Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: Tusko
Post Volume: Total: 904,369 Year: 1,250/14,231 Month: 174/1,076 Week: 283/234 Day: 49/86 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."
Percy
Member
Posts: 21346
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 61 of 2806 (898054)
09-18-2022 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 9:47 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman writes:
Percy:
Brilliant response, Professor Kleinman. Bravissimo!

There was one part I didn't get. Could you explain this equation from the analysis section:


Thanks a bunch!
Sorry, I do not know how to format the equation in dBCodes,...
Oh, Professor Kleinman, you are so funny. To someone of your intellect dBCodes and Latex equations are mere children's toys.
...but let's call it equation [3]. Their problem is that they are assuming that biological evolution obeys an exponential (or exponential-like) distribution function.
It's a brilliancy. You offered the paper Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations as if supporting your views when it actually is just an example of how not to do it, then tell us the answer is in The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. Could you please contrast this equation with the one above and explain why this is the proper equation for the probability of a beneficial mutation:
Thank you so much, Professor Kleinman. You're the best!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 9:47 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 62 of 2806 (898065)
09-18-2022 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
09-18-2022 2:05 AM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
Experimental evidence shows you are incorrect.
PaulK:
Really? You’ve already misrepresented Lenski once.
Kleinman:
That is why the Lenski variants evolve more slowly than the Kishony variants. Lenski energy limits his populations which slows the growth of the individual variant populations.
PaulK:
That is not what the Lenski paper you quoted says. Lenski argues that in asexually reproducing life, large populations slow adaption because more advantageous mutations are available.
Lenski's Team:
When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix. This phenomenon of interference arises from competition between mutations of different strengths as well as competition between mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds.




Perhaps I should have include this part of the Lenski's Team statement to put it in better context for you.
Kleinman:
When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix. This phenomenon of interference arises from competition between mutations of different strengths as well as competition between mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds. Previous work has explored each of these effects in isolation, but the way they combine to influence the dynamics of adaptation remains largely unknown.
I added the bold face. Lenski's Team doesn't understand why competition slows adaptation. That's why I wrote the following and you incorrectly responed:
Kleinman:
Kishony's colonies easily achieve population sizes of a billion or more. That size population gives a reasonable probability that all possible mutations will occur on some member of that colony when a mutation rate is 1e-9.
PaulK:
And, per Lenski that should slow adaption.

The Lenski Team knows that competition slows adaptation, they see that in their experiment, they just don't know why. Do you think that the ability to form larger colony size slows adaptation? Do you think that doubling the population size doubles the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 11:20 AM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 63 of 2806 (898067)
09-18-2022 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 10:54 AM


Re: Video not available
quote:
I added the bold face.
Which shows the question Lenski is addressing.
quote:
Lenski's Team doesn't understand why competition slows adaptation. That's why I wrote the following and you incorrectly responed:
You’re arrogantly blustering without understanding. Adaption is not simply generating mutations.
quote:
The Lenski Team knows that competition slows adaptation, they see that in their experiment, they just don't know why
You are wrong. Utterly utterly wrong. As you would know if you read the paper. As you would know if you actually understood the quote.
quote:
Do you think that the ability to form larger colony size slows adaptation?
Of course not. I agree with Lenski’s explanation.
quote:
Do you think that doubling the population size doubles the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring?
No, although if the probability is low it will come close.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 10:54 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 64 of 2806 (898068)
09-18-2022 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
09-18-2022 9:34 AM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
Sorry, I do not know how to format the equation in dBCodes,...
Percy:
Oh, Professor Kleinman, you are so funny. To someone of your intellect dBCodes and Latex equations are mere children's toys.

You seem to be good at formatting, I'll leave that to you. You do seem to be having some difficulty with physics and math. For example, you seem to think that populations are competing for space. There is plenty of space in the Sahara desert but very little available energy for populations to use (no food).
Kleinman:
...but let's call it equation [3]. Their problem is that they are assuming that biological evolution obeys an exponential (or exponential-like) distribution function.
Percy:
It's a brilliancy. You offered the paper Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations as if supporting your views when it actually is just an example of how not to do it, then tell us the answer is in The basic science and *********** of random mutation and natural selection. Could you please contrast this equation with the one above and explain why this is the proper equation for the probability of a beneficial mutation:

Thank you so much, Professor Kleinman. You're the best!

Percy has posted equation (5) from my paper:
The basic science and *********** of random mutation and natural selection
And wants to know the difference between that equation and equation [3] from the Lenski team paper.
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations
Equation [3] from the Lenski Team paper is a probability distribution equation. Equation (5) from my paper is an "at least one" probability calculation. That is, what is the probability of a particular mutation occurring at least once in a particular population as a function of mutation rate and population size.
Perhaps you should try to figure out what the random trial is and what the possible outcomes are for that equation [3]. I hope that helps clarify the math to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-18-2022 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-21-2022 10:53 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 65 of 2806 (898069)
09-18-2022 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
09-18-2022 11:20 AM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
I added the bold face.
PaulK:
Which shows the question Lenski is addressing.

They address this question but fail to answer it. If you think they do, feel free to post a quote from their paper that gives the correct explanation and law of physics that justifies their answer. You won't because they didn't.
Kleinman:
Lenski's Team doesn't understand why competition slows adaptation. That's why I wrote the following and you incorrectly responed:
PaulK:
You’re arrogantly blustering without understanding. Adaption is not simply generating mutations.

Don't be silly. I know the difference between modification and adaptation. Not every genetic modification is an adaptation.
Kleinman:
The Lenski Team knows that competition slows adaptation, they see that in their experiment, they just don't know why
PaulK:
You are wrong. Utterly utterly wrong. As you would know if you read the paper. As you would know if you actually understood the quote.

Feel free to post the quote from their paper that explains why competition slows adaptation. You won't because they didn't explain. The reason is very simple. Less fit variants are consuming resources that the more fit variants could use to increase their population size. The more fit variant must first drive the less fit variants to extinction in order for their population to increase in size and improve the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring. It is a simple first law of thermodynamics process and an "at least one" probability problem.
Kleinman:
Do you think that the ability to form larger colony size slows adaptation?
PaulK:
Of course not. I agree with Lenski’s explanation.

Post Lenski's explanation.
Kleinman:
Do you think that doubling the population size doubles the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring?
PaulK:
No, although if the probability is low it will come close.

Good! Do you think that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 12:11 PM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 66 of 2806 (898071)
09-18-2022 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 11:44 AM


Re: Video not available
quote:
They address this question but fail to answer it. If you think they do, feel free to post a quote from their paper that gives the correct explanation and law of physics that justifies their answer. You won't because they didn't.
I fully grant that they don’t make the silly mistake of appealing to the laws of physics when that would only serve to obfuscate the issues.
And I really don’t think that their model is amenable to quoting either.
quote:
Don't be silly. I know the difference between modification and adaptation. Not every genetic modification is an adaptation.
You know that adaption requires fixation? Really?
quote:
Feel free to post the quote from their paper that explains why competition slows adaptation.
They don’t make that blanket claim. They only claim that competition between beneficial mutations slows adaption. Which would seem intuitively obvious - which is why their contribution is to produce a better model of the effects.
quote:
Do you think that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change?
I don’t see any reason why it could not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:44 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 67 of 2806 (898074)
09-18-2022 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
09-18-2022 12:11 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
They address this question but fail to answer it. If you think they do, feel free to post a quote from their paper that gives the correct explanation and law of physics that justifies their answer. You won't because they didn't.
PaulK:
I fully grant that they don’t make the silly mistake of appealing to the laws of physics when that would only serve to obfuscate the issues.

And I really don’t think that their model is amenable to quoting either.

Of course you won't post their explanation because they have none.
Kleinman:
Don't be silly. I know the difference between modification and adaptation. Not every genetic modification is an adaptation.
PaulK:
You know that adaption requires fixation? Really?

OF course, adaptation does not require fixation. The Kishony experiment clearly demonstrates that.
Kleinman:
Feel free to post the quote from their paper that explains why competition slows adaptation.
PaulK:
They don’t make that blanket claim. They only claim that competition between beneficial mutations slows adaption. Which would seem intuitively obvious - which is why their contribution is to produce a better model of the effects.

Do you understand that the beneficial mutation that gives the greatest improve in fitness fixes first, the beneficial mutation that gives the second greatest improvement in fitness fixes second and so on. But each adaptation/fixation cycle requires the most fit variant to drive the less fit variants to extinction before the next beneficial mutation will have a reasonable probability of occurring on that variant. It is all about conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics, which apparently obfuscates this process for you.
Kleinman:
Do you think that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change?
PaulK:
I don’t see any reason why it could not.

You understood that the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to complementary events (doubling population size does not double the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring). Now you need to learn that the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring. What rule of probability theory applies to the computation of the joint probability of two or more random events occurring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 12:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 1:07 PM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 68 of 2806 (898075)
09-18-2022 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 12:47 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Of course you won't post their explanation because they have none.
You are making no sense. The way that Lenski addresses the question of how competition between “mutations of different strengths” interacts with competiton between “mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds” is to construct a model. Which is what I said. How you can expect this to be an “answer” that is readily quotable I have no idea.
quote:
OF course, adaptation does not require fixation. The Kishony experiment clearly demonstrates that.
Of course it will in any practical situation. Even a mega plate has finite resources.
quote:
Do you understand that the beneficial mutation that gives the greatest improve in fitness fixes first, the beneficial mutation that gives the second greatest improvement in fitness fixes second and so on
That is silly. How could that reliably occur?
quote:
Now you need to learn that the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring
That has nothing to do with how a sequence of microevolutionary events can lead to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 12:47 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 1:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 69 of 2806 (898077)
09-18-2022 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
09-18-2022 1:07 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
Of course you won't post their explanation because they have none.
PaulK:
You are making no sense. The way that Lenski addresses the question of how competition between “mutations of different strengths” interacts with competiton between “mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds” is to construct a model. Which is what I said. How you can expect this to be an “answer” that is readily quotable I have no idea.

It's really not that complicated. You have a population consisting of a variety of different with different reproductive fitness competing for a limited amount of energy (food). The most effective variant able to reproduce will drive all the rest of the less fit variants to extinction over generations. That's how biological competition works.
Kleinman:
OF course, adaptation does not require fixation. The Kishony experiment clearly demonstrates that.
PaulK:
Of course it will in any practical situation. Even a mega plate has finite resources.

That's probably true. But the carrying capacity of a given environment for bacteria and other microbes will be many orders of magnitude larger than that for say, humans and chimpanzees.
Kleinman:
Do you understand that the beneficial mutation that gives the greatest improve in fitness fixes first, the beneficial mutation that gives the second greatest improvement in fitness fixes second and so on
PaulK:
That is silly. How could that reliably occur?

It's what the Lenski Team measured in their experiment. The number of generations to fixation has been increasing ever since the beginning of the experiment. This shouldn't be surprising to you. Why would a less fit variant fix before a more fit variant? This is about relative reproductive fitness.
Kleinman:
Now you need to learn that the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring
PaulK:
That has nothing to do with how a sequence of microevolutionary events can lead to macroevolution.

Are you one of those that think that mutations aren't random occurrences? If so, tell us on which member of Kishony's or Lenski's population the next adaptive mutation will occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 1:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 1:56 PM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 70 of 2806 (898080)
09-18-2022 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 1:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
It's really not that complicated. You have a population consisting of a variety of different with different reproductive fitness competing for a limited amount of energy (food). The most effective variant able to reproduce will drive all the rest of the less fit variants to extinction over generations. That's how biological competition works.
Quantifying the effects, however, is not so simple - and that was what Lenski said had not been done and what Lenski set out to do.
quote:
That's probably true. But the carrying capacity of a given environment for bacteria and other microbes will be many orders of magnitude larger than that for say, humans and chimpanzees.
Which is why adaptive change in the real world relies on fixation.
quote:
It's what the Lenski Team measured in their experiment. The number of generations to fixation has been increasing ever since the beginning of the experiment. This shouldn't be surprising to you. Why would a less fit variant fix before a more fit variant? This is about relative reproductive fitness.
You are making no sense again. We are talking about clinal reproduction. If the two mutations occur in the same lineage then the one that occurred first should reach fixation first. If they occurred in different lineages the one that fixes the first will have eliminated the other, so the second will never reach fixation.
quote:
Are you one of those that think that mutations aren't random occurrences?
No. But please go on, explain how the fact that “the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring” prevents microevolutionary events adding up to macroevolution.
(You won’t.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 1:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 71 of 2806 (898086)
09-18-2022 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
09-18-2022 1:56 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
It's really not that complicated. You have a population consisting of a variety of different with different reproductive fitness competing for a limited amount of energy (food). The most effective variant able to reproduce will drive all the rest of the less fit variants to extinction over generations. That's how biological competition works.
PaulK:
Quantifying the effects, however, is not so simple - and that was what Lenski said had not been done and what Lenski set out to do.

Here's how you do the math for a single fixation/adaptation cycle
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment
Kleinman:
That's probably true. But the carrying capacity of a given environment for bacteria and other microbes will be many orders of magnitude larger than that for say, humans and chimpanzees.
PaulK:
Which is why adaptive change in the real world relies on fixation.

How many fixation/adaptation cycles do you think humans and chimpanzees have done?
Kleinman:
It's what the Lenski Team measured in their experiment. The number of generations to fixation has been increasing ever since the beginning of the experiment. This shouldn't be surprising to you. Why would a less fit variant fix before a more fit variant? This is about relative reproductive fitness.
PaulK:
You are making no sense again. We are talking about clinal reproduction. If the two mutations occur in the same lineage then the one that occurred first should reach fixation first. If they occurred in different lineages the one that fixes the first will have eliminated the other, so the second will never reach fixation.

Do you mean "clonal" not "clinal"? Lenski's experiment operates by the most fit variant with the previous beneficial mutation fixes and as that subset accumulates replications over generations, the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members increases. This occurs in a sequential manner. The probability of two or more adaptive mutations occurring in a non-sequential manner requires many orders larger population than Lenski allows for in his experiment. This is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Kleinman:
Are you one of those that think that mutations aren't random occurrences?
PaulK:
No. But please go on, explain how the fact that “the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring” prevents microevolutionary events adding up to macroevolution.
(You won’t.).

Sure I will. This is best demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. Watch this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas&t=5s&ab_chann...
Kishony correctly recognizes that each adaptive mutation requires about a billion replications. Each time some variant gets an adaptive mutation, it must form a new colony which must achieve a population size sufficient for there to be a reasonable probability for the next adaptive mutation to occur on one of its members. This is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities. I published the math that predicted the behavior of his experiment years before the experiment was performed. Here is that paper:
The basic science and *********** of random mutation and natural selection
Equations (12,13) show how you apply the multiplication rule to compute the joint probability for a lineage to accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. I do not take credit for being the first to understand this fundamental principle of biological evolutionary adaptation. Edward Tatum wrote about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. Edward Tatum wrote this:
Edward Tatum – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org
Edward Tatum:
In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics – such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 3:50 PM Kleinman has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20832
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 72 of 2806 (898089)
09-18-2022 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 4:21 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman writes:
The Physics of Darwinian Evolution
I'm curious about why you keep bringing up Darwin. That's like bringing up the Wright Brothers in a discussion about twenty-first-century aviation.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 4:21 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20832
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 73 of 2806 (898090)
09-18-2022 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 7:56 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman writes:
It is strange that you would think that physics, math, and experimental evidence are bullshit.
It's the garbage-in, garbage-out principle. Whatever you put into the front end of the bull, the same thing is going to come out the back end.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 7:56 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:07 PM ringo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 74 of 2806 (898091)
09-18-2022 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 3:22 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
How many fixation/adaptation cycles do you think humans and chimpanzees have done?
I think that sexual reproduction significantly complicates the issue. There is no need for mutations to occur in the same lineage,
quote:
Do you mean "clonal" not "clinal"? Lenski's experiment operates by the most fit variant with the previous beneficial mutation fixes and as that subset accumulates replications over generations, the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members increases. This occurs in a sequential manner.
Yes, I meant clonal. And the auto “correct” feature insisted on changing it to “clinal”.
However your reply has nothing to do with your assertion that the most beneficial mutation would fix first, followed by the second most beneficial.
quote:
Kishony correctly recognizes that each adaptive mutation requires about a billion replications. Each time some variant gets an adaptive mutation, it must form a new colony which must achieve a population size sufficient for there to be a reasonable probability for the next adaptive mutation to occur on one of its members. This is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.
That seems to have more to do with clonal reproduction. And even then it only tells us that a sequence of microevolutionary events will take time. Not that they cannot add up to a macro evolutionary event.
quote:
Equations (12,13) show how you apply the multiplication rule to compute the joint probability for a lineage to accumulate a set of adaptive mutations.
Your equations do not seem to offer any reason why a number of microevolutionary events cannot add up to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 3:22 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 75 of 2806 (898094)
09-18-2022 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
09-18-2022 3:43 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
The Physics of Darwinian Evolution
ringo:
I'm curious about why you keep bringing up Darwin. That's like bringing up the Wright Brothers in a discussion about twenty-first-century aviation.

What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong? Do you think Darwin got biological evolutionary competition and descent with modification wrong? If so, show your physics and math.
Kleinman:
It is strange that you would think that physics, math, and experimental evidence are bullshit.
ringo:
It's the garbage-in, garbage-out principle. Whatever you put into the front end of the bull, the same thing is going to come out the back end.

At least you have some idea of what a conservation principle is. Now, only if you could figure out how to apply it to Darwinian Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 09-18-2022 3:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 09-18-2022 9:32 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 09-19-2022 11:43 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023