|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:So, Tanypteryx doesn't explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. It sure looks like you are the one that doesn't understand the basic concepts of biological evolution. That's ok, I can explain those concepts to you, I just hope I don't overwhelm you. Kleinman:How long do we have to wait for you to explain the physics and mathematics of the evolution of the organism that you study? Kleinman:Why should you be alienated because I explain the flaws in the concept of universal common descent? Is it really that important to you that you believe that you are related to chimpanzees? Don't you think it is more important to give the correct explanation of the evolution of drug-resistant microbes and why cancer treatments fail? You have some pretty twisted priorities in your belief system. Tanypteryx:The math I've presented explains why combination herbicides suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds and combination pesticides suppress the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects. The same principles also apply to combination rodenticides suppressing the evolution of rodenticide-resistant rodents. Aren't these all complex, sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms? It's all about the multiplication rule of probabilities, a basic mathematical principle that applies to adaptive evolution. You are showing that you don't understand the basic concepts of biological evolution. Tanypteryx:Taq is the one claiming that multiple adaptive alleles can fix simultaneously in a population. Taq hasn't found any blunders in my analysis or explanation. And neither have you. But there is a major blunder in the way biologists do their inferential phylogenetics and you can't see it. It is clear that you need a hint. Statistics for Dummies quote: Tanypteryx:Edward Tatum already pointed out the effect of the multiplication rule on adaptive evolution in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. Biologists are just really slow at learning this basic concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Does that mean you aren't going to explain the physics and mathematics of the biological evolution of the organisms that you study? How sad. Are there any biologists on this forum that understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution? It really isn't that difficult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Let's see if we get this right. Your science of evolution doesn't use mathematics, it doesn't use physical laws, and it doesn't use experimentation. No wonder biologists have failed to explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. nwr:The mathematical model I presented predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before Kishony ran his experiment. And this model along with Haldane's model of fixation simulates and predicts the behavior of the Lenski experiment, including why biological evolutionary competition slows biological evolutionary adaptation. What have biologists predicted with their claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? nwr:Do you have a better explanation for why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Come on, you claim to be a mathematician. Try putting an equation to that data. Or is the best you can do is tell a fish story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:As long as reproduction includes replication of the genome, there is a possibility of one or more errors in that replication of that genome. It doesn't matter whether replication is by cloning, mitosis, or meiosis. DNA replication is DNA replication. It really isn't that difficult. In fact, the math is so trivial, it can be done by someone with the understanding of a high school-level probability course. It is really not that hard to superimpose recombination on the process as well. You should try it, you might learn something about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
nmr:Descent with modification (DNA adaptation) is a second law of thermodynamics process where the random trial is a replication. Biological evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics conservation of energy process. Biological evolutionary competition slows the descent with modification process because it limits the number of replications that the most fit variant can do. That's why the Kishony populations evolve more rapidly to their selection condition than the Lenski populations do to their selection condition. Tanypteryx:Different selection conditions target different genetic loci. The Kishony experiment uses a toxin that targets a single genetic locus. The Lenski experiment uses starvation which targets every energy-requiring metabolic pathway, ie multiple genetic loci. Thermal stress will target multiple genetic loci, predation might target one or more genetic loci. What all these selection conditions have in common is that if a single mutation can give improved reproductive fitness to that member, it will take about 1/(mutation rate) replications for that mutation to have a reasonable probability of occurring. If it takes 2 or more mutations to give improved fitness, the number of replications goes up exponentially. Tanypteryx:The problem is that reading fossil tea leaves doesn't correctly explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Each adaptive mutational step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments takes about a billion replications. You should have transitional fossil forms coming out of your ears if universal common descent was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tanypteryx:It may seem weird to you but it didn't seem weird to my employer in the aerospace industry that paid me a lot of money for that skill. I also was paid to teach thermodynamics and heat transfer at the university level, both undergraduate and graduate levels. It was my major field for my PhD and I also hold a state engineering license which requires training, experience, and examination to receive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
nwr:It's not so weird if you want to understand how antimicrobial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. But I am different than most Creationists in that I think that Darwin is qualitatively correct. What Darwin didn't understand is the limitations of the physical processes that he was observing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:A random mutation is a variation of a coin toss problem, a simple binomial probability problem. Think about the basic concept of coin tossing. The random trial is a toss of the coin with two possible outcomes, a head or a tail. In this case, the outcomes are symmetric, each having a probability of 0.5. The random trial for a mutation occurring is a replication with two possible outcomes, a mutation occurs or a mutation doesn't occur. These outcomes are highly asymmetric where the probability of a mutation occurring is the mutation rate and the probability of a mutation not occurring is (1-mutation rate). Without natural selection, random mutations will cause genetic sequences to become randomly disordered sequences. This process is a Markov random walk process. Markov processes are entropy equations. For example, the Jukes-Cantor model goes to equilibrium (maximum entropy) when the probability of finding any of the bases at the given site is 0.25. Kleinman:Again, you need to go back to basic concepts. The first law of thermodynamics means that energy is conserved. Another way to put this is that energy in minus energy out equals energy stored. Haldane's substitution (fixation) frequency equations are simply a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics. Those equations can be rewritten in terms of energy consumed for each replication and the total amount of energy available for survival and reproduction (the carrying capacity of the environment). Kleinman:That's not correct, I don't ignore these possibilities. The equations I've presented apply to every site in the genome, not just the site where an adaptive mutation can occur. So, take the example of the Kishony experiment. His founder bacteria don't have a member with the first adaptive mutation. So the founder starts a colony in the drug-free region. When that colony grows to a number of about 1/(mutation rate) population size, this colony will have done an exhaustive search of every possible mutation in that sample space. In other words, that population will have a member with every possible mutation at every site in the genome. But, only those members with an adaptive mutation can grow in the next higher drug concentration region. Now, think about what that new founder in the next higher drug concentration must do to get the next adaptive mutation. Kleinman:Should evolutionary science based on the laws of physics, mathematics, and experimental evidence conform to the interpretation of the fossil record or should it be the other way around? Evolutionary science shows that each adaptive evolutionary step requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications. That's for each adaptive mutation. Why aren't you overwhelmed with examples of transitional forms in the fossil record? Kleinman:I was actually taught introductory probability theory in elementary school. I'm really dating myself now. When I was a kid, we played card and dice games. And I have visited museums with fossil collections. I don't recall seeing a sequence of fossils showing reptiles evolving into birds or fish evolving into mammals. The mistake you make in this basic concept is trying to use gross anatomy to explain what is happening at the molecular (DNA evolutionary) level. That's like trying to explain quantum mechanics using classical physics. You need to get your fossil record interpretation in line with the hard mathematical evolutionary science. But if you think I'm wrong, use your interpretation of the fossil record to explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:How would you know? You still haven't done the math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
nwr:How would you know, you don't do the math of biology. And sure the math I've presented is simplistic but it predicts and simulates very nicely real experimental examples of biological evolution. If you did do the math, you might understand the blunder that biologists make when doing inferential phylogenetics. Are there any varsity players left on this forum or just the C- team.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Does that include what I got paid for practicing medicine? You see ringo, I'm licensed in both engineering and medicine. And biologists suck at explaining the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Biologists just don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tanypteryx:Sorry, I thought you were aware that complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing species only transmit gametes to their offspring. DNA evolution works the same way for any form of DNA replication whether it be clonal, mitosis, or meiosis. In the case of meiosis, you have to take into account whether particular alleles will be transferred to the offspring due to the effect of recombination. Sorry if I'm overwhelming you with these mathematical and biological facts of life. Kleinman:Yes, I think that the way biologists interpret the fossil record that it violates the laws of physics. Why do you think that I challenged Taq with the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor? You have about a billion human replications to account for the accumulation of the adaptive mutations that would give humans the improved reproductive fitness humans have over chimps. DNA evolution alone operating with a billion replications only allows for less than 5 adaptive mutations. So Taq grabs on to recombination but then has to claim that multiple adaptive alleles can fix simultaneously in a population. That is flat-out wrong and Taq knows it. Kleinman:Do you want me to start posting links to papers that show that combination herbicides work to suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, papers on combination pesticides work to suppress the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects, or combination rodenticides work to prevent the evolution rodenticide resistant rodents? There is an abundance of data and literature that show how the multiplication rule affects the biological evolution of complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms. Taq understands this now, you have yet to learn this mathematical and empirical fact of life about biological evolution. Kleinman:You still don't get it. You should have thousands of Archaeopteryx fossils because each step of adaptive evolution takes hundreds of millions if not billions of replications. You are taking a fossil of some strange extinct creature and attributing something to it that fits your bias. For adaptive evolution to work, it takes huge populations and recovery ability. Plants can do this because they can achieve these kinds of populations and recovery rates and produce huge amounts of seeds and pollen. Insects and rodents can but only adapt to a single selection condition at a time with any efficiency. Pressure these populations with two or more simultaneous selection conditions and the population requirements for adaptation become exponentially larger for getting a member with multiple adaptive mutations. The multiplication rule affects all populations when it comes to adaptive evolution (and random recombination as well). Kleinman: Kleinman:You did this in this post with your claim about Archaeopteryx. You have no idea what the genetic sequence of this replicator was and have no idea what the genome of the parent or offspring was of this replicator. But somehow, you have convinced yourself that this is a fossil of a reptile turning into a bird.Tanypteryx: Tanypteryx:Do you think that if Kishony or Lenski were to make their experiments more complex that evolution would work more quickly? Are you aware that Kishony has tried to perform his experiment with two drugs and it doesn't work. The reason is that a single adaptive mutation to one drug or the other will not give improved reproductive fitness and allow that variant to grow in a two drug region. Kishony can get that experiment to work but he will need a much larger carrying capacity environment that can support a colony size of about a trillion. Your misinterpretation of the fossil record doesn't explain that mathematical fact of life to you. Kleinman:It may take a while but paleontology will go the way of astrology and phrenology. It all depends on how long these adherents want to waste their lives on this pseudo-science. Kleinman:It's not a matter of wanting or not wanting. You can't explain the evolution of drug-resistant microbes or why cancer treatments fail using fossil tea-leaf reading. Biologists really suck at explaining the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:This math is almost trivial but works quite nicely in explaining the Kishony and Lenski experiments, and why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV,... I like it for its simple elegance and the way it explains why biological competition slows biological descent with modification. Biologists should learn these simple mathematical facts of life. Then, when medical students take their genetics courses, they can have some understanding of how antimicrobial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:OK. Now explain to us how that changes the mathematics of DNA evolution. Please be specific because haploid clonal replicators carry many mutations from their ancestors as well. How does a lineage of these replicators accumulate a set of adaptive mutations? Kleinman:That includes the possibility that an adaptive allele might not be transferred to the offspring. Kleinman:You have to understand that DNA evolution is a Markov random walk process. This is the mechanism of genetic divergence in a population and the rate of divergence depends on the mutation rate and the number of replications in that population. I showed how to derive the Markov model for the Kishony experiment a while back at Percy's request. I don't recall the message number but it shouldn't be hard to find. Markov processes are entropy processes. These processes determine the rate at which adaptive mutations can accumulate in a lineage. This model very accurately fits both the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Your misinterpretation of the fossil record imagines that this descent with modification (adaptation) can occur with small, even miniscule populations. That's not how DNA evolution works in reality. Tanypteryx:Fossil - Wikipedia quote:Fossils are snapshots of the dead creature at the moment of death. The "fossil record" is an attempt to categorize an evolutionary relationship between these different snapshots based on a lack of understanding of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution, in particular DNA evolution. Kleinman:It appears you didn't follow my discussion with Taq very closely. That billion replications is based on the following: How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? There have been about 100 billion people that have ever lived, 99% have lived in the last 10,000 years. That leaves about a billion humans who have lived from our first appearance until the last 10,000 years. Choose a mutation rate and do the math. Today there are over 7 billion people on earth and only 300,000 chimps. Kleinman:Lenski demonstrated that only a single mutation fixes at a time in his experiment. And Haldane and Kimura don't make such a ridiculous claim for their models of fixation. Kleinman:Toxins aren't normal selection pressures? The mathematics works the same way for Kishony's antibiotic selection pressure as Lenski's starvation selection pressure. Selection pressures don't change the mathematics of genetic divergence. They only change the genetic target. Kleinman:Sure, and it takes about 1/(mutation rate) replications for each of the adaptive mutations to any one of these selection pressures. DNA evolution obeys specific accounting rules. You should learn them. Tanypteryx:My mistake, I thought you were claiming you had some transitional fossils. It's good to know that you finally have learned that you don't have any. Kleinman:I know, it's hard to teach someone the physics and mathematics of biological evolution when they haven't been trained in either subject. At least you have finally figured out that you don't have any transitional fossils. Kleinman:Lots of biologists have attempted to explain biological evolution, even Lenski. Lenski and his team couldn't figure out why biological evolutionary competition slows biological evolutionary adaptation. That's why he couldn't get his model of his experiment right. Lenski knows now, a Creationist explained it to him. Kleinman:At least my model correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment Drug Resistance, An Enemy of Targeted Cancer Therapies Of course, what Tangle means when he says "a real journal" is one that publishes reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals journal but can't explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024