YES! Please tell me how to quantify it, and we'll advance this discussion by light-years.
Then we'll apply it to this:
Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Arrogant?
I was pointing out some of you fallacies, such as the Earth is 20 BILLION years old. If as you say, you make mistakes like this one by posting in haste, you might want to slow down a tad and double check before hitting that post key.
Remember, on a message board such as this one, you are judged only by what you write. Is it accurate information, succinct, grammatically correct, no misspellings, etc.
What I was alluding to in my original post to you, was that your inaccuracies were so gross in nature, your credentials became immediately suspect by many here.
You have obviously never studied this subject at the college level. You may have been exposed to some kind of "anti-evolution" material at some bible college, but that's about all you seem to know. Do yourself a favor. Obtain an entry-level text and read it. (Don't waste your time with something offered by one of the creationist-oriented websites.) Then you will be better equipped to discuss the subject.
Interesting.
You truly are an immunologist who does not consider or understand evolution?
You obstinately have Darwin as some kind of Goldsmchidt "hopeful monster" theorist. Darwin was what's come to be known as a "Darwinian gradualist," or nowadays, "Neodarwinist."
You're not even right about what you don't believe in.
Where are you imagining the difficulty? There is no anchor holding you against drift. Randomness does not force a net zero change. In fact, random drift will move you in proportion to the degrees of freedom and the square root of the time factor. IOW, yes. You are wrong.
You stay unchanged when you're at a local fitness maximum. There are active conservative pressures to not change when you have it about right.
You need books that weren't written by Duane Gish or David Menton, Herr Doktor. The incongruity between the qualifications you claim for yourself and the kindergarten-level "stumpers" for which you are demanding answers is the funniest thing I've seen for some time on these threads.
So I'll ask my question for the 10th time.... what is the selective pressure that selects out minute changes in a creature over eons?
The minute changes are there; natural selection selects. The population genetics will change over time, the main limitation not being in the case of too much time and too little change needed but too much change needed in too little time. It is the latter case, the one you are considering as classical Darwin, which makes populations tend to go extinct. There simply is no difficulty in the former scenario and you do not make a case for imagining one.
Here's a present, Herr Doktor, a Yahoo! on "neutral drift". Glad to help open up your world.
YES! Please tell me how to quantify it, and we'll advance this discussion by light-years.
Then we'll apply it to this:
Sadly, a lot of people – on both sides of the debate – are not so cautious and thus hurt their own argument in the eyes of the lurkers.
After all, if ridicule and contempt were persuasive, then good hearted candidates like Presidents Bush and Reagan could have never been elected.
You need a new set of books, or you need to understand your texts better. The quoted statement shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Misstatements of this type make it difficult to give credence to your arguments.
Mutation does not necessarily confer a selective advantage. Mutation causes a change. If that change leads to a differentially higher reproduction rate, then that mutation is spread.
Sure. Post a formula, and we''ll work it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.