Hey evolutionists, look over here

Now that I have your attention, I need your help with something.
In AP Environmental Science we are learning about the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. Allow me some examples;

This creates a paradox, which deeply confused me because that's not supposed to happen in science. They then tried to correct their own paradox by outlining the circumstances under which evolution does NOT occur;

1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population

It is impossible to meet most (if not all) of these criteria. We have solved nothing. We have said that all species are stable, which creates a paradox if evolution occurs. But then we have tried to correct that paradox by saying that evolution is always occurring in all species. This is silly and it makes no sense.

Next question;

STOP RIGHT THERE
This is the entire point of sexual reproduction; that there is variety in the population of the species. Do slight changes in this variety really constitute evolution? If so, where do we draw this at asexual reproduction; mutations apply to the individual while evolution applies to the population. And if evolutions applies to the population of a species, where do we draw the line at the divergence or branching of a species?

There's also some stuff on the Weinberg Hardy equilibrium equation in here but I'll get to that later because it's getting late.

Thanks in advance :3

 

If you're really the top of your AP Biology class, you should at least know that reproduction makes every last bit of difference. It's 100% necessary for the proliferation and amplification of the mutations that make up a macroevolution. Meiosis and mitosis during early development open the possibilities of mutations, which as we all know leads to microevolution.

Slight changes are microevolution. When you compile a lot of microevolutions, you get macroevolution, and that's when you get species differentiation. That's why you can have different breeds of dogs and cats: they're different by some allele differences, but not an entire macroevolution, which would make them different species entirely.

Anyway, back on topic. I can see where your confusion is coming from. From what I can see, you're mixing up what "stability" is. Stability doesn't mean that no new or altered genes can enter the gene pool, it simply means that the rate that they enter at is low enough as to keep the population from collapsing (species differentiation, for example, would cause them to be unable to reproduce; if the changes to the gene pool happen slowly over time, the entire group will adapt to the gene if it's favorable, and as they conform to the various favorable microevolutions, they will macroevolve together). If you use that definition of "stability," the theory makes a lot more sense.

 

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a model used to explain how the laws of Mendel influence the allele and genotype frequency, as far as sexual recombination is concerned. When other processes occur, which they do (mutation for example), then the equilibrium is not completely applicable. It only works for "ideal" populations so to speak.

That being said, it is still a useful "zero model" to test the impact of those other factors that can alter the genetic structure of populations.