tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post216876648292710852..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Answering creationist questions about Neutral TheoryLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41454608019425268172014-05-14T12:25:46.472-04:002014-05-14T12:25:46.472-04:00Mitsubishi Neil...Joe Frankenstein, Larry, Johnny ...Mitsubishi Neil...Joe Frankenstein, Larry, Johnny Harsh, Dan Granular and Jerry "Coin"...<br /><br />"I've got to give credit to creationists... They are very diligent in their research and they never offend a soul ..."<br /><br />Creationists are not known for being consistent, clever, or honest. As Quest demonstrates nicely for us.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42477885545148161782014-05-14T12:23:38.687-04:002014-05-14T12:23:38.687-04:00Quest must know a bunch of creationists that I hav...Quest must know a bunch of creationists that I have never encountered, for in my 10+ years of experience in reading the writings of and dealing with creationists, nearly all (to include the 'biggies', such as Wells and Sarfati) are anything but diligent in their research, and all of them are very condescending and insulting to those not of their cult.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51537806603521740462014-05-12T03:10:28.226-04:002014-05-12T03:10:28.226-04:00Part three.
Allan, adaptive does seem to be a goo...Part three.<br /><br />Allan, adaptive does seem to be a good term to describe a bittern's color pattern. It's color pattern certainly helps it blend in much of the time. I wonder if the coloration of a GB Heron could be called partly adaptive since their frontal (throat/breast) feathers have a vertically 'streaky' appearance, kinda-sorta of like a bittern. I have a feeling though that it wouldn't matter if a GB Heron has a frontal streaky appearance or is bright pink all over, at least when it comes to catching prey and escaping predators. If only I could find a bright pink one and find out. :)<br /><br />I'm sure you noticed the wiggling that the bittern did in that video. Herons and egrets do that too but usually not as much as bitterns do. Sometimes they (herons. egrets, bitterns) wiggle when the wind blows the nearby grass around as though they're trying to match the movement of the grass, sometimes they wiggle just before striking at their prey, and sometimes they wiggle for no apparent reason. I could only watch a couple of minutes of the video because of my slow internet connection and I don't know if the video showed a male bittern trying to attract a female so if it didn't and if you and others want to see and hear something fascinating you should look for a video of a 'pumping' bittern. Bitterns are one of my favorite birds and I often watch them for hours at a time. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52233111780717580432014-05-12T03:08:05.686-04:002014-05-12T03:08:05.686-04:00Part two.
Larry, I didn't mean to make it sou...Part two.<br /><br />Larry, I didn't mean to make it sound as though I assume that coloring or other morphological features always have to be adaptations, but I think that it's reasonable to consider whether they may be. In the case of white egrets it would seem that the idea of their coloring as an adaptation could be quickly discarded. Polar Bears would be a different story. Regarding an "explanation" I think that it's okay to say that evolutionary theory explains the differences in the way that you said: "the differences are unimportant to the survival of individuals within each species" or at least to the survival of the species overall, and that the differences in coloring "due to neutral alleles that were accidently fixed in each population by random genetic drift" is or could be a more precise, credible explanation. I only added "could be" because there is some disagreement about how or which evolutionary processes/events affect morphological features and because I don't know enough to be sure that neutral alleles that were accidentally fixed in each population by random genetic drift is the correct explanation. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I don't know if you're right. <br /><br />Regarding explanations by evolutionary theory, let me say a bit about how I perceive evolution. To me, there is room in evolution for some slop. In other words, there can be and often is variation between species or the individuals of species that doesn't affect their survival/viability and that doesn't seem to have an 'explanation', at least from an adaptationist perspective. Many species or individuals within a species have morphological features and variations of those features that don't seem to benefit them and also don't seem to harm/hinder them, and the explanation appears to be what you said: "the differences are unimportant to the survival of individuals within each species" or to the survival of the species overall. In some cases the explanation doesn't have to be complicated, and in some cases adaptation doesn't appear to be part of the explanation. Human eye colors are a feature that apparently doesn't matter to the survival/viability of our species or its individuals. Whether eyes are blue, brown, green, or whatever, individual humans or our species overall appears to not be harmed/hindered by different eye colors and various eye colors don't seem to benefit humans either. Some people may prefer a certain eye color in their mate, or may specifically select a mate due to eye color alone but I would think that that is extremely rare or never happens. Maybe 'the designer' just thought that we humans would find each other more interesting if we have a variety of eye colors. LOL. <br /><br />Sheesh, I had to divide what I've typed into three parts because of the character limit :) so see part three.<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88354598365455515412014-05-12T02:57:01.673-04:002014-05-12T02:57:01.673-04:00Thank you for your responses.
John, regarding un...Thank you for your responses. <br /><br />John, regarding uncamouflaged species (or the uncamouflaged gender of some species) sexual selection seems like a reasonable consideration to me. What's interesting though, and I'm sure you're aware, is that in many species the males and females look alike, or so close that it's very hard to tell them apart (hard for us humans). And then there are birds like phalaropes where the females are the 'prettier' ones and the duller (more camouflaged) males do the incubating of the eggs and the care of the young. And I wonder, do you guys/gals think that some animals may sexually select their mate(s) because (or partly because) that mate has 'better' camouflage than the other individuals it encounters? <br /><br />Could it be that instead of an animal adapting to its environment/surroundings so that it blends in (is what we call camouflaged), that sexual selection of camouflaged individuals is the cause/mechanism (or whichever other term you prefer) by which camouflage becomes 'the norm' for some species or the camouflaged gender of some species? <br /><br />I'm not sure that I'm making my point clearly so let me try this: A lot is said about some animals selecting mates because the chosen mate is flashy, colorful, beautiful, showy, or some other term to describe how much its looks stand out (picture peacocks). I don't recall ever seeing or hearing someone say that some animals select or may select their mate(s) because the chosen mate is well camouflaged (more so than other potential mates). To us, the difference could be unnoticeable but to the animal looking for a mate it may be important. <br /><br />Here's some food for thought: Which came first, the camouflage adaptation to the environment/surroundings, or the selection of mates for some other reason but that just happen to blend into the environment/surroundings, or the selection of mates that the selector is attracted to because it is 'better' camouflaged, or what? Yes, I realize that 'Which came first?' questions may be dumb or impossible to answer and that my question may be confusing (I'm very tired right now), but I figure that you guys and gals are smart and that you can get the general gist of what I'm wondering about, and that you may have some answers/opinions that are interesting. <br /><br />I have many years of experience observing nature (including a lot of herons, egrets, and bitterns) but I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as most of you are when it comes to bio-chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, and the like, and I often wonder how each of you would connect the dots between what you study and some of the things that I observe in nature. I know that there are lots of papers, books, articles, TV shows, etc., that talk about this stuff (and I have read/watched many) but I think that there are some very sharp people here and I like to see what you have to say too. <br /><br />See part two.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60462456631255580332014-05-11T11:02:57.011-04:002014-05-11T11:02:57.011-04:00My own opinion is that the coloration of the bitte...My own opinion is that the coloration of the bittern is likely to be adaptive, the other two probably not. Obviously, I'm just an ornery adaptationist and I cannot <i>prove</i> this hypothesis without putting the birds in a 'realistic' predatory scenario with, say, brightly painted reeds or brightly painted birds to break up the pattern. But bitterns stick close to their reedy habitat - they may stand out against other backgrounds, but it's the net losses from time spent against all backgrounds that counts. It's also the smallest of the 3, so predation may be more an issue. The egret, it possibly doesn't matter due to fishing habit and better defence, so an albino gene could readily have spread through drift. It seems unlikely that white is an advantageous colour for them (although a factor may be how it looks to a fish). Blue herons, they fish in the open, and again there is no consistent background selecting for camouflage. <br /><br />Interesting opening shot here allows comparison of bittern and egret 'camouflage'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbBeUhRV6jUAllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48784897601190809452014-05-11T09:46:50.365-04:002014-05-11T09:46:50.365-04:00You should note that the original question include...You should note that the original question included drift as a possible mechanism. Your question is just a bit more operational, but at the cost of narrowing the focus. One could add, for example, "...and if so, what sort of adaptation?"John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55386330854759942472014-05-11T09:40:23.432-04:002014-05-11T09:40:23.432-04:00Your question contains a hidden assumption that we...Your question contains a hidden assumption that we refer to as the "adaptationist" perspective. You assume that there must be an evolutionary "explanation" of the differences. The null hypothesis is that the differences are unimportant to the survival of individuals within each species. They are due to neutral alleles that were accidently fixed in each population by random genetic drift.<br /><br />Thus, the correct question is, "Is there any evidence that the differences between these species are due to adaptive change." It may not seem like a different question than the one you asked but it is.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10581007650181563722014-05-11T09:40:08.314-04:002014-05-11T09:40:08.314-04:00Evolutionary theory has several possible explanati...Evolutionary theory has several possible explanations, and it would take actual study of empirical data to narrow that down, which I expect nobody has done for these species. One can only speculate.<br /><br />Bitterns can be common, but you very seldom see them. And that's because they're usually hanging out in places where their camouflage works. Egrets and great blue herons, on the other hand, usually feed out in the open, in places where they would be visible even given camouflage. As for color differences among uncamouflaged species, I'll just mumble "sexual selection". <br /><br />How was that?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42414842720020282472014-05-11T08:41:38.133-04:002014-05-11T08:41:38.133-04:00At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest (I ...At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest (I like to take some risks) I have a question. <br /><br />First, some foundation: If you're not familiar with Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias), Great Egrets (Ardea alba), and American Bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), please look them up. Appearance wise, they are very similar birds except for their coloring, and the bitterns are smaller. The all white feathers of a Great Egret would seem to be a disadvantage since they do not live in a white environment. Great Blue Herons are pretty easy to see too but not as easy as Great Egrets. Bitterns can be very hard to see. Bitterns are the only one of the three that really blends into its environment, although sometimes they are right out in the open or are standing in or next to green grass that doesn't hide them well at all. All three species are successful, in the sense that they are widespread and common. All three species can and often do live in the same environment, hunt for food in the same way, and eat the same things. They can also be prey for the same predators, such as eagles and coyotes. <br /><br />My question: How does evolutionary theory (mutation, natural selection, adaptation, drift, etc.) apply to and/or explain the big differences in the coloring of those three species? And I'm especially interested in what you all think about the white feathers of Great Egrets (and other white egrets). <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66423273664914566812014-05-10T20:19:01.694-04:002014-05-10T20:19:01.694-04:00Mitsubishi Neil:
"....if you say evolution o...Mitsubishi Neil:<br /><br />"....if you say evolution occurs by natural selection, it looks scientific compared with saying God created everything. Now they say natural selection created everything, but they don’t explain how. If it’s science, you have to explain every step. That’s why I was unhappy. Just a replacement of God with natural selection doesn’t change very much. You have to explain how.… <br /><br />Mutation means a change in DNA through, for example, substitution or insertion [of nucleotides]. First you have to have change, and then natural selection may operate or may not operate. I say mutation is the most important, driving force of evolution. Natural selection occurs sometimes, of course, because some types of variations are better than others, but mutation created the different types. Natural selection is secondary… <br /><br />Kimura believed morphology [appearance] evolves through natural selection. He applied neutral theory only on a molecular level. I say it can determine morphological characteristics as well because DNA determines everything, but to prove this has not been so easy. [Laughs.] Forty or 50 years later, I am still trying to prove it… <br /><br />… Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant. <br /><br />I particularly like his statement: "say it can determine morphological characteristics as well because DNA determines everything, but to prove this has not been so easy. [Laughs.] Forty or 50 years later, I am still trying to prove it…<br /><br />Sorry professor Mitsubishi but our guys have proof; it called "I have to be right"... Joe Frankenstein, Larry, Johnny Harsh, Dan Granular and Jerry Coin as weld as Nick The Shameless have proof... is called "My theory is first.... right or wrong".... Congratulation!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30332270475884302622014-05-10T19:25:38.698-04:002014-05-10T19:25:38.698-04:00Well, NickM the Shameless,
When am l goring to ...Well, NickM the Shameless, <br /><br />When am l goring to get my answer... even the shameless one...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10348370450978181252014-05-10T18:45:20.008-04:002014-05-10T18:45:20.008-04:00Just posted this at UD, in response to vjtorley...Just posted this at UD, in response to vjtorley's latest silly post: <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-much-disputed-neutral-theory-of-evolution-and-the-book-that-professor-moran-refuses-to-review-larry-moran-responds-to-my-questions/#comment-499784" rel="nofollow">The much-disputed neutral theory of evolution and the book that Professor Moran refuses to review: Larry Moran responds to my questions</a><br /><br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-much-disputed-neutral-theory-of-evolution-and-the-book-that-professor-moran-refuses-to-review-larry-moran-responds-to-my-questions/#comment-499784NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83571938922515074082014-05-08T21:23:46.903-04:002014-05-08T21:23:46.903-04:00He doesn't response because you never say ANYT...He doesn't response because you never say ANYTHING. You're inanity personified. Uncivilized Elkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17216440898113949568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56998667175107819752014-05-08T13:06:43.837-04:002014-05-08T13:06:43.837-04:00@NickM,
I agree that there are many layers of con...@NickM,<br /><br />I agree that there are many layers of confusion here, it’s almost like the confusion is maintained in order keep the discussion alive for ever…which is ideal for a blog.<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90854319642493909962014-05-08T11:21:58.238-04:002014-05-08T11:21:58.238-04:00@Quest: "...will you admit to the obvious and...@Quest: "...will you admit to the obvious and logical inference...?"<br /><br />Absolutely. But what I won't do is take the intellectually lazy way out and defer to a god for anything that I don't yet understand. Throughout the last few hundred years, one by one, religious explanations of the natural world have fallen to science and reasoning. The logical inference is that the origin of life will as well.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69879042869471844552014-05-08T09:39:47.799-04:002014-05-08T09:39:47.799-04:00Agreed. Thank you.Agreed. Thank you.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35802914174243531832014-05-08T08:52:53.944-04:002014-05-08T08:52:53.944-04:00Well, infinitely large populations aren't real...Well, infinitely large populations aren't really an example. They are an approximation. For an infinite population the drift term goes to 0 (in fact drift is the difference between what happens in a real population, compared to the approximation). So yes, the infinite population model is a case where you can isolate the effect of differential fitness into the selection term, by virtue of the drift term going to 0.<br /><br />One of the problems is that you have these two special cases and they might actually hinder you in understanding what's going on in between, because you go "OK, I`ve got the infinite population model, so I know what selection does and I've got the neutral model, so I know what drift does. And now I've got an intuitive idea of what happens when both are in play - it's simply a bit of this and a bit of that."<br /><br />I referenced weak selection in one of the earlier posts because that's the range where neither neutral models nor infinite population models are good approximations. And it's that range where thinking in terms of drift and selection introduces errors that go beyond semantics.<br /><br />That being said, I think both infinite population models and neutral ones are indispensable for teaching - they just need to be treated as approximations and in the best case a warning on avoiding the error of trying to get an idea of weak selection by mixing them is added.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67864571620383859542014-05-08T08:11:57.767-04:002014-05-08T08:11:57.767-04:00Quest, will you please reserve discussion about th...Quest, will you <i>please</i> reserve discussion about the origins of life to places where that is the subject and show that you are capable of understanding that evolution is just a subset of the grand set of LIFE? You have been told that several times before, what is that you do not understand?Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29862407327185061372014-05-08T08:09:37.296-04:002014-05-08T08:09:37.296-04:00Dear Gert Korthof,
I do sincerely apologize for n...Dear Gert Korthof,<br /><br />I do sincerely apologize for not spelling your name correctly. I have corrected it in my post. You are correct when you note that there are many people who are much better at spelling than I am. It was not intentional. I try to catch all spelling mistakes but it's not as easy for me as it seems to be for other people.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56942978780863495772014-05-08T07:36:54.936-04:002014-05-08T07:36:54.936-04:00@Simon Gunkel
Mmm, OK, I can see that. One last qu...@Simon Gunkel<br />Mmm, OK, I can see that. One last question though: when I teach Darwinian selection, I use infinitely large populations as an example, because that removes the effect of drift. Is N = infinite simply a special case of population resampling, just like the s = 0 scenario, or did we isolate the effect of differential fitness (selection) here? Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80204010239758605212014-05-08T06:38:08.328-04:002014-05-08T06:38:08.328-04:00I am quite confident that Larry's errors were ...I am quite confident that Larry's errors were inadvertent, and will be corrected at the earliest opportunity, with an apology included.<br /><br />I'm not so confident about the creationists correcting their misrepresentation of your ideas. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38740878449837510012014-05-08T06:07:31.769-04:002014-05-08T06:07:31.769-04:00Well, we still have selection coefficients. My qua...Well, we still have selection coefficients. My qualm is only with the idea that drift and selection are different processes and the biggest issue with that is that selection coefficients are still relevant parameters in the drift term. You can't really isolate the effects of differential fitness from the process.<br /><br />If I flip a biased coin, there's one process: flipping a biased coin. I still need to talk about the bias when I describe it. In the same way, I can talk about selection coefficients and don't ever need to contrast selection and drift.<br /><br />Instead of asking: "Is selection more important than drift here?", I can ask "How large are my selection coefficients? Can I distinguish them from the null model of neutrality?" Not only have I avoided treating drift and selection as different processes, I`ve gone from a yes/no question, to a quantitative one. If I answer the second question, I can give you a value for s, with error bars.<br /><br />In short: I don't want to name a biased component, I'd prefer to name the bias.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28345484081151884012014-05-08T05:40:00.469-04:002014-05-08T05:40:00.469-04:00@Allan Miller
Fair enough, I agree with what you a...@Allan Miller<br />Fair enough, I agree with what you are saying. But I still resist the idea that selection cannot exist as a distinct concept, but should be subsumed under "population resampling". That would divorce the model from what we are trying to explain in biological systems, namely adaptation. It is the biased component that explains adaptive evolution, so why not put a name to it?Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51379542408941148582014-05-08T05:37:39.511-04:002014-05-08T05:37:39.511-04:00See, I would agree with this assessment, if select...See, I would agree with this assessment, if selection had retained its original meaning. As I noted before the concept of Darwin is identical to what now is selection and drift combined. Darwin did describe selection as population resampling in the sense I'm using it now, but that process got split into drift and selection.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04521153536420798640noreply@blogger.com