Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Kleinman:

---

DNA evolution is DNA evolution.

Taq:

---

So how does the evolution of DNA in the Kishony and Lenski experiments apply to DNA evolution in human evolution?

---

---

The accumulation of mutations works the exact same way in haploid, diploid, or polyploid genomes. They all do this by a Markov process random walk. For diploid (or polyploid) sexual replicators, it complicates the math a little because you have two (or more) sets of chromosomes being replicated and recombination occurring. But recombination without error cannot create new alleles.When you start with the assumption that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor, you somehow have to account for the reproductive fitness differences between the two replicators. The problem for those that believe this is that you have very few replications to do this accounting problem. In all of history, there have been about 100 billion humans on earth and 99% have lived in the last 10,000 years. Every replication gives two sets of chromosome replications. That means you have only about two billion replications to work with. If you assume a mutation rate of 1e-9, you have only on average about 2 mutations at every site in the genome somewhere in that one billion population. You simply don't have sufficient population size to get a lineage that accumulates more than a small number of adaptive mutations. Under the best of circumstances, Kishony's experiment takes 5 billion replications of a lineage to accumulate 5 adaptive mutations. That one billion who lived before 10,000 years ago aren't even in a single lineage. The multiplication rule of probabilities kills the notion of universal common descent.

Not from a guy who calculates that, "There aren't enough transitional fossils," and then forgets to consider the rate of fossilization. That's creationist thinking at its best (pretty bad).

Edited by ringo, .

Imagine the hubris it takes to think you have overturned all the science of the last 150 years in a field you have no education or training in. Stunning.

Kleinman:

---

Do you want to learn introductory probability theory?

ringo:

---

Not from a guy who calculates that, "There aren't enough transitional fossils," and then forgets to consider the rate of fossilization. That's creationust thinking at its best (pretty bad).

---

---

Did I write what you put in quotes? If so, point to which message. What I said was you should have vast numbers of transitional fossils because each adaptational transitional mutation requires about a billion replications. And if you don't want to learn probability theory from me (and I wish you would make up your mind, first you want me to teach you and now you don't), YouTube has some good, easy-to-follow lectures on the subject from Khan Academy or Dr. Leonard. When you do that, you will find that my math is correct. Sorry to burst your bubble but you are not related to chimpanzees. But you will learn how anti-microbial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

So, you think there ARE enough transitional fossils? And I replied that we do. You're saying that we "should" have a lot suggests that you think we don't have enough.But you don't seem to be considering the fact that fossilization is very rare. You said you wanted to teach and I pointed out that you don't seem to be trying very hard to teach. I didn't say I wanted you to teach. I have never thought you had any ability to teach. I'm sure the chimpanzees don't brag about being related to you either. But you don't get to pick your relatives.

There's a good Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quote for that, but I simply could not find it.The HHGTHG observation was the ape-descendant humans rarely invite their cousins to dinner (depicted in the BBC TV series with the caption "This Never Happens").So it is indeed not the chimpanzees who would brag about our relatedness, but rather it's the humans who wish to deny it.

Kleinman:

---

Did I write what you put in quotes?

ringo:

---

So, you think there ARE enough transitional fossils?

---

---

Only those that don't understand that it takes huge populations for each transitional adaptation mutation will argue that there ARE enough transitional fossils. Since you don't want to learn how to do the math of DNA adaptational evolution, try to understand that the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments demonstrate that it requires a billion replications for each SINGLE transitional adaptational mutation. And that is in just a single lineage. Every lineage on a different evolutionary trajectory requires a billion replications for each transitional adaptational step.

Kleinman:

---

What I said was you should have vast numbers of transitional fossils....

ringo:

---

And I replied that we do. You're saying that we "should" have a lot suggests that you think we don't have enough.
​
But you don't seem to be considering the fact that fossilization is very rare.

---

---

Try to understand the proportions. How many T Rex existed? How many T Rex fossils exist today? Then tell us how many transitional fossils you have that demonstrate reptiles evolving into birds or fish evolving into mammals. Then put that into the context that it takes a billion replications for each of the lineages for each single mutational transitional step. This is a physical and mathematical fact of life that you are refusing to try and understand or accept. If you and others like PaulK want to argue that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change, you also need to learn to add up the population size needed to make such an evolutionary transition. 100 microevolutionary changes will take 100 billion replications, 1000 microevolutionary changes will take 1000 billion replications, and this is just for each lineage on its own particular evolutionary trajectory.

You have to admire his ability to stick to his schtick of not saying much specific while telling people that if they had any intelligence they'd figure it out for themselves. He ignores and can't detect mockery, so I'll abandon that approach.--Percy

Percy:

---

You have to admire his ability to stick to his schtick of not saying much specific while telling people that if they had any intelligence they'd figure it out for themselves. He ignores and can't detect mockery, so I'll abandon that approach.

---

You will have to forgive me if I have difficulty distinguishing mockery from a serious argument when carrying on a discussion with people that think that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards.

Where's the math? All you did was provide a link to a paper. According to the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

So if you want to make your points with math then you need to present the math, not just provide a link. I see no such proof in your message. If you believe Haldane's model should be modified for each particular case then please describe the various processes of modification and how one selects which to use according to case. Please describe how Haldane's model should be modified for the Lenski case. Instead of providing a link to a paper, please describe the model adaptation process yourself and use the link as a supporting reference. Again, instead of providing a link to a paper, please describe the model adaptation process yourself and use the link as a supporting reference. Please show us your work where the same result is produced. One might even say they're competing for resources. You're the one mentioning m-thematics for the first time, you tell me.--Percy

I hope so or his model would have died in publication. Energy conservation is the law.What does this mean to you? Why did you feel it necessary to point out this obvious requirement in a well established paper? I do not see where this was in dispute.As far as this entire universe goes energy is the limiting factor in everything. Shouldn't surprise anyone that biology has to follow the same regime.What are you trying to establish with this discussion? What is it you are trying to accomplish?

Percy:

---

Well what are you waiting for? Let's bring on the math and have some fun, Professor Kleinman.

Kleinman:

---

OK, let's start with the math of competition. Haldane's model in his "cost of natural selection" paper is a good starting point. You can find that paper here:
JSTOR: Access Check

Percy:

---

Where's the math? All you did was provide a link to a paper. According to the Forum Guidelines:
​
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
​
So if you want to make your points with math then you need to present the math, not just provide a link.

---

---

---

Fair enough, I'll walk you through all the math. Start with the link above to Haldane's Cost of Natural Selection Paper.
Haldane starts his analysis with the following equations (unnumbered). (Please pardon my formatting).
In the nth generation the different variants occur in frequencies:
pnA, qna, where pn +qn = 1 and "A" and "a" are different alleles. "A" variants are more fit than the "a" variants.It should be clear to you that Haldane's frequency equation is at least a conservation of number equation. In other words, an increase in the frequency (and number) of the "A" variants will cause a decrease in the frequency (and number) of the "a" variants. Why is it a conservation of energy equation?I'll go further into your post once you consider this first point.

I'm not seeing any population genetics models that demonstrates this. All I am seeing is you referring to big numbers and waving your hands. Let's use a mutation rate of 50 mutations per person in each generation. In a steady population of just 100,000 people that is 5 million mutations per person. With a generation time of 25 years that would be 200,000 generations over 5 million years. This results in 1 trillion mutations over the last 5 million years. We only need about 20 million mutations to produce the differences we see between humans and chimps. Where is the problem? The rate at which beneficial mutations are found is dependent on the environment and specific challenges each species faces. It's the same as getting a winning lottery ticket and guessing right on a coin flip.

That's a very basic error in logic. As I said, you only need one transitional to indicate transitionals. How many pigs do you need as evidence that pigs exist? Well, of course we don't have fossils for every step. But I'm trying to get it through your head that one transitional is evidence of transitionals. Archaeopteryx is all we need to show a link between dinosaurs and birds. According to Nature:

quote:

---

Calculating that T. rex survived for about 127,000 generations before becoming extinct, the researchers came up with a figure of 2.5 billion individuals over the species’ entire existence. Only 32 adult T. rex have been discovered as fossils, so the fossil record accounts for just one in about every 80 million T. rex. This means that the chances of being fossilized — even for one of the largest-ever carnivores — were vanishingly small.

---

So we don't expect to find many transitionals. The point is that we do find some. Strictly speaking, every fossil is a transitional - but I suppose you mean fossils that clearly demonstrate a link, like archaeopteryx. Fish didn't evolve into mammals. We do have a common ancestor with fish. Some of them evolved into fish and some of them evolved into us. (This is why people keep telling you you know nothing about evolution.) It's impossible to argue otherwise. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. You're trying to argue that a million steps can't take you a thousand miles because a milion is a big number. The number is irrelevant. Keep adding and you'll get to it.

Oh, so you are one of those completely idiotic creationists who spread the lie that anyone claims that lizards evolved into birds. Only a creationist would be so utterly stupid! Dinosaurs were not lizards, you idiot! They were about as distantly related to lizards as they were to turtles. Are you also going to try to claim that anyone thinks that birds had evolved from turtles? I wouldn't put it past you!Just face the simple fact that you creationists are idiots. And even Dredge, a self-certified idiot with the mental capacity of a three-year-old, realized and voluntarily stated that all creationists are evil. Because of "evilution", which I identify as their gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution.Maybe if you were to study evolution instead of your "evilution" you might learn something.