Here’s a simple experiment one can actually try. Take a bag of M&M’s, and without peeking reach in and grab one. Eat it. Then grab another and return it to the bag with another one, from a separate bag, of the same colour. Give it a shake. I guarantee (and if you tell me how big your bag is I’ll have a bet on how long it’ll take) that your bag will end up containing only one colour. Every time. I can’t tell you which colour it will be, but fixation will happen.
This models the simple population process of Neutral Drift. Eating is death, duplication is reproduction, and the result is invariably a change in frequencies, right through to extinction of all but one type. You don’t have to alternate death and birth; choose any scheme you like short of peeking in the bag and being influenced by residual frequencies (ie: frequency-dependent Selection), and you will end up with all one colour.
Is Chance a cause here? Well … yes, in a sense it is, in the form of sample error. Survival and reproduction are basically a matter of sampling the genes of the previous generation. More random samples are a distortion of the larger population than aren’t, so, inexorably, your future populations will move away from any prior makeup, increasing some at the expense of others till only one variant remains.
Selection is a consistent bias upon this basic process. If different colours also differed a little in weight, say, more of some would be at the bottom of the bag than others, so you’d be more likely to pick one type than another. In more trials, the type more likely to be picked would be picked more often, to express it somewhat tautologously. You’d get a sampling bias.
Both of these processes are random – or stochastic, to use the preferred term. In reality, they are variations of the same process, with continuously varying degrees of bias from zero upwards. It makes no sense to call selection nonrandom, unless by ‘random’ you mean unbiased. Where there is no bias, all is Drift. But turning up the selective heat does not eliminate drift – sample error – and so does not eliminate stochasticity.
With a source of new variation, these processes render evolution inevitable. Even with a brand new mutation, with no selective advantage whatsoever, 1/Nth of the time (where N is the population size) it will become the sole survivor. That’s the baseline. If there is a selective advantage, it will be more likely and quicker to fix, on the average. If at a selective disadvantage, it will be less likely and slower.
Conversely, without a source of new variation, all existing variation would be squeezed out of the population, and evolution would stop.
The mutations to the e coli were simply losses of function, losses of function, which made the bacteria LESS fit in populations where no citrus was present, and thus they die off after several generations once they return to a population which doesn’t have these losses of function. And BTW the ability to metabolize citrate was already present in the bacteria, they just don’t normally have the function to allow the citrus to enter the cell wall.
By examining the DNA sequence of the E. coli in the neighborhood surrounding the IS [insertion sequence] elements, the investigators saw that several genes involved in central metabolism were knocked out, as well as some cell wall synthesis genes and several others. In subsequent work, Cooper et al. (2001) discovered that twelve of twelve cell lines showed adaptive IS-mediated deletions of their rbs operon, which is involved in making the sugar ribose. Thus, the adaptive mutations that were initially tracked down all involved loss-of-FCT. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html#sthash.Oj827NUb.dpuf
Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.”
thorton,
I think you not only swim in the river of denial, you live in its muddy bottom. Virtually EVERYTHING you say is incorrect.
Apo-A1 Milano is a morphological aberration which could one day lead to a novel new appendage or body system? What new system? Its the equivalent of a depression in one’s body which could one day focus light better and lead to a complex new kind of eye you mean? Or it could transform into a new apparatus for hearing ultra sonic waves?
Do you even understand what a novel new organ means?
phoodoo,
Have you figured out how to count generations of MM yet? 🙂
But citrus WAS present in its environment, and the E coli evolved a NEW function to be able to utilize it. Beneficial function means with relationship to the current environment, remember? A lion may be top predator in the savannah but drop one into the middle of the ocean with the sharks and see how beneficial his functions are.
The Lenski experiment demonstrated empirically all those things Creationists claim evolution can’t do. All the Creationist blithering in the world won’t change that simple fact.
Tell me about the Apo-A1 Milano mutation. I suppose that’s a “loss of function” too because those who have it lose the ability to be susceptible to heart disease. 😀
It is pretty funny though that you went and regurgitated almost verbatim Creationist hand-waves you found at the Disco Tute without having the slightest bit of understanding what the terms mean.
Funny then that I can back up everything I say with references from the primary scientific literature. You don’t even know where to find the primary scientific literature.
I understand that demanding evolution create a novel new organ while you watch says a lot more about your level of scientific literacy than it does about evolution’s capabilities. Sure you don’t want to see a crockoduck?
thorton,
Its not about creating a novel function while we watch, its about seeing one that already started thousands of years ago, and is slowly spreading through the population, which must be taking place all the time according to your theory. So there must be new kinds of eyes, and new kinds of ear, extra appendages, new forms of teeth, new kinds of skin….that some percent of the population have, and some don’t, because we are in the middle of the evolution of that new function. But where the heck are they?
Up your ass somewhere apparently, because they aren’t in any populations we can see.
Phoodoo, if a six ship convoy can cross the ocean in six days do you think that means one ship and cross the ocean in one day?
Do you really want to review what Darwinists believed back in 1900? Fortunately, Darwinists have evolved at least a little since the Civic Biology textbook that was in use at the time of the Scopes show trial.
Which is exactly what Apo-A1 Milano is doing. Meeting exactly your criteria.
Why do you think such things have to evolve just because they can? A developing eyespot in a population that has no eyes is a selectable advantage. A developing eyespot in a population with well developed binocular vision already is no advantage at all. Same for a fifth leg. You don’t have even a tiny bit of understanding of the science you’re blindly attacking.
Using your definition a novel mutation in ONE individual can drift through an entire population without even the need to reproduce. Somehow the new variation magically just spreads to unrelated members of the population through some kind of magic osmosis in a single generation!
Well, its no wonder people like you and Thorton believe in evolution then-you don’t even get that its the reproducing which actually causes the mutation to travel through a genetic line. The reproducing IS the generations!
Now who’s taking who out of context? The original comment I was replying to was:
“thorton on January 9, 2014 at 2:39 am said:
Piltdown2: We probably agree on every other scientific theory.But with evolution, I look at the same evidence you see, and rather than see confirmation of the theory, all I see are the improbabilities.
Can you name some? Big question is how do you compute they’re improbable? Humans are notoriously bad at estimating probabilities. Do you take all the consilient evidence from the fossil and genetic records into account when doing the guesstimates?”
When hitting Quote in Reply, only your comment showed up, so I added context to your first question which I thought was directed at my first sentence. I realize now I had you wrong. You have my deepest and sincerest apologies. But please don’t insinuate I’m operating on bad faith here. While my mistake was inadvertent, it appears you have deliberately misrepresented the exchange.
Oh, yes, I have. My method of counting agrees with Joe Felsenstein, who has been thinking about these issues for several decades.
Your method gives nonsensical counts that depend on population size. E.g., using the population of the US (300 million), your method (time between deaths) gives the length of a generation equal to 0.3 s. Nonsense!
That’s completely wrong. When colored M&Ms die they are replaced by black M&Ms, which are clearly not one single M&M.
So everything novel that is going to evolve already has? A million years ago? How can natural selection decide if something new is useful or not, if we don’t even see some new options for natural selection to take a crack at?
If no one is born with a spinning propeller on their head, how can natural selection decide if that would be useful or not.
Isn’t that how the eye came along, it just randomly popped up, and natural selection said, hey, this is a convenient little thing I could use. So that one individual with the lucky eye deformity, gave it to his kids, and then a few more kids got it, and after a while 20% of the population had it, then 50%, then 70%, then 90…
Where’s the random propellers thorton? Where;s the people with five arms who make better street fighters? Where’s the people born with a coiled spring in their ankle which lets them jump over traffic better? Where are the people born with teeth in their hands, so they can chew while holding their breathe? Where is the 20% of the population born with a spout on their back which makes them better Olympic swimmers?
Ap Milano is not a new morphological function. Its not the road to a new type of species. We need to account for EVERY type of organ and body plan according to this idea of a new deformity pops up, and turns out to be useful, and gets better and bigger and more systems attached to it, and then a new shape, and then other deformities piled on top of it…-and yet we have none.
OK, you made an honest mistake, no worries. I admit don’t give the benefit of the doubt nearly as much anymore since I’ve been dishonestly quote-mined so many times by Creationists previously, and that’s my bad. But let’s move on in the discussion.
Right, that is why FOUR successive links in a chain of offspring is not counted as ONE generation! Which is what you claimed.
LOL! “WHERE’S THE CROCODUCK!!!”
Sometimes Creationists are so far around the bend all you can do is shake your head. The truly sad part is I bet phoodoo honestly thinks he’s making a coherent argument against evolution.
Four is too small a number, phoodoo. In that case, my counting method and Joe’s give different answers. For a population of a hundred or a thousand, Joe’s method and mine agree well (the larger the population, the better the agreement). I have quoted the numbers.
Your count diverges from both mine and Joe’s as the population size grows. It makes no sense to claim that 0.3 s is a generation time for humans, does it? 🙂
My method is not time between deaths, that is your stupid invention of what I said (who knows what time between deaths even means, that is your dumb word inventions). My definition of a generation is a generation. In other words another link in the chain of a lineage. The time depends on the type of organism reproducing. You seem to think that human beings are the only things that reproduce.
Four successive generations does not equal one generation Olegt, I don’t care how long you study physics, it ain’t ever going to be true.
thorton,
Where is the NEW novel functions Thorton, the new novel functions! Not some whole new species, a new function on an existing species, which still breeds with the population that doesn’t have that function. Isn’t that an obvious expectation if your theory is true?
Wait, you do know how your theory claims novel functions developed right? Is that the problem, you don’t know the claims of the theory you believe in?
The Apo-A1 Milano mutation still meets every one of your “it’s impossible!!” criteria. So does Lenski’s LTEE result. If you want an Olympic swimmer with a propeller growing from her back you’ll have to stick to your Creationist cartoons.
I know precisely what the theory says. That makes one of us.
Phoodoo: My definition of a generation is a generation. In other words another link in the chain of a lineage. The time depends on the type of organism reproducing.
What is the normal reproductive rate for a M&M?
Another good example of a new novel function that arose relatively recently and is still spreading through the human population is the evolution of lactose tolerance.
From the article:
But it’s not a five legged man with shark fins and a laser growing from his head so I guess it doesn’t count. 😉
Plain or with peanuts?
Oh ferchrissakes, Is that what your misunderstanding has been all along? Well, that’s too bad, because this could have been cleared up yesterday if you had been paying attention.
Listen, phoodoo, olegt’s example is NOT 4 successive generations, so you’re the person who is miscounting, not olegt. Olegt’s example is 4 births in the same child generation — exactly like your own family, where you might have a couple of brothers/sisters and you might have a couple of cousins, too, who are all part of the same generation.
Here’s how it works:
We have 4 critters, say 3 red plus 1 which happens to have the brand-new black mutation. This is the “parent” generation — although there’s no guarantee that each member of the “parents” generation will actually reproduce itself.
They are RP, RP, RP, and BP. (Red Parent, Black Parent)
The first event in our test is that one gets killed. Too bad for red, one of the reds is the first to go, no surprise. There are 3 left, 2 red and 1 black. Good outcome for black ,the first birth event is a black one. We still have 4 critters in our population.
They are RP, RP, BP, and BC (Black Child)
Next one gets killed. It turns out too bad again for red, but it was a fair probability in either case. Fortunately there’s a red parent remaining and the second birth event is a red one. We still have 4 critters in our population.
They are RP, BP, BC and RC (Red Child)
NOTE: this is still just ONE generation of descendants, not two successive generations, because the “child” generation has not yet given birth to any descendants of its own.
Next one gets killed. This time its the red child, too bad. The birth event turns out to be black, which was a 50-50 probability, so we’re not particularly surprised.
NOTE: yet again, this is still just ONE generation of descendants, not two successive generations, because the “child” generation has not yet given birth to any descendants of its own.
The 4 critters are:
RP, BP, BC, BC
Finally we get the 4th death event in this test. Each critter has a 1/4 probability of getting killed and a 3/4 probability of surviving to the next round, but poor RP turns out to be the loser. The next birth event is a black child (which at this point is the only option).
We have 4 critters:
BP, BC, BC, BC.
The black mutation has become fixed in this population in exactly one generation — in this particular test. True, it could have gone a different way; the black parent could have failed to reproduce before it got killed. But also true, it can go this way without cheating and without any special lucky breaks.
And this shows that you misunderstood the sequence needed for a mutation to spread in the population — it doesn’t need the “child” to mature, reproduce itself to a “grandchild” carrying the mutation, and in turn the “grandchild” mature and reproduce itself to a “greatgrandchild”, and so on, one by one by one by one in successive generations. Olegt got it right, and you, well, not so right. I hope you understand now.
phoodoo:
Really? Under “design” this seems to make little sense. Why would the bacteria be designed with an ability they were unable to use in the first place?
Would you care to enlighten me phoodoo? Is there a logical design based explanation for that?
Even in your stupid ass population dynamic of ONE parents siring every of the new offspring, so that it meets your definition of ONE generation, you still have a problem. The first incident of the novel mutation is ONE generation. Now that same parent can’t possibly have ANOTHER child that also gets the same novel mutation, because the novel mutation was random to begin with, so of course they can have three children in a row which all get the same RANDOM mutation.
Besides which, this is not how ANYONE, other then you and Olegt, and (probably thorton, because he needs friends,) counts the spreading of a novel mutation through a population. You can’t just go assuming ONE parent just has many many babies, while everyone else dies.
Here is a better question, who is dumber, you or thorton?
Because the mechanism for metabolizing citrus already existed in the organism, that is all one needs to know. Since there is no Darwinian explanation for this, the best explanation is that life contains maybe abilities to adapt to situations.
Thorton in your ridiculous analogy, where is the new physical form? What’s the new body part?
Are you suggesting that people with lactose tolerance might one day be so physically different than those without it could become different species?
Plenty of animals drink milk, so how is that a new body plan?
Or someone who handles cholesterol better could be the beginnings of a new tree branch of life? Because one day they can’t breed with those who don’t have that protein?
We need NEW physical features! The beginnings of a complex body plan. Even this concept is too hard for you get, really? This is how you think wings appeared, because some animals didn’t get as much gas drinking milk as others?
Piltdown2,
A lot has happened since 1900, true. The entire science of genetics (following rediscovery of Mendel’s work), the discovery of DNA, most of molecular biology, cross-taxon protein and DNA sequencing, the entire mathematical theory, the Neutral theory, phylogenetic methods, another century of fossil discovery … it has all confirmed what scientists in 1900 accepted on the evidence available then. All of it. A quite remarkable result for a theory that is wrong at its core, wouldn’t you say?
phoodoo,
I’m not a fan of moving posts to guano (as in: I can’t be bothered), but could I ask you (and everyone else) to try and keep the insults out of it? And less fucking swearing too! Thanks.
(A higher power may actually move this one!)
Interesting post at UD: Leading author Matastoshi Nei, Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and Director of the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics feels Evolution is mutation driven. Natural selection is secondary!
Nope, read more, type slower, phoodoo. I specifically had Red parent get one offspring.
If you had read olegt’s examples and explanations two days ago, you would have seen that olegt proved that the majority of times, the first black mutation it did not fix in the population (one of the other colors fixed) but that there is a measurable probability that the single black mutation will indeed fix by drift, sometimes in as few as one generation and often in many generations after drifting back and forth. The data’s all there, you can go back and review it any time.
The only reason I listed all 4 parents and all 4 child critters in this sequence is to prove that it is possible – without cheating and without any special lucky breaks – for a single mutation to become fixed in a population in one generation of descendants
This corrects your bizarre misunderstanding that a mutation spreading requires successive generations each adding one by one by one by one.
Does every parent automatically have only one child? Of course not, some have only one, some get “lucky” and have three … or twelve …
Does one parent pass on its specific mutation to exactly one child? Of course not.
Do you know anyone who has blue eyes? Do they have any brothers/sisters with blue eyes? Do you realize that their mom passed on her mutation for blue eyes to all her children?
Nope, read more, type slower, phoodoo. I did NOT assume any such thing; I specifically wrote that the the outcome could have gone a different way. But it can definitely go the way I listed the deaths/births. There’s more than one possible sequence leading to the outcome of all red, and more than one possible sequence leading to the outcome of all black. I gave one reasonable example, that’s all.
You can test it yourself with M&Ms or red/black p0ker chips. No assumptions needed, just simple probability in action.
Doesn’t matter which, we could both be dumber than magpies and we’d still be geniuses compared to the creationists and UDers.
phoodoo,
Evolution wasn’t MY idea!
That’s what you think I think? No wonder you think I’m stupid.
Give me some credit. Zero evidence? Ever cracked the spine on one of those big thick university-level textbooks?
What do you mean by ‘forward progression’? There is no requirement that evolution be progressive.
Lenski’s organisms have yet to return to their previous state. The original strain has been frozen, so we can check. Its genome is no longer in the living population, and there is no sign of it being returned to.
Why would an organism with perfectly good eyes benefit from light-sensitive feet? Or another ear in the hearing? A simple sense-test for any notion that you whip out in one of these rants: if it would be so great, why hasn’t the Designer given it to us?
It is apparent that, among animals for example, most innovations occurred quite early on in the different phyla (at a time when we would not have been able to distinguish them as phyla). Beyond environmental sensing, feeding and locomotion, all of which we do perfectly well already, there is no strong selective pressure for additional features, and no simple path by which they can be achieved NOW. But when organisms were simple blind wiggly tubes, having light sensitivity and control at the for’ard end, a system of bilateral development, anterior-posterior segmentation, and primitive paired appendages, would reasonably have been advantageous in that milieu. There is no real call for a 5th leg in vertebrates, for example. Especially finches, who have yet to get past 2.
LOL!
We? The Cornelius Hunters and Casey Luskins of this world throw you titbits from the scientific literature. I doubt you search it thoroughly on your own account. None of the papers I get chucked at me from this Confirmation Bias factory actually prove what these sponsors claim.
I’ll take that bet. Do you have the figures from 10 years ago? Why do you think ‘doubting Darwin’ is career suicide? You’d imagine at least one might take an internet pseudonym and start whistle-blowing. Is it down to The Stonecutters?
Explain in your own words what you think is interesting about this sort-of new book.
NOTE: do NOT repeat anything said by a UDer (Denyse/News/Barry/Casey etc).
But do feel free to acquire and read any of Dr. Nei’s scientific papers, and respond to them here with your own thoughts on his subject. Since you’re interested, there’s a 285-page book pdf by him available free, By the way his name is Masatoshi Nei; you have a typo in your spelling of his name that would make it difficult for you to search.
coldcoffee,
Mutationism has been around since 1900!
It has seen a resurgence recently. Larry Moran at Sandwalk is sympathetic, and had a series of guest posts by Arlin Stoltzfus on the topic. Mutation pressure is certainly an evolutionary force additional to NS. As are drift and recombination.
I have no idea beyond the review. He seems to claim Mutation is the main driver of evolution. This seems to sum his book:
In contrast to neo-Darwinism, mutation-driven evolution is capable of explaining real examples of evolution such as the evolution of olfactory receptors, sex-determination in animals, and the general scheme of hybrid sterility. In this sense the theory proposed is more realistic than its predecessors, and gives a more logical explanation of various evolutionary events.
The book you linked was published in 1975, would it be relevant to his current thoughts ?
His book apparently shows mutation is the driving force of evolution. Natural selection plays a second fiddle to mutation.
coldcoffee,
Fair enough; that is a viewpoint, though not a majority one. More typically ‘anti-Darwinian’ is the view that NS plays second fiddle to drift. Either way, taken together, mutation pressure and drift provide a jiggling, buffeting effect which renders evolution more likely than NS would alone. But reducing the role of NS is not the same as eliminating it. NS remains the only source of adaptation within the theory.
Link to Larry Moran at Sandwalk where he talks about mutationism and Nei, with links to his previous posts on the subject.
ETA Arlin Stoltzfus is the guest contributor who contributes the series of articles on mutationism.
phoodoo, you contradict yourself.
phoodoo, the child is the same as the parent (black). They are identical. There was no mutation.
Wrong again. This is how Joe Felsenstein counts generations. My method is different from Joe’s. However, his method and mine give practically the same results when the population is not too small.
That was just one possible scenario, and I have previously stressed that fixation in 1 generation is the shortest time possible, not the typical time. There are other scenarios where a black parent gives birth to a black child (gen 1) and the child gives birth to its own black child (gen 2) and so forth. In a typical scenario, fixation takes N generations in a population of N organisms. Not one.
You have absolutely zero basis for claiming that the number of generations for fixation is equal to the number of the observed population.
Wrong. I have written and run computer code that revealed precisely that.
Having run the code 100,000 times for a population of N=100, I found that the lone M&M took over the population 1038 times. The average number of generations in those runs was 98. These numbers are precisely what population genetics predicts: (1) the probability of fixation, starting with 1 organism out of N is 1/N and (2) the average number of generations to fixation is N.
This statement to me suggests you are not thinking about the proposed scenario for how novel features have arisen.
The idea is not that there is a need for anything, the idea is that first something arises randomly, and THEN natural selection either determines that this new mutation is either beneficial or at least not harmful, then it gets filtered more over time. So that very idea means you need a whole pool of new features constantly springing up, with which natural selection can work its magic.
So first we need tons of strange random anomalies cropping up, before we ever get to the stage of deciding if its useful or not. But where are these anomalies.? This anomalies are supposed to have created every body plan on earth. And yet they mysteriously never seem to crop up any more. This used to happen but now it doesn’t anymore?
Wouldn’t a third arm, or two brains be great for multi-tasking? Why no small mutations which could lead to this?
Phoodoo,
You might consider the most general case, which includes population size change. Start with a single sheet of paper. Write “A” on it. Then photocopy it – say 3 times. You now have 2 generations in total – parent and children, and the population is bigger. Write “A”, “B”, “C” on the copies to distinguish each child. Photocopy some or all of them. Each time you make a copy, add a letter next to the ones ‘inherited’ from the prior copy. You then have a unique ID for each individual which shows its full lineage. The number of letters on any sheet is equal to the number of generations from the original parent to it. If old copies remain in the population for a time, you will get a distribution of generation numbers (letter counts), and the population can grow or shrink, so each must be given its due weight according to the current total population size.
At the point “A”, “AA”, “AB” and “AC” are the entirety of the population, how many generations do you think have elapsed? None, 1, 2, 1.75, 3, or 4? I’d say 1.75. It’s got to be somewhere between 1 and 2, and nearer 2 than 1, no?
In fact the formula would appear to be totgens = f(1stgen) * 1 + f(2ndgen * 2) + f(3rdgen * 3) …
When A dies, f(1stgen) is zero and f(2ndgen) is 100%; the number of generations is then exactly 2. It’s also exactly 2 if A is still alive and AA has an offspring AAA – the maximum is 3, but is balanced by the minimum 1. The more 3rd generation offspring there are, and the more prior gens die, the more it shiifts.
So in, say, a mixed population of A, AA AB, AC plus a dozen offspring of AA (AAA, AAB, AAC, AAD etc) N would be 16, f(1) would be 1/16, f(2) would be 3/16 and f(3) 12/16.
=((1/16) * 1) + ((3/16) * 2) + ((12/16) * 3)
=2.685.
Any population has 3 ‘generation’ parameters: minimum, maximum, and mean. All of them must somehow track a series of copies, not just take a flattened view of total births and deaths.
We do have new physical features like lactose tolerance and Apo-A1 Milano. We don’t need to see new legs, new eyes, or a new complex body plan. Only uneducated Creationists with a cartoon version understanding of evolution would demand such a silly thing.
Sample output of runs in which a sole black MM took over a population of N=100.
Run 184: {29, 39, 31, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=9636; 89.28 generations.
Run 247: {44, 31, 24, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=11234; 107.22 generations.
Run 399: {33, 31, 35, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=4449; 45.69 generations.
Run 491: {33, 34, 32, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=6736; 66.96 generations.
Run 675: {32, 32, 35, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=20783; 204.98 generations.
Run 913: {30, 29, 40, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=14780; 153.76 generations.
Run 947: {31, 26, 42, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=13327; 140.08 generations.
Run 985: {25, 36, 38, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=4664; 46.93 generations.
Run 1109: {41, 32, 26, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=8827; 96.19 generations.
Run 1483: {40, 28, 31, 1} at t=0; {0, 0, 0, 100} at t=16187; 177.3 generations.
One can see that (1) a takeover happens roughly 1 time out of 100 and (2) it takes roughly 100 generations (as defined by Felsenstein) to achieve that.
You seem to have grasped the essentials of evolutionary theory quite well.
All the really heavy lifting with regard to cellular chemistry seems to have happened in the two or three billion years prior to the arrival of eukaryotes and symbiogenesis. With multicellularity and local rules of growth and development, even single nucleotide substitution can result in widespread changes in the phenotype (achondroplasia, for instance) but it seems that the more specialized a species of organism becomes, the less suited it is as raw material for further evolutionary change if a new niche opens up or it’s current niche disappears.
phoodoo,
Why – if these are such great ideas – have we not been equipped with such features By Design? Why is Selection supposed to come up with things that are better than current Design? And by what criteria (other than your bizarre imagination) would they be better?
There is no obvious reason for massive numbers of ‘hopeful monsters’ to be thrown up in order for evolution to remain true. There is no requirement for current organisms to evolve further in order to confirm that they evolved in the past, and developmental reasons why much of animal form has become fixed, with lots of tinkering about a few basic variants – mammal, fish, bird etc.
Even if such plasticity existed (in, for example, the early Cambrian) I submit you would have been hard pressed to identify their future usefulness without the present benefit of hindsight. Had you and I had this discussion then, with subsequent evolution yet to happen, would either of us expect to be able to identify the founder of all the vertebrates, for example, from the rest of its tuby brethren? “See those patches? – they’ll be lensed eyes one day, me lad. That dorsal rod a support for fish and fisherman alike”. Nah. It would be one species among millions.