Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[Tribune7]

To sum it up:

If you come here to challenge and their answers aren't adequate -- you're a troll LOL :-)

[ml1954]

If you come here to challenge and

claim

their answers aren't adequate --

and then issue a disingenous and assertive opus and withdraw from the conversation..

you're a troll

Hmmmm. I'd say yes.

[balrog666]

Make that "two".

[Doctor Stochastic]

Three, which is a small, but odd, prime.

[connectthedots]

No comment on my post #562?

[dread78645]

"Number of the beast + 9% tax" placmark

[edsheppa]

Further info. I was underestimating the rate of change. Logically I should have been looking for extinction of original genes but was instead looking for fixation of new genes. These are not the same thing since an allele in the original population can disappear without a new allele becoming fixed - there may be multiple new alleles. With that correction the pace is quite a bit faster; 5% of original genes are eliminated in about 3000 generations.

Making the population larger dramatically increases the evolution rate too. With 1000 individuals rather than 500, 5% of original genes are extinct after about 1800 generations.

I have also incorporated environmental change. In every generation some per cent of the genes are reranked for relative fitness according to the same distribution as new genes. Both of the above numbers are from adjusting relative of 1% every generation.

If I rerank 10% instead of 1%, the evolution rate slows dramatically. In three test runs, the average was about 8500 generation for 5% extinction. That's about twice as slow as for 1%.

Neutral evolution is very slow. When there is no variation in fitness, the 500 population/500 loci test took a little over 40,000 generations for 5% extinction.

I also tried more extreme environmental change. In one test I changed every gene's fitness every generation up or down 1% randomly. 5% extinction happened in less than 1000 generations. When I adjusted every gene up or down randomly by 10%, 5% extinction happened in about 250 generations.

So, in summary, it seems that your argument is completely wrong. Rapid environmental change affecting fitness speeds up evolution rather than slowing it down.