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 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Apr 27, 2008
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?


How can you say this after reading what I had to say about the xperiment?

See, the major problem here is that the Miller-Urey experiment is kiddie stuff. I learned about that my junior year of highschool. It wasn't even covered in my intro college bio class. Yet, people still do not know it. America has a serious ed-you-ma-kay-shun problem.
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


Yes, it is, at least in elementary, middle and high school textbooks. The chapters on Evolution are titled "Diversity of Life" which describes Darwinism.

Yes, of course, the Miller-Urey has to do with evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment is in the chapter titled, "the first signs of life" and there is information there about spontaneous generation which describes abiogenesis.

Btw, there is no life from non-life.








on Apr 27, 2008
Yes, of course, the Miller-Urey has to do with evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment is in the chapter titled, "the first signs of life" and there is information there about spontaneous generation which describes abiogenesis.


I think you are confusing the inclusion of outdated scientific beliefs in order to "evolve" a student's understanding for assertion of those beliefs. NO ONE believes in spontaneous generation.(I should be careful. I'll find that one quack.) Who was it? Pascal? Some guy whose name sounds like spaghetti... Redi? Who disproved spontaneous generation? I have no idea. He is long dead. But what I do remember is how it was done:

Flys do not grow in broth not exposed to the air. The flies must lay their eggs in the broth. They do not just spontaneously appear. I think some dude used a curved tube attached to a flask containing broth that did not allow flies in. And then he controlled the experiment with a straight tube that did allow flies in. Flies only grew in the one where microbes could enter. Although, that may be completely wrong... I might be confusing two separate experiments. It doesn't matter because spontaneous generation, like the S. Miller experiment, is no longer accepted.

[edit: I had a major brain fart. Pascal was a mathematician. I think the guy's name who ran the experiment with the broth was Pasteur, like the process applied to milk. The curved neck did not allow bacteria to get into the broth and spoil it. So, broth does not spoil spontaneously.]
on Apr 27, 2008
I think the guy's name who ran the experiment with the broth was Pasteur, like the process applied to milk


It was Pasteur. The maggot experiment was carried out by placing meat in a jar and one left in the open to see which one maggots would come from.

Meat in jar=no maggots.

I think you are confusing the inclusion of outdated scientific beliefs in order to "evolve" a student's understanding for assertion of those beliefs


I think so to. We need to run through the "failed" experiments of the past to more fully understand what we've learned. In chemistry books they go through all the wrong configurations of atoms before they address the right one we use today.

~Zoo
on Apr 27, 2008
I don't pretend to understand the science in your original post but I am pleased to see someone offering valid science as some proof of evolution against the countless creationist articles that only offer various tracts from the bible. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

on Apr 27, 2008
I don't pretend to understand the science in your original post but I am pleased to see someone offering valid science as some proof of evolution against the countless creationist articles that only offer various tracts from the bible. Thanks for being a voice of reason.


Eh, what don't you understand?
on Apr 27, 2008
I am pleased to see someone offering valid science as some proof of evolution


Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be enough.  ( 

~Zoo
on Apr 27, 2008
I am pleased to see someone offering valid science as some proof of evolution


Let's be clear....again, valid science has only proved micro-evolution, that is, small changes within species or within kinds. The Holy Bible, specifically Genesis, substantiates science on this point quite nicely...and don't forget the Holy Bible made us aware of different "kinds" first, then science proved it.   


Macro-Evolution is based on change from one species to another, ie reptiles to birds or apes to mankind...no where, no how has science proved macro-evolution...

Evolutionists keep coming up with one pseudo-science theory after another, but nothing so far has done the trick....there simply is no mechanism to show how change from one species to another can occur. There simply is no past evidence of such change.

Getting back to Genesis and how it mentions "kind", the fact that all plant and animal true species are distinct types is a crux in the entire evolution debate. Darwin never figured out the origin of the species   ...but Moses did in the Book of Genesis.   










on Apr 27, 2008
what don't you understand?


Hey, now don't get all superior on me, okay?

I think you well know what I mean when I say I don't understand. I am not a student, I have not studied biology for 25 years or more and there are a number of scientific words and phrases I am not familiar with in your original post.
on Apr 27, 2008
there simply is no mechanism to show how change from one species to another can occur


So you propose to me that every single species of animal, plant, microbe, fungus was created at the very beginning(6,000 years ago, of course). Dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, man...all of them just coexisting? Then this big ol' flood comes(where a huge amount of water magically appears and disappears), Noah rescues apparently only the animals we see today(of which there are innumerable species...we still find new ones every year) but neglects some of the poor things like dinosaurs and woolly mammoths.

Anywho, he gathers all these animals from all over the world...oceans away and puts them in one big ol' boat. 40 days later they're all still alive and get off and somehow magically transported back to their respective homes.

Throughout that 40 day period all the fish species somehow survive in the dilute saltwater as well as plants, fungus, and microbes that cannot tolerate that crap for that long.

Then through some other magic process humans repopulate the world from just one tiny family. How they get all the way to southern Africa, far east Asia, North and South America and far northern Europe remains to be explained adequately. I mean, a small middle eastern family spawning that many offspring and spreading out all across the world and changing all kinds of colors and forming all these different cultures in only a few thousand years is pretty impressive.

Yeah, that has no logical flaws whatsoever.

~Zoo
on Apr 27, 2008
Let's be clear....again, valid science has only proved micro-evolution, that is, small changes within species or within kinds. The Holy Bible, specifically Genesis, substantiates science on this point quite nicely...and don't forget the Holy Bible made us aware of different "kinds" first, then science proved it.


I am clear. My comprehension skills are fine, thank you very much. I saw the last paragraph and understood exactly what the article was about.

That you consistently using the bible as an example of science is something I find boringly repetative and mildly annoying. Don't bother me with this crap again. I have my own beliefs as you do yours. I don't need you to preach to me.
on Apr 27, 2008
Let's be clear....again, valid science has only proved micro-evolution, that is, small changes within species or within kinds. The Holy Bible, specifically Genesis, substantiates science on this point quite nicely...and don't forget the Holy Bible made us aware of different "kinds" first, then science proved it.


I am clear. My comprehension skills are fine, thank you very much. I saw the last paragraph and understood exactly what the article was about.


A couple of points..

My saying "let's be clear" wasn't personal.

When I said it....I was, in essence, re-emphasizing my point on the definition of macro-evolution...and then went on to explain it.

That you consistently using the bible as an example of science


Well, you are mistaken on 2 counts here.

The Holy Bible is God's plan of salvation and has little to do with science per se. Therefore, I don't use the Holy Bible as an example of science.

It happens, that in this case, science proves Scripture..it's as simple as that. Genesis came first and said God created certain "kinds" of creatures; then science came along and proved Genesis.

I can't help it if you find this as preaching, however, you don't get to dictate what I write. If what I write bothers you so much, the best I can advise is don't read my comments.
on Apr 27, 2008
I don't use the Holy Bible as an example of science.


But you did... In saying the bible "substantiates science on this point", I take it to mean you're saying the bible supports scientific doctrine, which in turn indicates, to me anyway, the bible contains some scientific content.

Now, I know this not to be true. If by 'substantiates' you mean that it loosely supports your Christian doctrines, well that might well be the case.

the best I can advise is don't read my comments


I usually don't...
on Apr 28, 2008
lulapilgrim,

Several scientists have written scathing reviews of Jonathan Wells' pointless rehashing of old creationist chestnuts, many of which he had to rescue from the refuse bin of anti-evolutionism for use in his book. If you need a point-by-point refutation of his "warnings," go here: WWW Link. The article, entitled "Icons of Obfuscation," discusses in considerable detail the flaws, errors, and omissions in Wells' silly book.

If you wish to learn where Wells makes his numerous mistakes, I suggest you read and study this and some of the other documents available at the talkorigins site; if, on the other hand, you're committed to simply accepting at face value what creationists say, then you probably shouldn't bother. . . .
on Apr 28, 2008
Zoo, your valiant attenpts to make the willfully blind "see" is still valiant, though you may gain more in frustration than imparting knowledge over understanding.


I'm getting well aware of that the farther this goes on...my sliver of hope is slowly crumbling.

Time to get more bread for the ducks.


I might have to join you to keep my sanity.

~Zoo
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5