|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I think you mean to say that mutations are only beneficial in the context of environmental selection conditions. Do you think that chimps and humans have the same reproductive fitness in the environment where chimps live? Kleinman:There are about 1.5 billion people living in Africa. Why only 300,000 chimps? Some chimps live in Senegal but there are over 17 million humans living there. Some chimps live in Tanzania but there are about 63 million humans living there. What mutations do humans have that enable the to have this difference in reproductive fitness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:You are right, evolution does happen and the mutation rate is not the significant variable in the process. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that HIV has a very high mutation rate but still cannot evolve efficiently to 3-drug combination therapy. The mathematical limitation of this evolutionary process is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So it's hard to figure out what you're trying to accomplish here. You are right, evolution does happen and the mutation rate is not the significant variable in the process."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: When the question is so vague it can’t be answered the silliness is definitely with the asker. I don’t notice you answering it either. Nor do I notice you giving any reason why microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Kleinman writes:
Biological evolutionary competition (Darwinian competition) is a conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) process.
What physical process isn't? Is your grand contribution to biology the rather obvious observation that resources are limited? If so, you are a bit late to the game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes:
You are right, evolution does happen and the mutation rate is not the significant variable in the process.
The mutation rate is significant. Why wouldn't it be?
This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that HIV has a very high mutation rate but still cannot evolve efficiently to 3-drug combination therapy. What is demonstrated by single drug therapy? Does mutation rate matter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes:
Do you think that chimps and humans have the same reproductive fitness in the environment where chimps live?
Do you think a polar bear is well adapted to the Arctic? Do you think a polar bear is well adapted to the Sahara desert?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
I think you mean to say that mutations are only beneficial in the context of environmental selection conditions. I prefer that you don't try to tell me what I meant. You cannot read minds. It isn't just the environment as an absolute. What matters in the environment depends on what you use and what you do. That's why I described it in terms of ways of living.
Do you think that chimps and humans have the same reproductive fitness in the environment where chimps live? I don't think there are many humans who want to live in the trees with the chimps. And I don't see chimps training to be plumbers. You cannot make the comparison that you are suggesting.
There are about 1.5 billion people living in Africa. Why only 300,000 chimps? And the number of ants greatly exceeds the number of humans. You are making inappropriate comparisons.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Didn't you say you could add up microevolution changes to get a macroevolutionary change? I'm asking you what microevolutionary changes occurred to give the reproductive advantage that humans have over chimps. What's so vague about that? You won't even tell us how many microevolutionary changes have occurred to give the variants that can grow in the high concentration drug region of the Kishony experiment. Kleinman:Biological evolutionary modification isn't a first law of thermodynamics process, it is a second law of thermodynamics process. That process is not conservative. Somebody had to explain to Lenski why biological evolutionary competition slows biological evolutionary adaptation. He's limiting his resources. Kishony doesn't limit the resources as much so his populations evolve far more rapidly but it still takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation. Why don't you show us how the addition rule explains the reason it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation?
Kleinman:There are humans living both in the Arctic (about 4 million) and the Sahara (2.5 million) but no chimps in either environment. What adaptive mutations do humans have in order to survive and reproduce in these environments that chimps don't have? Edited by Kleinman, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Now nwr thinks ants are our closest biological relatives. Very strange way of thinking!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I said that I saw no reason why they couldn’t. And obviously you can’t either.
quote: That isn’t what you asked me at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes:
Didn't you say you could add up microevolution changes to get a macroevolutionary change? I'm asking you what microevolutionary changes occurred to give the reproductive advantage that humans have over chimps.
Compare the human and chimp genomes. Find the differences.
You won't even tell us how many microevolutionary changes have occurred to give the variants that can grow in the high concentration drug region of the Kishony experiment. Compare the descendants' genomes to the ancestral genomes. Find the differences.
Biological evolutionary modification isn't a first law of thermodynamics process, it is a second law of thermodynamics process. That process is not conservative. The process of running a refrigerator is a 2LoT process, and yet it moves along just fine. Since there is ample energy available to biology to drive negative entropy it isn't a problem.
Somebody had to explain to Lenski why biological evolutionary competition slows biological evolutionary adaptation. He's limiting his resources. Kishony doesn't limit the resources as much so his populations evolve far more rapidly but it still takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation. Why don't you show us how the addition rule explains the reason it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation? The error you are making is in assuming every adaptation is as stringent as that seen in either the Lenski or Kishony experiment. There is no reason to think that the number of mutations necessary for an arboreal ape to adapt to a savanna is as few as the number of mutations that can confer antibiotic resistance or aerobic citrate metabolism. Not all adaptations are equal.
What adaptive mutations do humans have in order to survive and reproduce in these environments that chimps don't have? Compare the human and chimp genomes. Find the differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I'm not the one claiming that humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor. You still haven't shown how every human alive today has 200,000 beneficial mutations that give the reproductive advantage over chimps. You have about 100 billion replications, 99% of which have occurred in the last 10,000 years for that kind of genetic transformation. You need a much larger envelope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: I'm not the one claiming that humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor. You don't even have to accept common ancestry in order to stumble on the stupendously obvious answer. Do you accept that chimps and humans are physically different because the sequence of their genomes are different? If yes, THERE IS YOUR ANSWER.
You still haven't shown how every human alive today has 200,000 beneficial mutations that give the reproductive advantage over chimps. Are you aware that mutations happen? It's really a thing. Even more, we have mountains of evidence that the same process that produces mutations in both chimps and humans right now, in the present, is the same process that produced the differences between their genomes through evolution and common ancestry. Do you understand the difference between transitions and transversions? Transitions vs transversions What we observe is that transitions are much more common than transversions due to the fact that transitions occur between bases that are more similar to each other. We can also measure the bias towards transitions in real time. When we compare the rates of transitions and transversions between the human and chimp genomes it is an exact match to the observed rate at which these mutations occur. Human Genetics Confirms Mutations as the Drivers of Diversity and Evolution – EvoGrad
You have about 100 billion replications, 99% of which have occurred in the last 10,000 years for that kind of genetic transformation. You need a much larger envelope.
The mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. With a constant population size of 100,000 that would be 5 million mutations per generation. Over 5 million years you would get 200,000 generations with a generation time of 25 years. That would be 1 trillion mutations that happened in the human population with just a population of 100,000 people. We only needed to keep 20 million of those mutations, or 1 out of every 50,000 mutations. I really don't see a problem with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Sure mutations happen. You just have to learn the accounting rules for a lineage to accumulate a set of beneficial mutations. You understand that competition is a first law of thermodynamics process. Do you understand that mutations are random events? And that accumulation of beneficial mutations on a lineage is a Markov process where the joint probability of beneficial mutations occurring is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities. That is a second law of thermodynamics process. That's why your back-of-the-envelope calculation of humans having 200,000 beneficial mutations is wrong. You are using a simple neutral evolution calculation and assuming that 10% of the mutations are beneficial based on rank speculation. Why don't you learn how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024