Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 331 of 2926 (899228)
10-10-2022 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tanypteryx
10-10-2022 8:17 PM


Re: Tanypteryx explains the physics and mathematics of biological evolution
Kleinman:
Tanypteryx explains the physics and mathematics of biological evolution
Tanypteryx:
Now see, this is why I doubt your credibility. You behave like an obnoxious jerk rather than a scientist with something interesting to say.

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:
Did I confuse you with my explanation of the physics (thermodynamics) of Darwinian Evolution?
Tanypteryx:
Nope, because your explanation doesn't describe the evolution of the organisms I study.

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:
Is that a tacit admission that I've done the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments correctly?
Tanypteryx:
Nope, I'm saying that you alienate many of the only people who could appreciate your work.

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:
And that you are mistaken to try and extrapolate what was learned from those narrow experiments to rules for how mutation and selection occur in all complex, sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms. You ignore that every individual organism acquire numerous mutations that can be passed on to their descendants along with thousands of other mutations that they each inherited from their ancestors.
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 explained your lower-division, undergraduate-level blunders, but you have far too lofty an intellect to learn anything from him.
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:
How do you select a statistical sample in a way that avoids bias? The key word is random. A random sample is a sample selected by equal opportunity; that is, every possible sample of the same size as yours had an equal chance to be selected from the population. What random really means is that no subset of the population is favored in or excluded from the selection process.
Non-random (in other words bad) samples are samples that were selected in such a way that some type of favoritism and/or automatic exclusion of a part of the population was involved, whether intentional or not.
Tanypteryx:
I await your Nobel acceptance speech for medicine.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 8:17 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 9:41 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 333 of 2926 (899236)
10-10-2022 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tanypteryx
10-10-2022 9:41 PM


Re: Tanypteryx explains the physics and mathematics of biological evolution
Kleinman:
Taq hasn't found any blunders in my analysis or explanation.
Tanypteryx:
Taq pointed out your ignorance in every post.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 9:41 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 10:49 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 335 by nwr, posted 10-10-2022 10:53 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 336 of 2926 (899241)
10-10-2022 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by nwr
10-10-2022 10:53 PM


Re: Tanypteryx explains the physics and mathematics of biological evolution
Kleinman:
Does that mean you aren't going to explain the physics and mathematics of the biological evolution of the organisms that you study?
nwr:
Whenever you say things like this, you display your own ignorance. Evolution doesn't use mathematics.

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:
Yes, it is possible to build a mathematical model. But in that case, you are talking about the mathematics of your model rather than about the mathematics of evolution.
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:
And, by the way, you model is broken.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by nwr, posted 10-10-2022 10:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by nwr, posted 10-10-2022 11:32 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 338 of 2926 (899243)
10-10-2022 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Tanypteryx
10-10-2022 10:49 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
Are there any biologists on this forum that understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution?
Tanypteryx:
The biologists on this forum understand that you are incorrect in your insistence that your calculations apply to anything other than bacteria and viruses. In sexually reproducing organisms, offspring inherit mutations from their parents and pass them plus their new mutations on to their offspring. It really isn't that difficult.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 10:49 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 342 of 2926 (899247)
10-10-2022 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Tanypteryx
10-10-2022 11:28 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
nmr:
And, by the way, your model is broken.
Tanypteryx:
Plus, I'm still wondering why he thinks it's important to mention the laws of thermodynamics so often when he talks about his mutations and selection?

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:
And why doesn't he ever analyze all those other types of selection that we see out in the field?
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:
And what's he got against fossil tea leaves?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 11:28 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 12:48 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 343 of 2926 (899248)
10-11-2022 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by nwr
10-10-2022 11:35 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Tanypteryx:
Plus, I'm still wondering why he thinks it's important to mention the laws of thermodynamics so often when he talks about his mutations and selection?
nwr:
That's probably because he is a creationist, and creationists have weird ideas about thermodynamics.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by nwr, posted 10-10-2022 11:35 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 12:33 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 344 of 2926 (899249)
10-11-2022 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tanypteryx
10-10-2022 11:42 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
nwr:
That's probably because he is a creationist, and creationists have weird ideas about thermodynamics.
Tanypteryx:
True, and he's a really weird creationist. He appears to have a top notch education but then he corrupts it to promote this nonsense.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2022 11:42 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 12:58 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 347 of 2926 (899263)
10-11-2022 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 12:48 AM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
Descent with modification (DNA adaptation) is a second law of thermodynamics process where the random trial is a replication.
Tanypteryx:
Sorry, what random trial? So, the second law is an important term in your equation?

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:
Biological evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics conservation of energy process
Tanypteryx:
So, the first law is an important term in your equation?

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:
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:
What you keep ignoring is the fact that many species have millions of mutations happening in every generation that are passed to descendants. These mutations are happening on multiple chromosome and on multiple genes that can all be passed to offspring along with mutations from past ancestors. Most genes are not under selection and are passed on to descendants and neutral mutations keep getting passed on and accumulating in descendants too. You say only one of them can be beneficial in a billion generations and then the next after another billion generations.

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:
The problem is that reading fossil tea leaves doesn't correctly explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
Tanypteryx:
Well, you may be right. I couldn't find a single record of fossil tea leaves, Camellia sinensis

I would also note that evolutionary biology doesn't use mathematics, but evolutionary science does.

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:
You should have transitional fossil forms coming out of your ears if universal common descent was true.
Tanypteryx:
Good prediction, it turns out we do. I guess while you were getting that fancy education you didn't visit and university fossil collections. Probably too busy taking those high school probability courses

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 12:48 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 12:15 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 353 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 12:59 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 348 of 2926 (899264)
10-11-2022 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by nwr
10-11-2022 12:58 AM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
It's not so weird if you want to understand how antimicrobial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
nwr:
That's an example of what is weird.

Life itself is a thermodynamic process. However, in terms of thermodynamics, what's involved in evolution is an insignificant part of that. But it is the part that creationists emphasize.

How would you know? You still haven't done the math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 12:58 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 351 of 2926 (899278)
10-11-2022 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by nwr
10-11-2022 12:15 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
nwr:
Thanks for your explanation.

When you talk about "the mathematics of evolution", you are apparently talking about "population genetics". That's well established research area with a substantial literature. If you use the established terminology, people will better understand what you are talking about.

By the way, your own version of population genetics is horribly naive and simplistic.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 12:15 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 1:23 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 352 of 2926 (899279)
10-11-2022 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ringo
10-11-2022 12:33 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
my employer in the aerospace industry that paid me a lot of money for that skill.
top.ringo:
When somebody pays you for your biological skills, let us know.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 12:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 1:07 PM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2022 1:07 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 358 of 2926 (899291)
10-11-2022 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 12:59 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Tanypteryx:
What you keep ignoring is the fact that many species have millions of mutations happening in every generation that are passed to descendants. These mutations are happening on multiple chromosome and on multiple genes that can all be passed to offspring along with mutations from past ancestors. Most genes are not under selection and are passed on to descendants and neutral mutations keep getting passed on and accumulating in descendants too. You say only one of them can be beneficial in a billion generations and then the next after another billion generations.
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.
Tanypteryx:
And then you completely ignored what I said and repeated the same thing about bacteria that you have already repeated a hundred time. I am talking about complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing species and you keep talking about bacteria starting from a single clone.


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:
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?
Tanypteryx:
You tell me. You seem to be saying that the fossil record violates the laws of physics. What do you think fossils represent? What do you think the whole fossil record that has been discovered so far represents?

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:
Evolutionary science shows that each adaptive evolutionary step requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications. That's for each adaptive mutation.
Tanypteryx:
No, that's what your calculations using data from 2 experiments with bacteria showed. You have not demonstrated that your calculations apply to the evolution of populations of complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing species.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
Well, I was lucky enough to see an Archaeopteryx fossil as well as others that I don't remember the names of. And even you should know that no one but creationists think mammals evolved from fish. Once again you undermine your credibility.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:


Kleinman:
Tanypteryx:
Oh really? Can you remind me where I did that?

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:
Your mistake is trying to use bacteria colonies from 2 narrow lab experiments as models for the evolution of all populations of complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing species. You ignore the fact that we can actually study these organisms and learn quite a lot from their gross anatomy, behavior and life histories, you know, biology.
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:
You need to get your fossil record interpretation in line with the hard mathematical evolutionary science.
Tanypteryx:
Well, if you think that's important you should do that. I'm happy letting paleontologists report their observations. There is still a lot to learn and it's fine if you don't want to be part of that process, but I find it fascinating.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
Gosh, I'm surprised that you think someone would want to do that. That would be kind of like explaining the function of a table saw by talking about the pyramids in Egypt.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 12:59 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 4:12 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 359 of 2926 (899292)
10-11-2022 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by nwr
10-11-2022 1:23 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
How would you know, you don't do the math of biology.
nwr:
The expression "math of biology" is a misnomer. I know enough about population genetics to recognize how simplistic is your version.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by nwr, posted 10-11-2022 1:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 361 of 2926 (899298)
10-11-2022 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 4:12 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:
Sorry, I thought you were aware that complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing species only transmit gametes to their offspring.
Tanypteryx:
Sorry, I thought you were aware that those gametes contain DNA from the parent that combine with the DNA from the gamete from the other parent. The combined DNA from the parents form genes in chromosomes of the offspring and those genes carry many mutations from the ancestors of each parent as well as a set of new mutations.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
Obviously.

That includes the possibility that an adaptive allele might not be transferred to the offspring.
Kleinman:
Yes, I think that the way biologists interpret the fossil record that it violates the laws of physics.
Tanypteryx:
Which specific laws of physics do fossils violate and in what ways? Show us your work. Fossils exist, we can see them and touch them. Are you saying they formed by magic?

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:
Since you didn't answer these questions I will ask again: What do you think fossils represent? What do you think the whole fossil record that has been discovered so far represents?
Fossil - Wikipedia
quote:
A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis, lit. 'obtained by digging')[1] is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants.
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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
A billion human replications, where does that number come from? I think your interpretation of humans having "improved reproductive fitness" over chimps is flawed. Each species is adapted to different selective pressures. Chimps adapted to a fairly specific habitat and humans became generalists.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
You have not demonstrated that they cannot.

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:
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?
Tanypteryx:
Please don't. We already know those things, but those are not normal selective pressures that affected the evolution of those species.

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:
There is an abundance of data and literature that show how the multiplication rule affects the biological evolution of complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms
Tanypteryx:
I am sure there is. There is also an abundance of data and literature showing how species adapt to non-lethal selection.

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:
Oh really? Can you remind me where I did that?
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:
As others have noted your mind reading skills suck. The only claim I made about Archaeopteryx is that I have seen a fossil. I made no claims or implied anything with regards to its genome.


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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
Well, it's clear that you will not be the one to overturn paleontology. You think fossils are magic.

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:
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.
Tanypteryx:
You are the only person that I am aware of who suggest that you think that has ever been attempted. That seems like a classic example of a red herring.

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:
Biologists really suck at explaining the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
Tanypteryx:
So far, you really suck at it too.

At least my model correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 4:12 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-12-2022 11:18 AM Kleinman has replied
 Message 1000 by Taq, posted 10-28-2022 6:04 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 362 of 2926 (899337)
10-12-2022 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Tangle
10-11-2022 1:07 PM


Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Tangle:
We think you're a nutcase and a crank and we have a lot of experience of those here. Prove us wrong, get published in a real journal, we'd all be delighted for you and listen politely at your knee.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2022 1:07 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 10-12-2022 3:59 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024