue to PT's Bathroom Wall. You don't want to go there, really.

And that holds for any replies to Purelogic on that issue -- they go to the BW too, to help discourage troll-chasing as well as trolling.

Joe Felsenstein said: Try looking back at my original post in this thread. I calculated the fixation probability, in fact. For an allele that started at 50% frequency, it was not 0.5, but was 0.999999...999 (with 43 9s in all). Showing a dramatic effect of natural selection.

In the example given, the population produced a strong reproductive excess and was at its carrying capacity. It was not a population barely surviving, on the edge of extinction.

eric said: Sure it can. But arguing that a favorable gene can be lost in a small population provides zero support for your prior claims that (I'm paraphrasing) a favorable gene won't propagate through a population when it's stable. Or when there are no predators and abundant food (you seem to have asserted both in different posts).

Ravi said:

eric said: Sure it can. But arguing that a favorable gene can be lost in a small population provides zero support for your prior claims that (I'm paraphrasing) a favorable gene won't propagate through a population when it's stable. Or when there are no predators and abundant food (you seem to have asserted both in different posts).

I think Lönnig is arguing that for a rare beneficial mutation to reach **fixation** in a large population, by substituting itself for all other genotypes, we have to assume that there would have to be an unrealistic amount of failed survival/reproduction for this to happen. Rather, the beneficial variant may increase more relative to all others, but it would never replace them except in an extreme situation involving the mass culling of the population by a pathogen, for example. This, of course, could push the population to extinction in the end.

Ravi, perhaps you could explain how or why there could be a "population where there is little or no reproductive excess."

In times of opportunity, such a species could not expand to take advantage of new territory or resources. In times of stress, when some potential breeders die before breeding, then the population would rapidly diminish and head for extinction. Excess breeders and offspring are a species' insurance against hard times.

And finally, how could a "population where there is little or no reproductive excess", say one with millions of individuals, ever reach a population of millions, if "there is little or no reproductive excess"?

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Try looking back at my original post in this thread. I calculated the fixation probability, in fact. For an allele that started at 50% frequency, it was not 0.5, but was 0.999999...999 (with 43 9s in all). Showing a dramatic effect of natural selection.

Fine. But a 50% starting frequency would be highly unusual. How did the allele reach such a frequency to begin with? To go from 0 to 50% is much more dramatic than from 50 to 100%, don't you think?

... and further said:

In the example given, the population produced a strong reproductive excess and was at its carrying capacity. It was not a population barely surviving, on the edge of extinction.

W[e]ll that raises another issue: In a population where there is little or no reproductive excess then there would be much less of a differential survival factor. There would be no "raw material" for natural selection to work with. And, as you admit, the cost of "substitution" might drive such a population to extinction.

Michael Fugate said:

Ravi said: ... I think Lönnig is arguing that for a rare beneficial mutation to reach **fixation** in a large population, by substituting itself for all other genotypes, we have to assume that there would have to be an unrealistic amount of failed survival/reproduction for this to happen. Rather, the beneficial variant may increase more relative to all others, but it would never replace them except in an extreme situation involving the mass culling of the population by a pathogen, for example. This, of course, could push the population to extinction in the end.

Show us the math Ravi, show us the math.

Actually you can just computer-simulate that using the teaching program PopG (available here) which I distribute for use in courses teaching population genetics.

Ravi can try that and report the results here.

Just Bob said: Ravi, perhaps you could explain how or why there could be a "population where there is little or no reproductive excess."

My final post on this is my last hunch.
It occurs to me that the whole concept of there being a beneficial gene and so a advantageous individuals is another rub.
Just having or saying there is this advantage and so reproductive advantage is a interference in the original population.
I mean WHY is there a advantage? why at all? If the original pop is thriving and hugh wHY should there EVER be this benificial group interfering.
I see in this the flaw of the evolutionists on this issue/thread.
This , I think, is the complain from the DI.
Its not a math race but why is there a race.
In reality there never would be a beneficial gene/reproducing individuals. This wouldn't happen in these high pops of creatures.
Its an abstract concept that a real scientist dealing with mutations rejected.

A better way he could put it IS that a mutation would never bring a benefit for reproduction in a gugh/thriving group.
Thats the rub.

Robert Byers said: My final post on this is my last hunch. It occurs to me that the whole concept of there being a beneficial gene and so a advantageous individuals is another rub. Just having or saying there is this advantage and so reproductive advantage is a interference in the original population. I mean WHY is there a advantage? why at all? If the original pop is thriving and hugh wHY should there EVER be this benificial group interfering. I see in this the flaw of the evolutionists on this issue/thread. This , I think, is the complain from the DI. Its not a math race but why is there a race. In reality there never would be a beneficial gene/reproducing individuals. This wouldn't happen in these high pops of creatures. Its an abstract concept that a real scientist dealing with mutations rejected. A better way he could put it IS that a mutation would never bring a benefit for reproduction in a gugh/thriving group. Thats the rub.

Sorry, Robert, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you go "gugh".

I mean, the stuff you say is ignorantly wrong, but "hugh" and "gugh" make it hard not to burst out laughing.

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said: My final post on this is my last hunch. It occurs to me that the whole concept of there being a beneficial gene and so a advantageous individuals is another rub. Just having or saying there is this advantage and so reproductive advantage is a interference in the original population. I mean WHY is there a advantage? why at all? If the original pop is thriving and hugh wHY should there EVER be this benificial group interfering. I see in this the flaw of the evolutionists on this issue/thread. This , I think, is the complain from the DI. Its not a math race but why is there a race. In reality there never would be a beneficial gene/reproducing individuals. This wouldn't happen in these high pops of creatures. Its an abstract concept that a real scientist dealing with mutations rejected. A better way he could put it IS that a mutation would never bring a benefit for reproduction in a gugh/thriving group. Thats the rub.

Are you high?

Dave Luckett said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said: My final post on this is my last hunch. It occurs to me that the whole concept of there being a beneficial gene and so a advantageous individuals is another rub. Just having or saying there is this advantage and so reproductive advantage is a interference in the original population. I mean WHY is there a advantage? why at all? If the original pop is thriving and hugh wHY should there EVER be this benificial group interfering. I see in this the flaw of the evolutionists on this issue/thread. This , I think, is the complain from the DI. Its not a math race but why is there a race. In reality there never would be a beneficial gene/reproducing individuals. This wouldn't happen in these high pops of creatures. Its an abstract concept that a real scientist dealing with mutations rejected. A better way he could put it IS that a mutation would never bring a benefit for reproduction in a gugh/thriving group. Thats the rub.

Are you high?

No, he's not, unless he's over the moon every time he posts here. This is just about par, for Byers. It's like trying to assess the poetry of William Topaz McGonagall - was he really unconscious of what he was doing, or was he doing it deliberately? If the latter, he was one of the great masters of language. The same with Byers. Can a person really be so sublimely unaware of the sheer shambolic incoherence of his output? Is it possible for someone who can speak at all to be so catastrophically incapable of fashioning a meaningful sentence? Could anyone who can make any kind of sense of reality be so abysmally incompetent at communication? And how on earth can someone be so blissfully unaware of his desperate ignorance and hapless incapacity? Byers is the most effective creationist I have ever encountered. When he expounds, even creationists have to back away. Sure, nothing a creationist can say is so crazy that some other creationist will not endorse it - but with Byers even that principle is rendered moot. Not only does Byers say utterly crazy things, he says things that have no identifiable meaning at all. Not even a dyed-in-the-wool master of creationist bafflegab can nod along to "Its not a math race but why is there a race?" What in the name of Ghu does that even mean? So does Byers do this deliberately? I would be fascinated to learn, but I don't know. I only know that he's a peerless gift to rational discourse, in the same way that McGonagall was to English poetry.

"Saying that it isn’t possible to have a reproductive advantage in a large population is pretty moronic, even for Byers."

Kind of like saying it isn't possible to have a sales advantage in the fizzy drinks market...

Michael Fugate said: "Saying that it isn’t possible to have a reproductive advantage in a large population is pretty moronic, even for Byers." Kind of like saying it isn't possible to have a sales advantage in the fizzy drinks market...

eric said:

Michael Fugate said: "Saying that it isn’t possible to have a reproductive advantage in a large population is pretty moronic, even for Byers." Kind of like saying it isn't possible to have a sales advantage in the fizzy drinks market...

Like saying the 14th century European population was just too large for a mutation providing some resistance against the plague to have been in the population at that time. Or like saying that Michael Phelps is as nonexistent as Gthe tooth fairy.

Rebort Beyrs said: My final post on this...

Rebort Beyrs also said: Another last post.

He's in the great tradition of opera singers who give annual "farewell tours".

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Michael Fugate said: "Saying that it isn’t possible to have a reproductive advantage in a large population is pretty moronic, even for Byers." Kind of like saying it isn't possible to have a sales advantage in the fizzy drinks market...

Like saying the 14th century European population was just too large for a mutation providing some resistance against the plague to have been in the population at that time. Or like saying that Michael Phelps is as nonexistent as Gthe tooth fairy.

Another last post. thats different. There is a problem. there is extinction and pressure to survive. yet the whole conversation got away on itself , i think,, because any reproductive advantage must mean there is a great reason for it. Something changed something. The fix is in. So its not a true math/casino case about evolutionary change. My side was REALLY fighting that evolution does not take place because of some mutation that appeared,. IT MUST BE EFFECTIVE. Not just exist. I had as a finale note we all were careless. There was no justification for a reproductive advantage. That itself is the spoiler to the math. The interference with pure math affecting populations. Evolution does not proceed by mutations but by desperate interference for a mutation to succeed. This never happened however as behind actual biological origins. its a fable and wrongly claiming math as a helpmate.

Ravi said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Wrong. Population geneticists model all kinds of cases. I know. I compiled the only bibliography ever compiled for the field.

Virtually all pop genetics models involved a population of fixed size, although sometimes the population is "infinite" which makes the fixation or loss of the allele absolutely certain. See above comment by me about the two runners who are outrunning the bear. Staying ahead of the bear is not the same thing as winning the race.

Scott F said:

Ravi said: Staying ahead of the bear is not the same thing as winning the race.

You say, "winning the race", as though there is a goal, a finish line. "Hey! We now have humans. We've won the race, and we can stop evolving." Sorry, that's not how evolution works. There is always another bear, and the race never ends.

In fact, there was an article in this week's Economist that was describing research that showed that by analyzing enough entire human genomes, the scientists were able to clearly identify human genes that have evolved in just that last 2,000 years, and how they evolved. They cite, in particular, lactose tolerance and blond hair, as being fairly easy to track, as they rely on just a very few genes.

eric said:

Ravi said: Staying ahead of the bear is not the same thing as winning the race.

Scott F said: You say, "winning the race", as though there is a goal, a finish line. "Hey! We now have humans. We've won the race, and we can stop evolving." Sorry, that's not how evolution works. There is always another bear, and the race never ends.

To be fair to Ravi, I was the one who started using that analogy. He's just responding to me using my own construct. The way I was using it, "winning the race" means you have a mutation-produced advantage over other humans that also successfully reproduce, that's all. It wasn't intended to imply an end-goal or completion of some plan. Pointing out that there can still be "a winner" when multiple people escape the bear was intended to show that Ravi is wrong in thinking that positive adaptations cannot fix in a population under conditions of plenty. Of course they can; just because a whole bunch of us have lots of successful offspring doesn't mean that all our gene lines must have the relatively same amount of reproductive success.

In fact, there was an article in this week's Economist that was describing research that showed that by analyzing enough entire human genomes, the scientists were able to clearly identify human genes that have evolved in just that last 2,000 years, and how they evolved. They cite, in particular, lactose tolerance and blond hair, as being fairly easy to track, as they rely on just a very few genes.

Full disclosure, I *don't* read the Economist and didn't do a whole lot of background research before citing those examples. So if there's any discrepancy between my use of those examples and theirs, you should probably believe The Economist.