Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Long-Term Fruit Fly Experiment Raises Questions

One of the arguments that evolution is a fact is that we observe it in the laboratory. Evolutionists monitor, for instance, the adaptations of fast-reproducing unicellular organisms such as bacteria. But these species are far simpler than the multicellular eukaryotes. Now new experiments are studying the more advanced fruit fly. The results are telling.

New results published last week report on an experiment that monitored more than 600 generations of the fruit fly. In this laboratory experiment fly populations were selected for accelerated development. But new genes did not arise and take control in these populations as evolutionary theory predicts. The results suggest problems for evolution in the wild:

Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.

In other words, evolution must work differently than expected. Just how it works, in this case, is yet to be determined, but we can add yet another entry to the seemingly never ending list of evolution's failed expectations.

73 comments:

  1. Cornelius

    You may want to correct that link. I seem to get only an error message. I'll try and refresh it though and see if that works.

    Never mind, I just figured out that blogger.com was mistakenly inserted in front of it. Here's the link:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes it appears that Haldane's dilemma needs to be corrected.

    In 1957 Haldane wrote that it takes about 300 generations for a new allele to become fixed.

    He also said that his conclusions may require a revision.

    He was right on that account- he was off by more than a factor of 2.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Image, evolutionists are actually attempting to test their theory. What has gotten into them? Don't they realize there theory may be falsified?! They should stick to the tried and true methods of propaganda dissemination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In short, the papers "selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles" only is equivalent to Hunter's "genes did not arise and take control" if you don't know what fixation means.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert C:
    The statement that new genes did not arise is false.

    That wasn't the statement.

    Perhaps you should learn how to read:

    "But new genes did not arise and take control in these populations as evolutionary theory predicts."

    ReplyDelete
  7. RobertC:
    In short, the papers "selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles" only is equivalent to Hunter's "genes did not arise and take control" if you don't know what fixation means.

    LoL!

    No Robert- apparently YOU don't know what "take control" means.

    I am sure Cornelius knows what fixation means- and I know he knows that your position requires fixation...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter,

    All evos will do with this paper is say that obviously fruit flies have reached their evolutionary dead-end.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "No Robert- apparently YOU don't know what "take control" means."

    I can take control, and drive a van, without being 100% of the humans in it. It is a vague throw away phrase.

    "and I know he knows that your position requires fixation...'

    Why doesn't he say that? Why use a vauge term like 'control' when he means 'fixation'?

    Secondly, Why is that true? This population evolved novel traits without fixation. Why are creationists obsessed with hard sweeps?

    ReplyDelete
  10. RobertC:
    I can take control, and drive a van, without being 100% of the humans in it.

    Are you saying that you are not 100% human?

    Why use a vauge term like 'control' when he means 'fixation'?

    He must have forgiotten that he was dealing with people like you.

    Secondly, Why is that true? This population evolved novel traits without fixation.

    If they do not become fixed then the population doesn't evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If we define evolution as the change in allele frequency over time, fixation is one possibility, where one allele reaches 100%, and others are extinguished. But only one of many!

    Take a simple situation where a heterozygote (Aa), has advantage over either homozygote (AA or aa). Sickle-cell is a classic example. Lets say A is a novel allele, relative to the parental a. Will either A or a fix, so long as the heterozygote has an advantage? Is the emergence and spread of A to some frequency in the population evolution?

    My statement stands: In short, the papers "selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles" only is equivalent to Hunter's "genes did not arise and take control" if you don't know what fixation means.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe G,

    It is evolution that is the dead end.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cornelius Hunter: One of the arguments that evolution is a fact is that we observe it in the laboratory.

    Indeed, the study observes evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  14. This finding shoots a whole into the punctuated equilibrium theory. Even if populations in the wild are isolated from the greater population new alleles that offer advantage don't get fixed even in the isolated group. Macro-evolution needs the advantages to get fixed. Changes in alleles is the small time stuff that no one is debating. You have to get to first base before you can get to second base. Evidence for Macro-evolution strikes out again in the lab.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neal Tedford said...

    This finding shoots a whole into the punctuated equilibrium theory.


    ????

    What are you mumbling about Tedford? The paper has absolutely nothing to do with Punk-Eek, not even tangentially.

    You really are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BTW, here is the abstract from the paper. Note that the authors offer possible reasons (i.e. soft sweeps) for the findings

    Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1, 2, 3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.

    Here is the concluding paragraph that CH quote mined, including the parts he snipped out.

    Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.

    So we have real scientists doing real research, uncovering the specifics of how evolution operates. And we have IDiot armchair scientists throwing rocks at things they haven't studied and don't understand. Same old same old.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, no hat tip to Sal? He posted this over at Uncommon Descent on the 1st, with the same woeful misunderstanding of what 'fixation' means:

    "Newly appearing good traits in a single individual will rarely get infused (or “fixed” ) into a population"

    Again, fixation is not spread-it is extinction of all other alleles.

    I guess we could have saved the trouble, except no one who knows better is allowed to comment over there!

    Now I expect to see some really creative definitions of evolution, to try to argue what was observed in this paper (the change in allelic frequency under pressure, driving novel traits) isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. RobertC:
    By the way, no hat tip to Sal?

    I posted it here first.

    I then posted it on UD.

    Sal gave me a HT.

    As for fixation not being spread- well that is how it becomes fixed- by spreading and having all in the population with it.

    And as for what this paper demonstrates- well it supports what geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti has been writing, and that ain't good for the ToE.

    ReplyDelete
  19. thorton:
    So we have real scientists doing real research, uncovering the specifics of how evolution operates.

    Strange that it seems to operate just as Creationists have been saying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quote from the article: "Signatures of selection are qualitatively DIFFERENT than what has been observed in asexual species;"... "We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles RARELY arise, are associated with SMALL net fitness gains or CANNOT FIX because selection coefficients change over time."

    So, bacteria have something going on that more advanced life forms don't. But wasn't extrapolating from E-COLI evolution to Mammal evolution something evolutionists here thought was not a big deal? Do you see how assumptions and extrapolating can't be trusted? What they found for bacterial adaption can't automatically be assumed for even a fruit fly, not to mention mammals.

    It seems like the things we learn for sure are constantly getting previous evolutionary assumptions into trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zachriel:
    Indeed, the study observes evolution!

    And now we are observing equivocation!

    ReplyDelete
  22. More from the article: "But forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect..."

    Same thing happened with Darwin's finches. Any kind of change in beaks reversed back after the weather changed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zach,

    It's the shell game again, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joe G said...

    thorton:
    So we have real scientists doing real research, uncovering the specifics of how evolution operates.

    Strange that it seems to operate just as Creationists have been saying.


    Funny Joe, I didn't see a single word in there about the pants-loading, er, front-loading nonsense you're been pushing lately.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal Tedford said...

    Zach,

    It's the shell game again, yes?


    Tedford, did you actually read the paper?

    Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Creationists-

    1) Define evolution.

    You seem to dwell on fixation to 100%-see example above, irreversibility of selected traits, and traits being optimal outside the environment selection occurred in (without the selective pressure).

    I'm curious why.

    2) Describe how this paper did not observe evolution.

    I'd say:

    "we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation"

    "~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes."

    Is pretty a pretty clear observation of changes in allele frequency in response to selective pressure (driving adaptive phenotypes). Fixation was not observed, and they give several reasons why. The last-that populations reach a phenotypically optimal plateau before fixation (and therefore there is a lack of selective pressure to drive it) is compelling

    ReplyDelete
  28. thorton:
    So we have real scientists doing real research, uncovering the specifics of how evolution operates.

    Strange that it seems to operate just as Creationists have been saying.

    thorton:
    Funny Joe, I didn't see a single word in there about the pants-loading, er, front-loading nonsense you're been pushing lately.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation:

    1- Creationists do not endorse front-loading

    2- Front loading has been around for many years and all I did was point it out- and pointing it out does not equal pushing.

    IOW thanks for once again exposing your ignorance and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's nice to see real scientists doing real science.

    Creationists should try this sometime instead of
    trying to spindoctor everything into out of context
    quotes.

    You will recall that creationists don't believe that new genetic information results from mutation and natural selection. This paper clearly refutes that.

    Now the creationist battle ground has been moved to the question of fixity of traits. They will misrepresent
    that for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  30. RobertC-

    You don't seem to have a clue-

    As I have pointed out thousands of times the word "evolution" has several different meanings.

    The way the theory of evolution uses it it means that living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some (unknown) population(s) of single-celled prokaryotic-like organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes.

    The "evolution" the paper discusses is the type of "evolution" Creationsts push.

    IOW the paper provides evidence for "variations within a Kind" and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  31. John Stockwell:
    You will recall that creationists don't believe that new genetic information results from mutation and natural selection.

    That is false- Creationists don't make that claim and the paper didn't show that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. RobertC:
    Is pretty a pretty clear observation of changes in allele frequency in response to selective pressure (driving adaptive phenotypes).

    IOW all you have is equivocation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joe-

    Now you're regressing.

    I ask: "2) Describe how this paper did not observe evolution. "

    And you reply: "the "evolution" the paper discusses is the type of "evolution" Creationsts push."( I believe this is false, and maybe some other creationists will chime in with whether they agree or not) Do you at least see how this is a non-answer? You've gone from presenting this paper as a falsification of evolution to documentation of evolution that apparently we're all agreed on.

    Good stuff-novel traits emerged under selective pressure. Allele frequencies changed. Agreed. Done.

    Now, somehow because this study doesn't deal with speciation, common descent, etc., it is flawed? What are the authors supposed to call this observation-evolution of the kind JoeG agrees with?

    You'll have to look elsewhere for the rest. Pubmed is a good start:

    Let's stick with Drosophila-

    Classics:

    Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

    Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

    Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 198

    Modern

    An analysis of genetic changes during the divergence of Drosophila species. PLoS One. 2010 May 5;5(5):e10485.

    ....431 more where that came from....

    ReplyDelete
  34. RobertC-

    Buy a vowel!

    You say:
    And you reply: "the "evolution" the paper discusses is the type of "evolution" Creationsts push."( I believe this is false, and maybe some other creationists will chime in with whether they agree or not)

    You have no idea what Creationists say, do you?

    You think Creationists argue for the fixity of species, ie no change- is that right?

    What this paper does is show that the fixation of an allele is a very difficult thing under ideal conditions.

    The paper says it would be even worse in the wild.

    Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations.

    At 600 there just isn't enough time for all the changes required.

    Also Creationsists do not argue against speciation.

    Wjhat you and your ilk call "speciation" fits in nicely with the Creationists "variation within a Kind".

    But you have no idea what Creationists say.

    And that is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "You have no idea what Creationists say, do you?"

    I'm a scientist, not a creationist-ologist. I've heard a great number of things said by creationists. Creationism, and ID in particular seem a very big tent. Hit with undeniable empirical data, your position is shrinking.

    "Also Creationsists do not argue against speciation."

    I know...."kinds" right? Are all the Drosophila species the same kind? Even the reproductively isolated ones?

    "What this paper does is show that the fixation of an allele is a very difficult thing under ideal conditions."

    Sure, in flies, for genes related to accelerated development. It does show the evolution of new traits, accompanied by genetic change, under the same conditions.

    "Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."

    Why? These flies exhibited new traits without fixation. Humans evolved malarial resistance without fixation (cost of Sickle cell). What's magic about 600 generations? You know that is just the total time they cultured the flies, right?

    Seems like you're going on about Haldane in a very odd way. I'm not sure why you are bringing Haldane into this, as this seems like this is a case of beneficial substitution, where the substitution cost would be ~1X population size. Since 12+ loci are involved, we're talking about multiple substitutions, which lower the cost even further. But there's no magic number, saying the flies must fix or die by the end of the experiment. At any rate, Haldane's actual arguments are well-answered circa 1970.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Neal Tedford: It's the shell game again, yes?

    The paper directly observes natural selection. Because of complex interactions between characters, the population reaches selective equilibrium before fixation, a balance between countervailing forces.

    The 'shell game' occurs with ID using this result to claim that it somehow falsifies "evolution".

    ReplyDelete
  37. RobertC-

    As this paper demonstrates you don't have any empirical data that supports your position.

    RobertC:
    Are all the Drosophila species the same kind? Even the reproductively isolated ones?

    Linneaus- heard of him?- placed the Created Kind at the level of Genus.

    Modern Creationists have put it at varying taxonomic levels- all at least at the level of Genus though.


    "Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."

    RobertC:
    Why?

    Without that you don't get populations evolving- just as I said earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Zachriel:
    The paper directly observes natural selection.

    Observes that it pretty much prevents a new allele from becoming fixed.

    IOW to date no one has observed natural selection doing much of anything.

    Zachriel:
    The 'shell game' occurs with ID using this result to claim that it somehow falsifies "evolution".

    You must be lying because that didn't happen.

    What this does is throw a big monkey wrench into the claims of evolutionists.

    Experimental data just does not help you at all...

    ReplyDelete
  39. JoeG: Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."

    RobertC: Why?

    JoeG: Without that you don't get populations evolving- just as I said earlier.

    Joe-you do know the 600 is just the length of the experiment, not some magic limit of the bounds of evolution? Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction? Or did you just decide this? If this fruit fly population is carried to 601 generations, are they going to lose the acquired phenotype?

    "Linneaus- heard of him?- placed the Created Kind at the level of Genus."

    Reference?

    I was pretty sure he wanted it at the species level. This follows Genesis chapter 1, which defines kind by reproductive isolation: In Genesis chapter 1, God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12), and created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25).

    So are kinds generally defined by reproductive isolation (which has been directly observed), or do you disagree with he bible?

    "Modern Creationists have put it at varying taxonomic levels- all at least at the level of Genus though."

    Of course they have-they can do whatever they want when 'truth' is made up on the fly, biased by one's religious beliefs. Keep moving that bar, Joe.

    Where were we---oh yeah, how does this paper falsify evolution again, Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe G: IOW to date no one has observed natural selection doing much of anything.

    The experiment shows that selection led to a significant increase in the rate of development.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Joe G said...

    John Stockwell:
    You will recall that creationists don't believe that new genetic information results from mutation and natural selection.

    That is false- Creationists don't make that claim and the paper didn't show that.


    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    JoeTard just blindly goes NUH UH to whatever a pro-science poster says without bothering to read or comprehend. The "no new information" argument has been a staple of Cretos for decades.

    Hey JoeTard, are you willing to donate $5 to the NCSE for every instance I can find of a Creationist saying "mutations can't create new information"?

    ReplyDelete
  42. IOW to date no one has observed natural selection doing much of anything.

    Zachriel:
    The experiment shows that selection led to a significant increase in the rate of development.

    Yes the experiment shows that selection led to a significant increase in the rate of development of evotardgasms.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thortard,

    Thank you for proving that you are an ignorant evotard- oops that is redundant.

    What Creationists have been saying is that blind, undirected processes do not A) Create information from scratch and B) don't NCREASE the existing information.

    And I have the literature to support that.

    OTOH all you have is your drooling spewage.

    ReplyDelete
  44. RobertC-

    The experiment does NOT falsify evolution.

    Evolution is too vague of a word to be falsified.

    What it does is throw a huge monkey wrench into the cogs of evolutionists who were looking for experimental support for their grand claims.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As for Linne I don't remember the book but I do remember it was after observing hybridization of plants that he said that species were not fixed. Rather all present-day species were derived from the originally created kinds.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Joe G said...

    What Creationists have been saying is that blind, undirected processes do not A) Create information from scratch and B) don't NCREASE the existing information.


    JoeTard, what's the difference between

    "mutations can't create new information"

    and

    "mutations can't create information from scratch"?

    Maybe you could explain.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "... it was after observing hybridization of plants that he said that species were not fixed. Rather all present-day species were derived from the originally created kinds."

    Which makes the 'kind' definition meaningless. In trying to accommodate new knowledge, it became anti-Biblical, divorced from Science, and just a moving target to say nuh-uh, that's not evolution. Why stop at Genus-intergenus hybrids have been obtained! Should we go for Family? There are interfamily fertile hybrids. Guess Order than-which means we are the same 'kind' as all primates.

    And I'll repeat-any creationist interest in this article stems only from your misunderstanding of it. It observes evolution.

    Until you answer the following, this point stands:

    Joe-you do know the 600 is just the length of the experiment, not some magic limit of the bounds of evolution? Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction? Or did you just decide this? If this fruit fly population is carried to 601 generations, are they going to lose the acquired phenotype?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The original animal "kind" in Genesis 1 is simply what we would call "species" if you follow the common definition of species to mean a group of organisms capable of reproduction and producing fertile offspring. This definition fits into the context in Genesis of the animals reproducing after their kind.

    The Bible does not say that the kinds or species don't change. That would be reading into it. The text in Genesis is dealing with what the animals were when they were created. An organism is not a Family or Genus, it is a species or kind that is classified into a Family, Genus, Order, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  49. RobertC, the definition of kind or species is not meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Neal-

    What kind are Drosophila sp?
    Can that defined kind change, and speciate?
    Is that evolution? Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Because here's what I don't get:

    Neal says: the original animal "kind" in Genesis 1 is simply what we would call "species" if you follow the common definition of species to mean a group of organisms capable of reproduction and producing fertile offspring. The Bible does not say that the kinds or species don't change. That would be reading into it.

    I'd agree that is what the Bible seems to say.

    But I always get this from creationists:

    "What you and your ilk call "speciation" fits in nicely with the Creationists "variation within a Kind". -JoeG

    So what definition of Kind works here? Neal's-that it is fertility based, in which case new kinds of Drosophila have evolved.

    Linnaeus had the same definition, except hybrids confused him. By this logic, we must regress to Order (interorder fertile hybrids are unknown, to the best of my knowledge), in which case we and all primates are of the same kind, and instructed by God to mate.

    JoeG's definition just suggests that everything that has been observed to speciate is of the same kind.

    So what the heck is a kind?

    ReplyDelete
  52. What Creationists have been saying is that blind, undirected processes do not A) Create information from scratch and B) don't NCREASE the existing information.

    thortard:
    Joe, what's the difference between

    "mutations can't create new information"

    and

    "mutations can't create information from scratch"?

    Maybe you could explain.


    If I have to that just is more evidence of your ignorance.

    New information would be akin to changing the color of eyes.

    However that does not explain the eye.

    Ya see throtard that is why evotards need to start with living organisms already in place.

    They cannot account for that creation of information from scratch.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The Current Status of Baraminology

    RobertC:
    And I'll repeat-any creationist interest in this article stems only from your misunderstanding of it. It observes evolution.

    It observes the type of evolution predicted by Creationists.

    RobertC:
    Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction?

    That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

    Again if new alleles cannot become fixed then the population doesn't evolve- it stays the same.

    Your position requires the fixation of new alleles in the wild.

    Yet the experiment demonstrates how unlikely that is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. RobertC:
    JoeG's definition just suggests that everything that has been observed to speciate is of the same kind.

    That is true.

    However our definition of "species" is ambiguous at best.

    We have populations that can interbreed and they are called separate species.

    ReplyDelete
  55. RobertC: JoeG definition just suggests that everything that has been observed to speciate is of the same kind.

    JoeG: "That is true."

    So, you accept a counter-Biblical definition (according to Neal and others) that says that which is observed to speciate is of the same kind?
    _______
    RobertC: Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction?

    JoeG: That doesn't have anything to do with what I said."

    JoeG earlier: "Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."
    _________________
    JoeG: "Again if new alleles cannot become fixed then the population doesn't evolve- it stays the same."

    False! A novel allele could become, say, 80% of the frequency, completely transform phenotype and stay at that percent. Going to 100% might change little-as this paper shows! Are all alleles that impact phenotype fixed, Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  56. RobertC:
    So, you accept a counter-Biblical definition (according to Neal and others) that says that which is observed to speciate is of the same kind?

    It ain't counter Biblical.

    RobertC: Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction?

    JoeG: That doesn't have anything to do with what I said."

    JoeG earlier: "Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."

    Right- notice there isn't anything in what i said that refers to extinction.

    "Again if new alleles cannot become fixed then the population doesn't evolve- it stays the same."

    RobertC:
    False! A novel allele could become, say, 80% of the frequency, completely transform phenotype and stay at that percent.

    Any examples or just your mouth?


    Going to 100% might change little-as this paper shows!

    Which should be a demonstration that mutation/ selection changes very little.

    Are all alleles that impact phenotype fixed, Joe?

    No but if they don't become fixed they don't help the population evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Robert: So, you accept a counter-Biblical definition (according to Neal and others) that says that which is observed to speciate is of the same kind?

    Joe: It ain't counter Biblical.

    Robert: It is a poor and self-serving definition, and it is counter-biblical. Even your creationist site says: "Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind." ...but they can't, because that would concede evolution.

    In our case, the nascent Drosophila species can't interbreed, so by the Biblical definition, they aren't of the same kind. Since you want them to be in the same kind, such that their evolution is simply 'variation within a kind,' you shun the Bible. Ironic case of dogma trumping dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  58. RobertC: Could you show the calculation you've used to determine fixation of a multilocus soft-selected trait by 600 generations is required to evolve or avoid extinction?

    JoeG: That doesn't have anything to do with what I said."

    JoeG earlier: "Your position needs new alleles to become fixed and within 600 generations."

    JoeG Now: Right- notice there isn't anything in what i said that refers to extinction.

    Ok-I threw in extinction as one logical result of not evolving. At any rate, you d have concluded evolution requires new alleles to be fixed in 600 generations. How did you arrive at this conclusion? It seems suspicious that the paper ran a course for 600 generations-did you just adopt this number? Curious the genes weren't fixed in this time, and yet the Drosophila evolved new traits!

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Joe: Again if new alleles cannot become fixed then the population doesn't evolve- it stays the same."

    RobertC:
    False! A novel allele could become, say, 80% of the frequency, completely transform phenotype and stay at that percent.

    Joe: Any examples or just your mouth?

    Yea-this paper, had you read it. The alleles aren't fixed, and yet the population shows a number of phenotypes, including decreased generation time. I've given sickle cell as an example. Many phenotypic polymorpisms spring from distinct alleles in a population.

    Here's a question: If most traits in livestock and plants were fixed, why would breeding for desired traits be necessary? There are 248 publications on allelic frequency in Dairy Cattle alone. All fixed?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Darwinists are immune to evidence and reason.
    See all Darwinist posts above for proof.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gary said...

    Darwinists are immune to evidence and reason.
    See all Darwinist posts above for proof.


    Hey! It's Gary, the fart-n-dart king, back for his bi-monthly drive by!

    Gary, how you coming with those equations from statistical mechanics you told us disprove evolution? It's sure taking you a long time to come up with the goods to back the bluster.

    ReplyDelete
  62. RobertC,

    I think that "kinds" in Genesis simply means species. Genesis does not teach that kinds don't change. Like I said previously, that would be reading into it something that is not there. The command to reproduce is related to the usage of the word "kinds" in the text. It leads to the understanding that kinds = species.

    I think that those that use the phrase "variation within a kind" mean subspeciation. However, that phrase is not precise, but sometimes the definition of species is not clear either.

    Originally each "kind" reproduced. The fact that some "kinds" could no longer reproduce with the original kind is not a big deal. Each new kind reproduced with its own kind. This takes nothing away from the original creation, nor does it imply the common descent of all life via neo-Darwinian forces.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Fruit-flies "evolving" into fruit-flies does not help the theory of evolution which requires that populations change.

    ReplyDelete
  64. RobertC:
    In our case, the nascent Drosophila species can't interbreed, so by the Biblical definition, they aren't of the same kind.

    And yet there are populations that can interbreed that are called different species!

    IOW stop harping on Creationsists and their defuinitions when your position is so messed up it requires a lot of help.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Joe G:

    "Fruit-flies "evolving" into fruit-flies does not help the theory of evolution which requires that populations change."

    Bwahahaha! Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself? If a population of fruit flies with frequency x of allele A changes into a population of fruit flies with frequency y of allele A, then the population has both changed and evolved.

    Joe G is dumber than your average toddler, but he is too stoooopid to know.

    Apologies to 95% of all toddlers!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neal Tedford said...

    I think that "kinds" in Genesis simply means species.

    Originally each "kind" reproduced. The fact that some "kinds" could no longer reproduce with the original kind is not a big deal. Each new kind reproduced with its own kind.


    "some "kinds" could no longer reproduce with the original kind"

    You've just described a speciation even where one population is no longer interfertile with another.

    Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind.

    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Fruit-flies "evolving" into fruit-flies does not help the theory of evolution which requires that populations change.

    Troy:
    If a population of fruit flies with frequency x of allele A changes into a population of fruit flies with frequency y of allele A, then the population has both changed and evolved.

    Yes evolved just as Creationsists say.

    IOW all you have is evidence for the Creation Model of Biological Evolution- ie baraminology.

    Geez troy you must have had a bad case of untreated syphilis tht has rotted your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And we are still waiting for the evotard losers to produce a testable hypothesis for their position.

    You chumps can't be waiting for us to forget that you haven't produced one.

    That ain't going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  69. thortard:
    You've just described a speciation even where one population is no longer interfertile with another.

    We hve separate species that can interbreed.

    Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind.

    No one knows what the original kinds were.

    That is why there is science.

    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    Who said one kind can change into another kind?

    IOW once again all you have is bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Joe G said...

    T: You've just described a speciation even where one population is no longer interfertile with another.

    We hve separate species that can interbreed.


    Not according to Tedford.

    T: Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind.

    No one knows what the original kinds were.


    Not according to Tedford.

    T: What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    Who said one kind can change into another kind?


    Tedford did, right above.

    Your knee-jerk defense of anything any IDots says is just precious JoeTard.

    ReplyDelete
  71. We hve separate species that can interbreed.

    Thortard:
    Not according to Tedford.

    Is that all you have?

    Methinks you don't understand what he is saying...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Something bothers me about this paper. The long-term selection was for accelerated development. This is a fairly complex trait, most certainly under polygenic control. The assumption here is that the selection must lead eventually to fixation of alleles. I would suggest this assumption is invalid. Accelerated development could be the result of a balanced polymorphism, under which one would not expect fixation of alleles under selection for the trait. In fact, one would expect exactly what the authors found.

    ReplyDelete