Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ...

That was Gingerich's problem with Haldane's darwin measurement, that and that it implied millions of years. Both are historic measurements of what occurred, because they are based on fossil evidence. The haldane metric is based on generations and is dimensionless. Gingerich also notes that you can have different results for different traits in the populations. How would you define a rate of evolution? So they did evolve at different rates, but the formula/s don't account for all the necessary inputs?If we consider punk-eek, then it is fairly obvious that there are different rates of evolution/change involved.

quote:

---

Rate of Evolution
Fossil Record

​

The fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of punctuated equilibrium, with species that suddenly appear, as if by macromutation, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance. This is compatible with evolution by smaller mutational steps because periods of a few tens of thousands of years can barely be distinguished in the fossil record: relatively rapid evolution will always appear as a sudden change in a sequence of fossils.[13][15][16] ...

​

Alternative explanations of the pattern of evolution observed in the fossil record. While apparently instantaneous change may look like macromutation, gradual evolution by natural selection could readily give the same effect, since 10,000 years barely registers in the fossil record.

---

Partly. If we look at evolution over a time period some species evolve faster because they go through more generations (why fruit flys and bacteria are used in experiments). But if we look at evolution from generation to generation the picture is not so clear.Personally I think evaluating the rate of evolution gives us the ability to see how those inputs affect the process, to what degree each input has effect. And I think haldanes are better indicators of this, being based on generations rather than set amounts of time.Enjoy

Nope. That is not how evolution works. btw you might be interested in koinophilia ...

quote:

---

Rate of Evolution
Overcoming koinophilia

​

If sexual creatures avoid mates with strange or unusual characteristics, in the process called koinophilia,[9][10][11][12] then mutations that affect the external appearance of their carriers will seldom be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They will therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolution is, therefore, effectively halted or slowed down considerably. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (i.e., they are "silent" or "neutral mutations", which can be, and are, used to trace the relatedness and age of populations and species.[9][13])

​

This implies that evolution can only occur when mutant mates cannot be avoided, as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small, isolated communities. These occur most commonly on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, or caves,[14] or during the aftermath of a mass extinction.[13] Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population's genetic composition.[14] Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will, thereafter, result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.

---

In a stable ecology where populations are at an equilibrium, selection will tend to favor the most average phenotypes, as they are the best fit for that stable equilibrium condition. It is only when that stable equilibrium is disturbed or the population expands into a new ecology that selection will shift towards varieties/mutations that provide benefits for the new conditions. Again this is not how evolution works. It doesn't blend characteristics. It selects those that are more fit for survival or more attractive for reproduction. Except that it has been defined and measured ... as defined by the (actual) ToE (and not Faith-0-lution).Remember the Pelycodus chart ...

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

---

The slopes of those lines show the rates of evolution for each generation, and the divide at the top shows divergence with one group evolving more rapidly to smaller size. Nope. What biological science defines as speciation has been observed to occur, so obviously you are wrong. Both in your definition of speciation (Faith-0-lution) and your denial of actual observed instances of speciation. According to Faith-0-lution, but not according to reality.Enjoy

I rarely use the concept of selection as in natural selection, I think selection is what brings about new subspecies/breeds but that it's usually random. Faith O lution 101.And there's your favorite Pelycodus again, you do love that creature. And of course I have to answer the way I always do that they were merely buried in the Flood, so that I object to the idea that different sizes at different levels argues for evolution when it's just where they happened to end up. We get Great Danes at the same time we get chichuahuas from the same dog gene pool after all, various sizes are options in the genome of any creature that can be selected and isolated at any time in the present. And besides it may only be the creature at different ages too.So there's the word from Faith O lution for today.Oh. but yes that is interesting about koinophilia.ABE Oh and one more thing. Of course selection itself doesn't blend characteristics, what I meant was that the new population of selected individuals with their many different characteristics would over time in reproductive isolation blend together into a phenotype that becomes characteristic of the population, as a new breed or subspecies. The selection merely isolates a particular collection of characteristics.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It appears to me that Faith is making the same mistake as Charles Darwin when he couldn't figure out how new traits could establish themselves in a population.He pictured heredity as being like mixing paint, but that would inevitably result in new traits disappearing as all traits just blended together. But of course, that's not how it works as scientists came to realize through Mendelian genetics (ironically, Darwin had a copy of Mendel's monograph in his library, but apparently never got around to reading it).We now mainly only know about Darwinian evolution (the natural selection acting upon variation part), but we forget about Darwin's pangenetic theory which tried (and failed) to explain heredity. We have reams of creationist quotes of "scientists declaring Darwinan evolution to be false" which are taken primarily from the first part of the 20th century. During that time, research into genetics and mutations did indeed disprove Darwin's pangenetic ideas (which were demonstrably wrong), so you can find many statements of "Mendel proves Darwin wrong!", but that applied only to pangenesis and had nothing to do with the natural selection part. By the 1940's, it was discovered that Mendel actually provided answers to the questions that Darwin couldn't answer himself. What resulted was the Modern Synthesis (AKA "Grand Synthesis"), the combining of genetics with Darwinian evolution which produced neo-Darwinism.So all that Faith has succeeded in doing is in reproducing Darwin's biggest mistake.

I guess if you're going to make a mistake it's nice to make the particular mistake Darwin made, but I think you are missing MY point. I don't mean that different alleles for a particular trait get blended together, I mean that all the traits in the new gene pool blend together in new combinations. You're only going to get, say, mottled gray fur after all the alleles for fur are reproductively mixed over whatever number of generations it takes, depending on what ends up being the dominant element (highest frequency), and each trait will get sorted according to the same principle, but in combination with each other they will produce a different overall look to the new population than the parent population had.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wrong on three counts
(in one sentence ... WOW).First, selection occurs with every generation: Second, selection does not (on it's own) bring about "new subspecies/breeds" as other factors are involved, including mutations that provide the raw material for selection.Third, selection is not random. Mutations are random, but selection is a response to ecological constraints: the ones who survive to breed are selected and the ones that do not survive to breed are deselected (see diagram at start of message). And this regurgitated comment still fails to explain the sorting by radiometric age, the sorting by sizes -- especially considering the split at the top and it still fails to explain a purported flood when the evidence does not show one. Which sounds like koinophilia again, rather standard evolutionary process for new populations, nothing radical of fanciful there. I would say "The selection merely consolidates a particular collection of characteristics (with better fitness for the new ecology)."You might also be interested in Zygosity.Enjoy

Yes of course. I've made the point myself many times that the wildebeests of Africa are quite homogeneous in their huge numbers, the only clear variation being a separated/isolated herd called the "blue wildebeests." These are also homogenous as a herd, but this herd is characterized by smaller size, different shaped antlers and a bluish tinge to the hide, a result of the combination of some portion of the larger population's becoming reproductively isolated. The isolation would have lasted long enough to bring out this new set of characteristics from the new set of gene frequencies collectively possessed by the founding individuals.It was in response to anticipating the usual refrain about how I ignore mutations that I described this motley population, postulating the maximum number of mutational differences possible in a large population, and how that would make for a motley crew of differences among individuals. But I'm quite aware that in reality this doesn't happen, populations acquire a homogeneous appearance over time. I don't even think enough mutations happen to affect my usual argument, I merely wanted to make the point that even at the maximum possible I could think of they wouldn't change my argument.Yes I know the ToE assumes a purposeful selection, I think that's very rare, that's all.You don't need to keep arguing with me you know, we're only going to go around in the usual circles, I just like to interject my point of view from time to time so it's on the record. You have my permission to go back to arguing with AZ, his point of view is much more congenial to yours. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The ToE does not include purposeful selection. Selection is a reaction to outside influences. No teleology need apply.

Communication is SO difficult. All I meant by "purposeful" was that it has a definite cause rather than being random, while I'm always arguing that the selection that brings about most population changes, subspecies, breeds or whatever, is random.

OK, you used the same wrong word, bu that part is right.Selection involves selecting. By definition it's not random.

Curiously I think you have these switched:

quote:

---

The black wildebeest or white-tailed gnu (Connochaetes gnou) is one of the two closely related wildebeest species. It is a member of the genus Connochaetes and family Bovidae. It was first described in 1780 by Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann. The black wildebeest is typically 170—220 cm (67—87 in) in head-and-body length, and the typical weight is 110—180 kg (240—400 lb). Males stand about 111—121 cm (44—48 in) at the shoulder, while the height of the females is 106—116 cm (42—46 in). The black wildebeest is characterised by its white, long, horse-like tail. It also has a dark brown to black coat and long, dark-coloured hair between its forelegs and under its belly.

​

The black wildebeest is currently included in the same genus as the blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus). This has not always been the case, and at one time the latter was placed under a separate genus of its own, Gorgon.[7] The black wildebeest lineage seems to have diverged from the blue wildebeest in the mid- to late Pleistocene, and became a distinct species around a million years ago.[8] This evolution is quite recent on a geologic time scale.[9]

---

quote:

---

The blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), also called the common wildebeest, white-bearded wildebeest, or brindled gnu, is a large antelope and one of the two species of wildebeests. It is placed in the genus Connochaetes and family Bovidae, and has a close taxonomic relationship with the black wildebeest. The blue wildebeest is known to have five subspecies. This broad-shouldered antelope has a muscular, front-heavy appearance, with a distinctive, robust muzzle. Young blue wildebeest are born tawny brown, and begin to take on their adult colouration at the age of 2 months. The adults' hues range from a deep slate or bluish gray to light gray or even grayish brown. Both sexes possess a pair of large curved horns.[2]

​

Hybrids

​

The blue wildebeest is known to hybridise with the black wildebeest.[13] The differences in social behaviour and habitats have historically prevented interspecific hybridisation, but it may occur when both species are confined within the same area, and the offspring are usually fertile. A study of these hybrid animals at Spioenkop Dam Nature Reserve in South Africa revealed that many had congenital abnormalities relating to their teeth, horns, and the Wormian bones of the skull.[14] Another study reported an increase in the size of the hybrid as compared to either of its parents. In some hybrid animals, the auditory bullae are highly deformed, and in others, the radius and ulna are fused.[15]

---

So the black wildebeests were likely a 6th subspecies before they began evolving into a new species while isolated from the parent blue wildebeests parent population. Not the other way around as you have it.The hybrids do show interbreeding is possible, with usually fertile but less fit results (as compared to horses and donkeys that generally have sterile hybrids). So technically they are not as far along as horses/donkeys in the process of complete reproductive isolation, but the "differences in social behaviour and habitats" are likely to keep them apart and continue the process. They are effectively different species for all intents and purposes. Not purposeful (ie not directed), it is a feedback result of the ecological opportunities and challenges: some survive to reproduce and others do not. Those that do pass on their genes, those that do not can't pass on their genes. And I'll keep pointing out your mistakes, misinformation and fantasies so that they are on record.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I tried to read through that material but it's beyond me. Too much irrelevant detail. Which wildebeest is the large herd, in the millions I think? I thought the blue herd was the smaller herd. I get that the blue type is considered to be the parent population. I'm not going to try to read all that again to find out more than that, so please inform me of whatever point you think is important.And of course it's all irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. I couldn't care less what the evolutionary history is supposed to be since I consider all that to be false, dictated by the theory but utterly out of tune with reality. It only takes a very short time for a new population to become isolated from the main population and develop its own characteristics -- a hundred years could be overkill but give it a hundred, it certainly doesn't need more than that. The millions of years the ToE assigns to such things is all theory, no known history, no known fact, and all wrong based on normal times to develop a new subspecies/breed or whatever.All I meant by "purposeful" was NONRANDOM.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Both herds have been decimated by hunting, but the blue herd is larger (from wiki link) and in some cases that is correct, but in others not so much. It depends on the selection pressure. Times given are usually the result of dating fossils. Usually highly accurate radiometric dating is used to determine the actual times between fossils. Actual times are usually much slower than would occur if evolution were directed or if speciation was a goal; neither of these are true, so evolution is a staggering walk rather than a smooth trend. See Pelycodus ... it's nice to have such a good example ... But this is getting way off topic: Message 1Enjoy

There are a couple themes being discussed here and I can get fairly verbose in responding, so I'm splitting up my posts into different parts so as to not have one huge message. First off, pretty much nobody (that I know of) says that speciation is impossible, or never happens. Secondly, a lot of this also depends on what one uses as a definition of "speciation". If the definition is complete reproductive isolation, then most of your cited examples don't fit.Your main examples come in the fashion of hybridization. Hybridization, I agree can produce something that falls under the definition of speciation (and I would include a couple plants from your 'list'), but then hybridization does not fall under the processes normally associated with the 'standard evolutionary model'. The standard evolutionary model would basically be the normal Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection. Hybridization (even via polyploidy) is not via that sort of process.The Neo-Darwinian process is what Gelernter was referring to in the phrase you quoted. So I do not agree with you that his statement was "misinformation" or incorrect. Of course, if you want to quibble about definitions, we can. But from the context it is pretty clear on what Gelernter was referring, since he even made a differentiation between what he called "the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances" or "the fine-tuning of existing species" with "the origin of species" (which would all fall under your definition of Evolution", vs how a Darwinian process can explain the differences. He's making a distinction that you haven't really acknowledged yet.As for speciation via hybridization, it is rather an underwhelming example to showcase your evolution. Even under an evolutionary paradigm, hybridization would likely be looked at as two species that had recently diverged coming together and making a hybrid. If that was the case, you are looking at really a loss or decrease of genetic diversity instead of adding new stuff.The specific cases of Tragopogon mirus and Galeopsis tetrahit are probably legitimate forms of speciation via polyploid hybridization. But it's all meh, since this only occurs within flowering plants, it relies on pre-existing parent species, and there isnt really any new morphological characteristics.Heliconius butterfly hybrids don't really fall into it this category because it doesn't appear that this is a case of reproductive isolation. It is more accounted for by interbreeding with various lines (including old parental/generational).All the other examples in your list I would not consider speciation, since the reproductive isolation has not been established in those examples.All in all, even though I would concede that speciation (within some limits) via Darwinian processes is possible, but this still has not been demonstrated by your examples. Despite all of this the bigger question remains: this is still not demonstrating anything akin to being able to explain the macro level differences between most organisms.

How are you justifying that the 10^77 number is fabricated? Cause you don't like it?As for you linked postings, I'm not seeing how it relates unless you can be more specific about where the problem is. Your listing is rather vague on it's own, but here is how I would comment on each numbered point with regards to the OP.1) Um, ok, duh!. Language is odd, as a model of reality is a model of reality. A model of reality NEVER replicates reality, it merely describes reality. So if the reality doesn't conform to the model, no duh, the model is wrong (is missing something).
2) irrelevant. We're not referring to the formation of life. But if you want to argue semantics, than yes, this probability is considering all possible pre-existing molecules within the context of what is being discussed.
3) doesn't apply.
4) Nope. The probability calculation is specifically accounting for the combination of molecules related to it's subject. It is accounting for the combination process (that's kinda a central part of it). And just FYI, your mention of peptides is way off. Peptide refers to a bonding type between amino acids, and in nature it occurs about 1 in 2 times (1/2 would be peptide bonds, 1/2 would be non-peptide bonds). But for a protein to work, all the bonds have to be peptide bonds. So if you really want to highlight the peptide bond type, you are adding an additional 10^45 probability to what we already are discussing.
5) This does relate to the probability discussion, but not in a way you think it might. Ya, with the lottery there are a lot of possible ticket combinations and finding a win per ticket (single event) is a low probability. But there is a high certainty of a win event due to the number of tickets bought (events that occur). The same principle kinda applies, but instead we are taking about 10^195 lottery tickets produced, and the rate of winning is 1 in 10^77 tickets, which is very low The problem is though, how many tickets have actually been bought? Even if you consider a trillion (10^12) tickets bought, that even one winner exists is still extremely low. How many tickets have been actually bought is the key question here, and with evolution the answer is (comparatively) very low.
6) The funny thing here is you complained about a model not fitting to reality, and here you go creating such a model. With regards to the probability Gelernter is mentioning, nobody is saying it is technically impossible. But for all practical purposes, if you have a 10^77 chance, with a limited # of events occurring, plus you have to hit this probability multiple times..... it is considered effectively impossible. I suppose this is true if you are looking for an exact probability. But this is not necessarily true when estimating a probability (which is what is being done with the probability mentioned in the OP). You can usually get a fair estimate by looking at the results of manageable sub-groups of the full data set and extrapolate that out. People do it all the time.The answer to the die question is: 1 in 6 No, the numbers are NOT referring to a specific type of mutation. It's not really talking about how mutations occur at all. This cements with me that you do not understand the argument.The argument is NOT saying there is a 1 in 10^77 chance that one mutation will produce a functional fold. There are probably many functional folds that are one (two, three, four even) mutation(s) away from whatever starting protein sequence you have.
The argument is saying that for any modest sized protein of 150 AA's (which is 10^195 possibilities), the estimate is 1 in 10^77 will result in a functional fold (whatever function that protein then exibits). And since there are multple proteins needed for life whose sequences are wildly differentiated from each other (granted most are larger than 150 AA's), within the time span known for life on Earth (let alone even the entire age of the universe), the odds of hitting on functional proteins is exceedingly small, effectively 'impossible'. So no, the probability is not concerned with one specific mutation. It is concerned with ALL possible mutations within the context of the parameters of the protein example.
I understand your critique of the argument, it's just that your critique of the argument is not addressing the argument.