evolution help !?

Question

Suppose that within a population of frogs, 120 of a total of 480 exhibit an eye colour which is controlled by a recessive allele. In the next generation, 182 out of 506 frogs exhibited the same trait. Show the steps involved in determining whether evolution has occurred.

Answer 1

You can use the Hardy-Weinberg Theory to show that the population is undergoing evolution. According to the theory, populations not undergoing evolution will have the same frequency of alleles from generation to generation. The 2 equations you will need to show that the population is in fact evolving are
p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 (p^2 are the percentage homozygous dominant, 2pq is the percentage heterozygous, and q^2 are the percentage homozygous recessive, think of 1 equaling 100%)
and
p + q = 1
p = the frequency of the dominant allele and q = the frequency of the recessive allele in that population
Since the trait for eye color that you're dealing with is recessive, these individuals are homozygous for q, so q^2 in the first equation equals the percentage of frogs having the recessive trait for eye color. Figure out the percentage of frogs in each generation exhibiting this trait.
Generation 1: 120/480=.25
Generation 2: 182/506=.36
So in generation 1, q^2=.25, so q=.5 (.5^2 = .25)
in generation 2, q^2=.36, so q=.6 (.6^2=.36)
The frequency of the recessive allele is increasing in the population so this population would be undergoing evolution. You can also plug these values into the 2nd equation to show that the dominant alleles is becoming less frequent as well. (decreased from .5 to .4)

Answer 2

In your other post
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjtZC283vbgsqCP1emUzbCfzy6IX?qid=20061221091158AAypcTd
Keith P gave an absolutely outstanding answer to your question about the zebras. The same technique applies to frogs.

In short, in this population, the propagation of the recessive gene seems to have gone from 25% to 36%. So the gene at first glance seems to be propagating into the population (the definition of evolution).

--- to chas_chas ---

Evolution is just slow change in a species due to the effects of environment. That's all. Pure and simple.

Natural selection is the *mechanism* by which evolution occurs ... advantageous traits propagate into a population. That's all. Pure and simple.

Where creationists and 'evolutionists' disagree is not on whether evolution occurs. Even creationists concede that species evolve (change) ... and they refer to this as 'microevolution'. Where they disagree is on whether natural selection/evolution can result in speciation (what the creationists call 'macroevolution'). 'Evolutionists' say that the only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is TIME. Huge time can produce huge changes ... so if two subpopulations of a species are temporarily genetically isolated for long enough, they will change in very different directions, and become permanently genetically isolated ... new species. That's it. Pure and simple.

This is the first time I've heard a creationist say that natural selection is true, but evolution is false.

Answer 3

This is natural selection.
Natural selection is sometimes called evolution (by evolutionists trying to kid people that evolution happens).

goo-to-you evolution (aka neo-Darwinian evolution) is a hypothesis that new information can arise via genetic mutations. No such mutations have ever been observed - quite the contrary in fact - mutations are bad news.