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

So that's an affirmative that you are daft and your reading comprehension sucks too!

Tanypteryx:

---

Why would you expect anyone here to be able to give you that specific list? Are you daft? What proportion of the 7.5 billion people on this planet do you think has access to that list?

Kleinman:

---

Finally! Someone on this forum admits that they don't know!

Tanypteryx:

---

So that's an affirmative that you are daft and your reading comprehension sucks too!

---

---

---

Pardon my error in reading comprehension. And Oh boy! Tanypteryx knows and can list the beneficial mutations that give the reproductive fitness advantage of humans over chimps. List away, it will be a great help to Taq. Of course, if you are in that proportion of the 7.5 billion people on this planet that don't have access to that list, that would mean that you don't know.BTW, you include the quote from Taq in your posts:

Taq:

---

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

---

Does Taq include experimentation in his scientific method and if so, why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? If you duck this question, we will really know who is daffy.

A colony only has a few hundred thousand bacteria, but that is beside the point.You are the one who claimed that the human and chimp lineages should not have evolved differently if they shared a common ancestor. Remember?Wouldn't that common ancestral population be the same as that colony of bacteria? Wouldn't it also have had genetic variation? The answer is obviously yes. Even with this genetically diverse common ancestral population you claimed that the human and chimp lineages should not diverge through evolution. That's what you claimed. Let's do the math.Each human is born with about 50 mutations.

quote:

---

Mutations generate sequence diversity and provide a substrate for selection. The rate of de novo mutations is therefore of major importance to evolution. Here we conduct a study of genome-wide mutation rates by sequencing the entire genomes of 78 Icelandic parent-offspring trios at high coverage. We show that in our samples, with an average father's age of 29.7, the average de novo mutation rate is 1.20 × 10(-8) per nucleotide per generation.
Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father's age to disease risk - PubMed

---

If each base in the human genome has a 1 in 120 million chance of mutation then we would get about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. Agreed?With that mutation rate, in population with a steady 100,000 individuals we would see 5 million new mutations in each generation. Agreed?

Are the physical differences between chimps and humans due to the sequence differences between their genomes? Yes or no?

Your error continues, I asked you "Why would you expect anyone here to be able to give you that specific list?" And you ignored the question and tried to put words in my mouth. You are playing a gotcha word game, "if you don't know this obviously unknown thing, then you couldn't possibly know that I (Kleinman) am a bullshitter who doesn't actually know anything about the evolution of complex organisms." If Taq is a scientist then I assume he knows how to use the scientific method. I saw what you did there, more word games.Have you conducted any experiments that show that that the rate of acquisition of beneficial mutations from these 2 narrow experiments with bacteria in the Kishony and Lenski experiments also apply to any wild populations of complex multicellular organisms?And we're still waiting for you giving any reason why microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution.

He is and he does. He is even a microbiologist, and a molecular biologist (hence the username).

Taq:

---

Let's do the math.
​
Each human is born with about 50 mutations.

quote:

---

Mutations generate sequence diversity and provide a substrate for selection. The rate of de novo mutations is therefore of major importance to evolution. Here we conduct a study of genome-wide mutation rates by sequencing the entire genomes of 78 Icelandic parent-offspring trios at high coverage. We show that in our samples, with an average father's age of 29.7, the average de novo mutation rate is 1.20 × 10(-8) per nucleotide per generation.
Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father's age to disease risk - PubMed

Taq:

---

If each base in the human genome has a 1 in 120 million chance of mutation then we would get about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. Agreed?
​
With that mutation rate, in population with a steady 100,000 individuals we would see 5 million new mutations in each generation. Agreed?

---

---

---

The mistake you are making in your analysis Taq is that adaptive evolution occurs along lineages. You are lumping all the mutations that are occurring anywhere in the population. You must get all these beneficial mutations into a single lineage. If you want to claim that this occurs by recombination, you need to present your mathematical and empirical evidence of how this can occur. If you think your analysis is correct, apply it to the Kishony and Lenski experiments and show what your math predicts in these experimental cases.

Kleinman:

---

Pardon my error in reading comprehension. And Oh boy! Tanypteryx knows and can list the beneficial mutations that give the reproductive fitness advantage of humans over chimps.

Taq:

---

Are the physical differences between chimps and humans due to the sequence differences between their genomes? Yes or no?

---

---

You need to answer this question for yourself.

Yep, I knew that. I have learned a lot reading your posts.

I'm doing the math, as you requested.If each base in the human genome has a 1 in 120 million chance of mutation then we would get about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. Agreed?
​
With that mutation rate, in a population with a steady 100,000 individuals we would see 5 million new mutations in each generation. Agreed? Please learn how sexual reproduction works. The answer is yes. Now, can you answer the question?Are the physical differences between chimps and humans due to the sequence differences between their genomes? Yes or no?

You don't know the answer. You don't know evolution at all. And you think you can teach? You don't know how.We have shown you don't comprehend the subject or the math that you are so enamoured with.You're a fake, an arrogant ignorant dunce trying to impress a small forum site since you have been shot down and disowned by the rest of the science community. We reject you too.No one, not real scientists, not your peers, certainly not us, have any respect for your silly maths, your stupid views and your asinine personality..So tell us, how many mutations does it take to make a brain-dead braggadocious wannabe? Can you answer that one? Of course not. You're a dunce, sorry little man trying to feel big.

People who comprehend the subject would be able to parse this statement from the Lenski paper Kleinman so often cites:"When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix."The word "asexual" means something here. Kleinman just can't seem to understand why that word is so important to understanding the rest of the paper."You are lumping all the mutations that are occurring anywhere in the population. You must get all these beneficial mutations into a single lineage."--KleinmanThis is Bio 101. If someone can't comprehend how different mutations can come together in a single individual within a sexually reproducing population . . . words fail me. If Kleinman really did understand the concepts in both the Lenski and Kishony paper he would quickly realize why the competition between bacterial lineages could be overcome in a sexually reproducing species. But alas.

Tanypteryx:

---

And we're still waiting for you giving any reason why microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution.

---

Mathematically, microevolutionary events don't add up. They are random events so the joint probability of microevolutionary events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. That's why each microevolutionary event in the Kishony and Lenski experiments require a billion replication for each adaptive mutation. Each additional selection pressure adds another instance of the multiplication rule for each adaptive step on their particular evolutionary trajectory. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV despite the fact that the virus can vary rapidly evolve to single drug therapy.

Kleinman:

---

If Taq is a scientist then I assume he knows how to use the scientific method.

Taq:

---

He is and he does. He is even a microbiologist, and a molecular biologist (hence the username).

---

---

Good! That should help you to understand how to do your mathematical modeling. So far, you are not modeling reality correctly.

Kleinman:

---

The mistake you are making in your analysis Taq is that adaptive evolution occurs along lineages.

Taq:

---

I'm doing the math, as you requested.
​
If each base in the human genome has a 1 in 120 million chance of mutation then we would get about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. Agreed?
​
With that mutation rate, in a population with a steady 100,000 individuals we would see 5 million new mutations in each generation. Agreed?

---

---

Your model is crude and inaccurate. Try and think about what actually happens physically. Start with the founders of your new lineage. A population size of two is appropriate. Then you must assume something about the fecundity. You might start with an estimate that the population size doubles every generation but that would be a gross overestimate because, in 30 generations, you would already have a population size of a billion. But for sake of discussion, use a value like that. As the population expands, the number of lineages increases. Then use your 50 mutations per genome/generation and try to estimate the number of different lineages on different evolutionary trajectories. BTW, I can think of many mutations that have been identified in humans because they all cause disease. I don't know of any mutations that have been identified as beneficial. Perhaps genetic studies of large families may identify some unique mutations.Then you have to consider how any one of these lineages can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Don't factor in recombination yet until you understand this simpler case. The reason my models accurately simulate the Kishony and Lenski experiments is that they correlate with what is happening physically.

Kleinman:

---

You are lumping all the mutations that are occurring anywhere in the population. You must get all these beneficial mutations into a single lineage.

Taq:

---

Please learn how sexual reproduction works.

---

---

I know how sexual reproduction works and that is not what you are mathematically modeling.

AZPaul3:

---

We have shown you don't comprehend the subject or the math that you are so enamoured with.

Taq:

---

People who comprehend the subject would be able to parse this statement from the Lenski paper Kleinman so often cites:
​
"When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix."
​

---

---

Not only did I understand Lenski's statement, but I have also given you the correct physical and mathematical explanation of why this happens. And if you think that sexually reproducing organisms don't require energy to replicate, somebody in your survey of physics course you took to get your degree in microbiology failed in their job in teaching you the laws of thermodynamics.

That doesn't happen in nature. Speciation events involve populations, not 2 individuals.Here is the math again.If each base in the human genome has a 1 in 120 million chance of mutation then we would get about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. Agreed?
​
With that mutation rate, in a population with a steady 100,000 individuals we would see 5 million new mutations in each generation. Agreed? Do you still not understand how sexual reproduction works? Lineages reproduce with each other and mix their mutations together. How can we ignore recombination when it happens for every individual in every generation? The reason that mutations are segregated into lineages in the Lenski and Kishony experiments is because the bacteria in those experiments reproduce asexually. That's why their models only apply to asexual populations. They don't apply to sexually reproducing populations. Are the physical differences between chimps and humans caused by the sequence differences in their genomes? Yes or no?

Kleinman:

---

Your model is crude and inaccurate. Try and think about what actually happens physically. Start with the founders of your new lineage. A population size of two is appropriate.

Taq:

---

That doesn't happen in nature. Speciation events involve populations, not 2 individuals.

---

---

Populations are made up of individuals. You can't average over populations to determine what is happening with each individual. That's like trying to describe quantum physics with classical physics. Your model is crude and inaccurate. If you think your model is correct, use it to describe what is happening in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational step in these experiments.