The place to go to pout about the universe in a rational way. No intelligence required.
Do you really know?
Published on April 25, 2008 By SplitPeaSoup In Pure Technology

 

 

Evolution can be defined as a change in alleic frequencies within a population over time. Thus, considering a small population of 100 sins players, we have two alleles, A and a. The allele A codes for a phenotype, something you can observe, and so does allele a. Since humans, like sins players, are diploid, meaning they have 2 of each chromosome, humans can have two alleles for a particular trait. It follows that within our small population of sins players, some players will have the genotype, or allelic configuration, AA, some will have Aa, some will have aA, and some will have aa.

It is important to note that allele A is dominant, meaning that one copy is sufficient to produce its phenotype.

In a perfect system, unaffected by evolution, we can predict the frequencies of the two alleles given the two Hardy Weinberg equations:

1) A + a = 100%

2) A^2 + 2Aa  + a^2= 100%

The first formula is easy to derive. It simply states that all the alleles in the population together equal 100% of the alleles. The second is a little trickier. You can see how it is derived below, or you can just take my word for it.

* Derivation of second formula:

Remember that there were 4 possible genotypes? You can calculate the probability of the first genotype (AA) by multiplying the probabilty of getting one A allele by the probability of getting a second (A * A = A^2). The same goes for the genotype (aa). For the other two genotypes (Aa and aA), you do the same thing. Find the probability of having one A allele and multiply it by the probability of having one a allele (A * a = Aa). Now multiply that by 2 since (A * a == a * A) and aA is the final genotype.

*

Now back to our model system of sins gamers. Let's say the initial frequency of the A allele (gamers who spam Advent illuminators) is 40%. From equation 1 we can tell that the frequency of the a allele (gamers who build heavy cruisers and crush Advent illuminators as God intended) is 60%.

Now using the second equation, we can calculate the frequency of gamers at equillibrium who have each genotype.

A^2 = 16%

2Aa = 48%

a^2 = 36%

Since we know that A is dominate, both AA and Aa will exhibit the illuminator spam phenotype (64%, or 64 of the 100 gamers)

 

Now, in the case of evolution, even given those allelic frequencies, you would find either A) more heterozygotes, or individuals who have one of each allele or more homozygotes, individuals who have only one allele

The first case occurs when 1) selection, or the tendency for the environment to favor one allele over another 2) gene flow, or the introduction of alien alleles from another population 3) non-random mating, or the tendency for individuals to select a certain trait (think a peacock's tail) 4) genetic drift, random variations in frequencies (sometimes evolution misfires, but it is usually corrected)  favors the A allele. Hence, the A allele occurs less frequently in the AA genotype (relatively) and more frequently in the Aa genotype. This happens for the sole reason that some aa individuals die or fail to reproduce as much. Aa individuals, on the other hand, succeed just as well.

The second case (more  homozygotes) occurs when one of the criteria (1 - 4) favors the a allele. This is because all heterozygotes are afflicted with the A allele are also selected against. Only aa is favored.

 

Evolution is a change is allelic frequencies beyond what would be predicted by the Hardy Weinberg equations in a population.

Thus, if the devs nerf illuminators, we would certainly expect to see more homozygotes (aa). This is evolution.

Importantly, 5) mutation, the random creation of new alleles is a fifth means of evolution. If a newly created allele is favored, that works a lot like a new allele flowing into the population, say a new dominate allele that causes players to spam fighters.

                              

P.S. The preceeding information describes microevolution. Macroevolution includes the concept that microevolution cummulates in speciation, through the formation of either a pre-zygotic or a post-zygotic barrier between two sides of a population. This can happen through geographical isoltation or bi-directional selection, in which case two distinct forms of a species are viable. One simple example of speciation is the formation of a new species through polyploidic events. These occur commonly in plants. Abstract evidence for the role of speciation through time include: molecular conservation, morphological homology, embryological evidence, fossil evolution through strata, and adaptive radiation.

                               --     Docta' Cscoles


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Apr 25, 2008
Good job.

~Zoo
on Apr 25, 2008
Good job describing microevolution...small change within species is real and happening. No problem with microevolution.

Macro-evolution, that is, one species with one set of DNA evolving into a completely new one with different DNA is bunk. There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. It's never happened because there is no mechanism that allows it to happen. Genetics frustrates rather than offers proofs for macro Evolution.




on Apr 26, 2008
Good job describing microevolution...small change within species is real and happening. No problem with microevolution. Macro-evolution, that is, one species with one set of DNA evolving into a completely new one with different DNA is bunk. There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. It's never happened because there is no mechanism that allows it to happen. Genetics frustrates rather than offers proofs for macro Evolution.


I have a serious question for creationists:

Do you believe that the mountains were always there, that there was never a pangea, that people have been around since the dawn of time, and that life's beginning closely coincided with the start of the universe?

I do not understand why someone would come to that conclusion. I went to a church school when I was younger, and I heard all those stories. I even prayed to the Christian flag. But throughout the whole experience, I retained my ability to see the world clearly. In 5th grade, I made the decision that the bible was a bunch of stories. How do some people not ever leave those ideas behind?

Confidence in that macroevolution happens is a lot like confidence that a rotting banana peel was once a ripe banana, given that you had never seen a banana before and that you cannot stick around to watch it rot further. Belief in creationism means the abandonent of reason. Religious people admit that.
on Apr 26, 2008
DNA evolving into a completely new one with different DNA is bunk


You're right, it is. That's why it doesn't change that much when going from one species to another. There's a lot of conservation in DNA and cell biology as a whole. You should check it out sometime.

There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. It's never happened because there is no mechanism that allows it to happen. Genetics frustrates rather than offers proofs for macro Evolution.


Why do you say this? You do know that you're completely and utterly incorrect, right?

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008
You do know that you're completely and utterly incorrect, right?


See, that's not really an argument, either. I can certainly understand your frustration, though, since I figure you have studied some of those mechanisms. The problem is that American schools need improvement.
on Apr 26, 2008
I do not understand why someone would come to that conclusion. I went to a church school when I was younger, and I heard all those stories. I even prayed to the Christian flag. But throughout the whole experience, I retained my ability to see the world clearly. In 5th grade, I made the decision that the bible was a bunch of stories. How do some people not ever leave those ideas behind? Confidence in that macroevolution happens is a lot like confidence that a rotting banana peel was once a ripe banana, given that you had never seen a banana before and that you cannot stick around to watch it rot further. Belief in creationism means the abandonent of reason. Religious people admit that.


In my experience, people cling to the idea that the Bible is a literal telling of "facts" and events, inspired by a god, because they are terrified of a Universe in which there is not some all-knowing benevolent being guiding, or even pre-destinating (is that a word?), our fates. It is a fear of having to take responsibility for one's own decisions, a reluctance to believe that their actions can and do make a fundamental impact on the world at large (except, of course, for witnessing--i.e., force-feedig their beliefs on the "unwashed masses" (I'm quite proud of the fact I haven't bathed in almost 20 years--figurativley, of course)).

on Apr 26, 2008
Just curious, as I assume from your post you're quite well-versed in the subject:

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that evolution, especially the macro-side of things, often happens as an accident that turns out to be beneficial. That changes on a genetic level are often the result of some random outside force (cosmic and elemantal radiation being the prime suspects), and that those changes create subsets within a species, and that the subset with the new-fangled beneficial "mutation" survives while the other often dies out because it fails to keep up with the newbies.

I tried explaining that to my wife, but I can't remember enough specifics, and I'm not even sure I'm remembering it right in the first place.
on Apr 26, 2008
See, that's not really an argument, either. I can certainly understand your frustration, though, since I figure you have studied some of those mechanisms.


You're that's not an argument, just a question. I've been "arguing" this stuff for months now...over and over and over and over and over(you get the idea) again. They ask this or that, I show evidence-outline, explain, go in depth. They reject it or ignore it. It's frustrating to no end.

I'm currently studying all of these mechanisms in one way or another. As a zoology major you become rather intimate with the theory of evolution and to have it denounced like a mere children's fairy tale is rather insulting, not just to me but to all of the scientists who have worked on this theory to refine it for the last century. To have someone with little to no scientific knowledge tell me it's complete bollocks...I mean, come on...seriously?

Well, that mini rant felt pretty good.

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008
Just curious, as I assume from your post you're quite well-versed in the subject:I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that evolution, especially the macro-side of things, often happens as an accident that turns out to be beneficial. That changes on a genetic level are often the result of some random outside force (cosmic and elemantal radiation being the prime suspects), and that those changes create subsets within a species, and that the subset with the new-fangled beneficial "mutation" survives while the other often dies out because it fails to keep up with the newbies.I tried explaining that to my wife, but I can't remember enough specifics, and I'm not even sure I'm remembering it right in the first place.


Cosmic... elemental... fangled... what? Jesus. I am getting tired.

I think what you are asking me is whether mutations are accidents. The answer is yes. An external factor does not even have to be at fault. Replication is inherently imperfect. Even in the absence of mutagens, mutations occur.

Mutations creating sub-sets within species. Sure, you can look at it that way. I should point out that the old set does not usually die out completely. It just becomes less prevalent.
on Apr 26, 2008
I even prayed to the Christian flag.


I didn't realize the flag was the third member of the Trinity. Man, I need to brush up on my Bible reading apparently.

Seriously though, if you had retained your ability to see the world clearly, why would you pray to a flag?
on Apr 26, 2008
I didn't realize the flag was the third member of the Trinity. Man, I need to brush up on my Bible reading apparently.

Seriously though, if you had retained your ability to see the world clearly, why would you pray to a flag?


Ok, smartass. I prayed to[wards] the flag.
on Apr 26, 2008
Confidence in that macroevolution happens is a lot like confidence that a rotting banana peel was once a ripe banana, given that you had never seen a banana before and that you cannot stick around to watch it rot further.


With all due respect, this example shows that you just don't get it....macroevolution is supposedly a changing from one species to a different one...

Through all its stages of change, the banana started out as a banana and remained a banana. Macroevolution would be the banana changing into something else, with new DNA...it, like macroevolution, will never happen..no matter how many eons of time you give it.

on Apr 26, 2008
That's slightly better, but I'm still pretty sure the flag doesn't matter.

How do some people not ever leave those ideas behind?


Which ideas? Thou shalt not kill? That's quite old fashioned...
on Apr 26, 2008
Through all its stages of change, the banana started out as a banana and remained a banana. Macroevolution would be the banana changing into something else, with new DNA...it, like macroevolution, will never happen..no matter how many eons of time you give it.


The chemical components of the banana change. Eventually, the banana will no longer be recognizable as a banana. I think the analogy works.
on Apr 26, 2008
There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. It's never happened because there is no mechanism that allows it to happen. Genetics frustrates rather than offers proofs for macro Evolution.


Why do you say this? You do know that you're completely and utterly incorrect, right?

~Zoo


Becasue in order for amphibians to change into reptiles to into change to birds, then macroevolution would have to take place...now, go back to the definition of macroevolution and you already agreed macroevolution is bunk.
WE AGREE THAT
DNA evolving into a completely new one with different DNA is bunk


SCOLES POSTS:
The problem is that American schools need improvement.


Bravo! American schools need to stop teaching macroevolution as fact and that life cannot come from non-life.

5 Pages1 2 3  Last