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 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Apr 26, 2008
The chemical components of the banana change. Eventually, the banana will no longer be recognizable as a banana. I think the analogy works.


scoles,

A ripening banana does not show macroevolution...as there aren't any new, higher genes being produced.

A ripening banana shows that God's word is true...given time, it will disintegrate into dust.


on Apr 26, 2008
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


I seriously doubt you convinced a zoologist to agree that macroevolution is "bunk".

scoles,

A ripening banana does not show macroevolution...as there aren't any new, higher genes being produced.

A ripening banana shows that God's word is true...given time, it will disintegrate into dust.


The problem with metaphors is that they may contain elements in common with what they represent, but they can always be found to contrast as well. The banana is a metaphor. Obvoiusly, I do not think the world is a rotting banana.

on Apr 26, 2008
DNA evolving into a completely new one with different DNA is bunk


DNA is NEVER completely new. In fact, it's quite old. Compare humans to anything and you'll find some similarity. Evolution is subtle. Small changes in DNA over millions of years allow for speciation. Genetics heavily supports evolution.

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008
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.


I would be happy if textbooks would take the suggestions that Jonathan Wells has laid out in his book, Icons of Evolution and apply warning labels....

Warning: the miller-urey experiment probably did not similate the earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building blocks originated.

Warning: Darwin's tree of life does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion and molelucar evidence does not support a simple branching tree pattern.

Warning: If homology is defined as similiarity due to common ancestry, it cannot be used as evidence for common ancestry; whatever its cause may be, it is not similiar genes.

Warning: Heackel's drawings make vertebrae embryos look more similiar than they really are; it is not true that vertebrate embyros are most similiar in their earliest stages.

Warning: Archaeopteryx is probably not the ancestor of modern birds, and it's own ancesters remain controversial; other missing links are now being sought.

Warning: Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild; and photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell's experiments are now being questioned.

Warning: The Galapagos finches did not inspire Darwin with the idea of evolution and ascillating natural selection on their beaks produces no observable net change.

Warning: Four-winged fruit flies must be artificially bred and their extra wing lacks muscle; their disabled mutants are not raw materials for evolution.

Warning: Evidence from fossil horses does not justify the claim that evolution was undirected which is based on materialistic science rather than empirical science.

Warning: Theories about human origins are subjective and controversial and they rest on little evidence. All drawings of "ancestors" are hypothetical.
on Apr 26, 2008
Warning: the miller-urey experiment probably did not similate the earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building blocks originated.

Warning: Darwin's tree of life does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion and molelucar evidence does not support a simple branching tree pattern.


If the average Joe could come up with arguments as complex as these, then the Education system has done a much better job.

I bet even fellow scientists criticized the Miller-Urey experiment. It was agreeably flawed. But it was a step in the right direction. While high free energy compounds like methane were not found in early Earth's volcanic atmosphere, these could have formed from the high level of radiation present. Plus, a lot of scientists believe that life began near thermal vents. Actually, I am drawing this information from awhile ago, and I do not remember exactly what the thermal vents have to do with anything. Maybe the heat allowed water to react with bedrock to form high free energy compounds? As for the second one, I'd like to see the proof for the second one.

Wow, that is a lot of warnings. I'll skip ahead to the bithorax fly, since I know something about that one. Bithorax flies do not need to be artifically produced. It is just a rare mutation otherwise. Sure they do not have the required muscle on the second set of wings. But maybe that second set of wings would help individuals in a certain environment. Say, one in which a poisonous fly inhabiting the same ecosystem looked a lot like the 2 winged mutant. Then through the process of expiation, the mutant fly could later develop the extra set into something functional.

Although, I do liket these warnings. They provide great critical thinking questions.
on Apr 26, 2008
apply warning labels....


Can we get one on the Bible?

WARNING: This is a collection of stories that may or may not be true. Read at your own risk.

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008
apply warning labels....Can we get one on the Bible?WARNING: This is a collection of stories that may or may not be true. Read at your own risk.~Zoo


We should put that warning on every book of fiction to date.
on Apr 27, 2008
DNA is NEVER completely new.


Let's take the example of the baby in the womb. His DNA is completely new.
on Apr 27, 2008
Evolution is subtle. Small changes in DNA over millions of years allow for speciation.


This is only true of microevolution...change within species....(without the millions of years of course)!
on Apr 27, 2008
Let's take the example of the baby in the womb. His DNA is completely new.


Nope. Old DNA from his parents- half and half. It's arranged differently, but you can trace back every single gene to one parent or the other.

~Zoo
on Apr 27, 2008
Let's take the example of the baby in the womb. His DNA is completely new.


Warning: Semantics issue here. Please define terms. Issue: the word 'new.'
on Apr 27, 2008
Warning: the miller-urey experiment probably did not similate the earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building blocks originated.


I bet even fellow scientists criticized the Miller-Urey experiment. It was agreeably flawed.


Well..the Miller-Urey experiment was more than flawed...Truth is ...It FAILED; it didn't simulate conditions on "early" earth and it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Why then is the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 still featured in student's biology textbooks as an icon of Evolution? Instead of being told the truth, students are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the origin of life. What a crock!

Scientists since then have been all over the board with this experiment yet remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. German researcher Klaus Dose wrote in 1988 that the origin of life problem is so difficult that the "current theory is a scheme of ignorance". It's 2008 and why is the Miller-Urey experiment STILL IN SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS BEING TAUGHT AS FACT? Are we teaching biology students mythology rather than science?









on Apr 27, 2008
Why then is the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 still featured in student's biology textbooks as an icon of Evolution?


Is it? Here I sit with my biology textbook and it has nothing about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Besides, it has nothing to do with evolution. Again, life from nonlife is abiogenesis.

~Zoo
on Apr 27, 2008
Let's take the example of the baby in the womb. His DNA is completely new.


How about new DNA carrying old heredity information?
on Apr 27, 2008
Here I sit with my biology textbook and it has nothing about the Miller-Urey experiment.


Correction: There is a section on the experiment, but it also discusses the sketchiness of it which I don't know why anyone would have a problem with. "Bad" experiments are just as good to learn from as "good" experiments.


How about new DNA carrying old heredity information?


That works...I guess. New DNA has to be assembled, the information is the same though. I thought we were using information and DNA synonymously.

~Zoo
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last