|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:OK, why does combination therapy work for treating HIV when the virus can very rapidly evolve resistance to single-drug therapy? If you have trouble with that challenge, you can read the mathematical explanation here: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance If you have trouble with the math, it is simply that HIV is no better at winning 3 lotteries than you are. You would have to buy about 1e15 tickets to win those 3 lotteries. Kleinman:Oh boy, ringo is going to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments by reading fossil tea-leaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:OK, I'll tell you, but you have to promise that what happens on EVC Forum stays on EVC Forum. Kleinman:OK, the first thing I want to teach you is life is demanding. Kleinman:Haven't you heard about teaching by repetition? And I'll explain to you why fossil tea-leaf reading is a pseudoscience like phrenology, astrology, or perpetual motion machines. Adaptive evolution requires hundreds of millions or billions of replications for each mutational adaptation step. We know that from the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Therefore, for a reptile population to evolve into a bird population would create vast numbers of transitional forms. To get an idea of how vast that population would have to be, if it only required 200,000 mutations for such a genetic transformation, it would require about 200,000 billion replications. You should have transitional forms coming out of your ears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I saw that one you got from China. Do you want to learn introductory probability theory? That's all you need to understand DNA evolution. I can teach you that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:DNA evolution is DNA evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Percy: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Percy: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:For the number of humans that have ever lived and the number alive today can be found here: How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? The estimated number of humans before 8000 BC is about 1.2 billion, the number people alive in 2019 was about 7.6 billion and the number of chimpanzees alive can be found here: Chimpanzee - Wikipedia quote:You don't have a model for this but you have more than enough data. If humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor, what adaptive mutations enabled humans to achieve a population of over 7 billion while chimpanzees have only achieved a population of 300,000? Kleinman:The problem is that you are doing a simple-minded neutral evolution calculation. Adaptive mutations must be accumulated on lineages. And it should be clear to you that humans have a reproductive advantage over chimps simply by the population numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:And as pnA -> 1, qna -> 0. When pnA = 1, fixation (or as Haldane calls it, substitution) has occurred. This is the fundamental equation of biological evolutionary competition. The more fit variants increase in frequency and the less fit variants decrease in frequency when a population is engaged in biological evolutionary competition. The rest of Haldane's paper uses that fundamental equation to compute the number of deaths of less fit variants in that biological evolutionary competition. Those variant going extinct are no longer candidates for adaptive mutations, they are dead. What is important is how many replications the more fit variant are able to do during and after they win the competition because that determines the probability of some member in that subpopulation getting an adaptive mutation. Kleinman:I already have but I'll do it again. It is based on the first law of thermodynamics. It takes energy to replicate, the most efficient user of that energy for survival and reproduction will increase in frequency in the population while the less efficient user of that energy will decrease in frequency in any biological evolutionary competition. This is clearly demonstrated in the Lenski experiment where he energy limits his population. And don't be silly, frequency is dimensionless. It is the total available energy that limits the total population size. If you want to do an energy calculation, you need to know the amount of energy necessary for each replication and the carrying capacity (total amount of usable energy in the environment) and you can compute the population size the environment can support. This frequency equation that Haldane uses is applicable to the Lenski experiment to do the mathematics of biological evolutionary competition and compute the generations to fixation but what happens if you try to apply it to the Kishony experiment? The answer to that is it is not applicable because Kishony's experiment has much greater carrying capacity and significant biological competition is not occurring. Therefore no fixation is occurring. Kishony starts his experiment with bacteria (CFU-colony forming units) that are drug-sensitive. That single drug-sensitive bacterium starting that colony has a frequency of qna = 1 and pnA = 0. The colony grows and qna remains at 1 and pnA remains at 0 until some lucky member gets an adaptive mutation. On average, for a mutation rate of 1e-9, that takes about a billion replications so qna will be (1-1e-9) and pnA will be 1e-9. That is nowhere near fixation. Adaptation does not require fixation and adaptation will be slowed by biological competition as demonstrated by the contrast between the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:You are doing a neutral evolution calculation. But you can explain to us how 1 out of every 50,000 mutations are kept and which ones humans have kept to give the reproductive advantage over chimps. And tell us what selective advantage each of these 1 out of every 50,000 mutations give and why chimps did get these mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:So you claim that in the first generation that humans appeared the population size was 100,000? Kleinman:So you can't explain how 1 out of every 50,000 mutations are kept and which ones give humans a reproductive advantage over chimps. Chimps have a population of 300,000 today, 3 times greater than your hypothetical example. They should have 15 million mutations per generation. Their reproductive fitness should be increasing 3 times faster because they are getting 3 times more beneficial mutations according to your math. How about 7 billion humans today? According to your math, there are 70,000 times more beneficial mutations occurring in the human population today. Does every newborn child in the world get all those beneficial mutations by vertical inheritance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:You believe that humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor. What mutations allow humans to live and reproduce in all these niches that chimps don't? What mutations did humans get that allow humans to walk upright but chimps didn't get these mutations? What mutations gave us greater intelligence that chimps didn't get? How did all these adaptive mutations accumulate in a lineage of humans but didn't occur and accumulate in a lineage of chimps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Well, it's about time. You finally agree that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in a lineage. I knew you would finally get it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024