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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Apr 28, 2008
What a joke. Poor ducks. They love bread, but they were not gifted with the ability to buy a loaf...
on Apr 28, 2008
I have a fresh loaf...good italian ciabata.


Ah, buono.

They love bread, but they were not gifted with the ability to buy a loaf...


They have too many "bills"...not enough money to buy bread.

~Zoo
on Apr 28, 2008
my sliver of hope is slowly crumbling


Noooooo... Here, I've got plenty of hope, mate. Have some of mine
on Apr 28, 2008
Noooooo... Here, I've got plenty of hope, mate. Have some of mine


Well...alright. The fight continues.

~Zoo
on Apr 28, 2008
Darwin never figured out the origin of the species ...but Moses did in the Book of Genesis.

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.


ASAXYGIRL POSTS:
Looks alike a contradiction to me.


Not really. I've consistently said what Scripture says, science eventually affirms. In this sense, Scripture is relevant to science but not an example of science.

Christians know the Holy Bible cannot clash with science. Why? Becasue God is the principal Author of Creation and Scripture.




on Apr 28, 2008
Christians know the Holy Bible cannot clash with science. Why? Becasue God is the principal Author of Creation and Scripture.


Really? Then why are we arguing about evolution so much? There's some definite clashing there...well, if you're a fundamentalist that is.

~Zoo
on Apr 28, 2008
Lula posts:
Warning: the miller-urey experiment probably did not similate the earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building blocks originated.

Truth is ...It FAILED; it didn't simulate conditions on "early" earth and it has nothing to do with the origin of life.


WARRENI,

Did the Miller-Urey experiment similate the earth's eartly atmosphere or not? Did the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrate how life began? Jonathon Wells said it failed on both counts and he's 100% correct. It did. Your link does a good job dancing around this fact, but doesn't refute them one iota. Sorry about that.






on Apr 28, 2008
The problem with belief is that God does not cure cancer. The study of proteomics, on the other hand, has a shot. I think that's where I clash most with religion. Religion produces nothing. Why believe that God created the stars, the moon, and the people of Earth, to the exclusion of investigating homology, when accepting science has some truly applicable benefits?
on Apr 28, 2008
Then why are we arguing about evolution so much?


Becasue the Origins debate is all about beliefs...Macro-Evolutionists place their faith in the beliefs that life came from non-life, that matter always existed, that the laws of nature came into operation by random chance, and that the bewildering complexity of DNA somehow arose by itself.

The Creation view accepts on the basis of faith in the revealed God, that the account of Genesis is free from error and that empirical science will never discover any data which can conclusively contradict Scripture. We acknowledge existence of an unseen Creator who possesses infinite intelligence and Who has given absolute principles.
on Apr 28, 2008
The problem with belief is that God does not cure cancer.


Guess you never heard of miracles, eh?
on Apr 28, 2008
Guess you never heard of miracles, eh?


If you get cancer, you go ahead and wait on a miracle. I'll inject some Taxol, and we'll see who lives longer.

[edit: jesus. this is macabre. i am sorry.]
on Apr 28, 2008
Religion produces nothing.


Correction:

False religion or ir-religion produces nothing. God's revealed religion gives us the peace of Christ which is a peace the world cannot give. What good does it do for a man to gain the world, but lose his soul?
on Apr 28, 2008
CSOLES,

I think your reply #58 may be the 3rd time now you take the Lord's name in vain.

As a result, I shall not respond to your posts any longer.
on Apr 28, 2008
I think your reply #58 may be the 3rd time now you take the Lord's name in vain.


Vishnu, you're right. Allah. I'm sorry. Sheevah. Buddah's belly!

Oops. Fuck.
on Apr 28, 2008
I think your reply #58 may be the 3rd time now you take the Lord's name in vain.

As a result, I shall not respond to your posts any longer.


Well God damn...that's how you win one of these debates? Should've employed that one awhile ago.

~Zoo
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5