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

Kleinman:

---

It's clear that you and Taq have taken the same survey of math course based on the way you both use the addition rule.

ringo:

---

Thank you. I'm glad to be included with Taq, though I don't think I deserve it.

---

---

I expect you to make a highschool level mathematical blunder, but Taq? I thought Taq had a little bit better understanding of introductory probability theory. No wonder Taq is having so much difficulty figuring out how random recombination works.

Theodoric:

---

Yup. He is one of the worst we have had in a long time. He aspires to be a world class crank, but he is reduced to trolling our humble little forum.

---

I'm just giving you atheists a chance to tell us, religious people, how you don't impose your morals on others.

dwise1:

---

Both Dredge and Kleinman have decided that the model for abiogenesis would be winning the lottery many times in a row.

Dredge:

---

I don't recall ever offering winning the lottery many times in a row as a model for abiogenesis. Please show me where I did that.

---

---

There is nothing wrong with making an analogy of winning the lottery many times in a row as a model of abiogenesis since the winning of a lottery occurs by random chance. Of course, if dwise1 is abandoning the notion that life can't arise by random processes (random chemical reactions), it will be the first sensible thing that he has said. The joint probability of both of these is governed by the multiplication rule.

Dredge:

---

I don't recall ever offering winning the lottery many times in a row as a model for abiogenesis. Please show me where I did that.

dwise1:

---

Your constant idiotic blather does make it difficult to figure out just what the hell you're talking about. And my standard question for all creationists, "What the hell are you talking about?", has had no effect.

---

---

You are so slow to understand. You use the multiplication rule to compute joint probabilities of random events occurring whether they are you winning multiple lotteries or a sequence of random chemical reactions that could create a protein or strand of DNA (or RNA). You have a much, much, much, higher probability of winning multiple lotteries. That's your cue for telling us we are lying creationists and that you never lie or do evil. Oh, and while you are at it, can you give us some experimental evidence that verifies your mathematical model of abiogenesis?

Dredge:

---

??? I have no idea what you talking about.

Theodoric:

---

and that is why you should slink away back under your rock. You have a propensity not to know what people are talking about.

---

---

And you do know what we are talking about? Let's make it simple to give you the best chance of understanding what we are talking about. The reason that abiogenesis and universal common descent are not possible is the multiplication rule of probabilities. There is no natural selection to improve the probability of abiogenesis occurring and natural selection doesn't have sufficient population size to give a reasonable probability that universal common descent is possible. And why should we go away? Someone needs to explain to you these physical and mathematical facts of life as well as explain to you that you do impose your morals on others.

Dredge:

---

All I know is, according to the mathematics of God,
the probability of natural abiogenesis occurring is less than zero.

Phat:

---

I was unaware that God had His own mathematics. I DO know that this whole idea of chance and a "cosmic lottery" is not disciplined thinking. Chance cannot nor ever will be able to "create" anything. Chance is an improper concept. Things either happen or they don't. It is impossible to calculate probability (a definite numerical value) in regard to macro events such as creation/evolution.

---

---

Are you claiming that it is impossible to mathematically model descent with modification? Both the Kishony and Lenski experiments exist. Do you think there is no way to explain the behavior of these experiments mathematically? And what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

Kleinman:

---

And how do crossing over and recombination create new alleles?

Taq:

---

Show me where I said that.

---

---

I'm just trying to make sure you understand that DNA evolution and random recombination are different physical processes with different mathematical behaviors. And it is good to see that you understand that recombination without error cannot create new alleles, only DNA evolution can do that.

Kleinman:

---

We are still waiting for your mathematical explanation of how two different adaptive alleles A and B at different genetic loci in different members of a population end up in an offspring.

Taq:

---

It's called sexual reproduction. Mommy has A and Daddy has B.

---

---

What happens if you only have one Mommy with A and one Daddy with B in a population of millions? How does your dating service work? That is your cue to claim that A and B variants both fix simultaneously. Do you know about the Desai experiments? They are similar to the Lenski experiments except Desai uses yeast with both asexual and sexual reproduction.

Kleinman:

---

You have one subset of the population that has beneficial allele A at one genetic locus, a second subset of the population the population that has beneficial allele B at a different genetic locus, and the remainder of the population has neither allele A nor allele B.

Taq:

---

Then let's look at achondroplasia which is caused by mutations in the FGFR3 gene and cystic fibrosis which is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene. More than 99% of people have the healthy allele for both and only an extreme few have both cystic fibrosis and dwarfism. So let's do the math:
​
0.99A + 0.99B + 0.0000001C != 1
​
Your math doesn't work.​

---

---

Dumb cluck, you have to subtract out the intersection of subsets when using the addition rule, otherwise, you are adding the same members twice.

Kleinman:

---

I know well enough that these frequencies are not mutually exclusive, you don't.

Taq:

---

You just said they were mutually exclusive.

---

---

For the case I'm doing, they are mutually exclusive, for the case you are doing, they aren't mutually exclusive. Your survey of mathematics course really doesn't cut it for you biologists.

Kleinman:

---

You have one subset of the population that has beneficial allele A at one genetic locus, a second subset of the population the population that has beneficial allele B at a different genetic locus,

Taq:

---

Can you give me a single example of two mutations in two different unlinked genes that are mutually exclusive?

---

---

Why? Do you think that will explain the reproductive fitness differences between humans and chimps? Why don't you learn how to correctly apply one of the simplest rules of probability theory, the addition rule? Then you will have a chance of correctly doing frequency calculations for different variants in a population, whether the subsets of the populations are mutually exclusive (where the subsets don't intersect) or where the subsets are arbitrary (the subsets of the populations do intersect). I know I'm asking a lot from a biologist whose only training in mathematics is a survey of mathematics course.

Kleinman:

---

Both the Kishony and Lenski experiments exist.

Taq:

---

Diploidy, sexual reproduction, and meiosis also exist.

---

---

Here's your chance to explain how ploidy, sexual reproduction, and meiosis affect DNA evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Do you think there is no way to explain the behavior of these experiments mathematically?

Taq:

---

What you still can't seem to understand is that the mathematics of asexual reproduction don't always apply to sexual reproduction.

---

---

How do ploidy, sexual reproduction, and meiosis affect DNA evolution? DNA evolution is how populations diversify the gene pool. How does this differ between asexual replicators and sexual replicators?

Kleinman:

---

And what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

Taq:

---

Which of the genetic differences between humans and chimps do you think microevolution could not produce, and why?

---

---

What you are having difficulty accepting is that the number of replications available to humans and chimps only allows for a small amount of genetic diversification. And these small population sizes only allow for descent with modification and adaptation of a tiny number of adaptive mutations to account for the reproductive fitness differences between humans and chimps. This is why you are taking the physically and mathematically irrational stance that multiple alleles can fix simultaneously so that recombination can somehow overcome this deficiency.

Kleinman:

---

I expect you to make a highschool level mathematical blunder, but Taq? I thought Taq had a little bit better understanding of introductory probability theory.

Taq:

---

You need to understand the system before you can apply maths (nod to our UK particpants) to it. It is your lack of understanding of diploidy, multiple chromosomes, gene linkage, meiosis, and sexual reproduction that causes you to misapply the maths.

---

---

Is it your system to use the addition rule improperly? And we are still waiting for you to explain how diploidy, multiple chromosomes, gene linkage, meiosis, and sexual reproduction alter DNA evolution. DNA evolution is replication with mutation. That is how populations diversify the gene pool. Show how your list changes the DNA evolution process. You won't because it doesn't.

Kleinman:

---

Dumb cluck, you have to subtract out the intersection of subsets when using the addition rule, otherwise, you are adding the same members twice.

Taq:

---

Your equation doesn't have the subtraction of the intersection. It just has the frequencies of both mutations.
​
Define the following variables:
n – is the total population size.
nA – is the number of members in the population with beneficial allele A.
nB – is the number of members in the population with beneficial allele B.
nC – is the number of members in the population that have neither beneficial allele A nor beneficial allele B.
​
In addition, we have the following condition: nA + nB + nC = n.
​
And the frequency of each of the variants are:
f_A = nA/n
f_B = nB/n
f_C = nC/n
​
Where's the subtraction? It's not there.

---

---

There is no intersection of these subsets, they are mutually exclusive. If you think there is an intersection of these subsets, point it out.

Kleinman:

---

For the case I'm doing, they are mutually exclusive, for the case you are doing, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Taq:

---

Then why do you keep insisting that the frequency of mutations at unlinked genes must add up to 1? Will you now admit that they don't have to add up to one?

---

---

Dumb dumb, if you sum up all possible frequencies of different variants in a population, it always has to equal 1. It doesn't matter whether the alleles are linked or not. Take your seat on the C- team bench.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you learn how to correctly apply one of the simplest rules of probability theory, the addition rule?

Taq:

---

Why would I apply the addition rule when you yourself are saying that it doesn't apply?

---

---

Silly boy!

Taq:

---

Kleinman (and to whomever),

​

Look at the picture below. Look at the last example of genes on separate chromosomes. Even though recombination will occur within each chromosome, is that even needed in order to get independent association of these alleles? No. They are on separate chromosomes. You can have 6 possible combinations in a given gamete if the carrier is heterozygous at both genes:

​

5A/6A
5A/6B
5B/6A
5B/6B

​

How many combinations can you get with two gametes with the same mixture of alleles at two unlinked genes?

​

What would this look like if one parent is 5AA and 6BB and the other parent is 5BB and 6AA? Could their offspring have a mixture of alleles at both genes without a recombination event needed? (The answer is yes, in case you were wondering)

​

---

How does all of this affect DNA evolution?

Kleinman:

---

There is nothing wrong with making an analogy of winning the lottery many times in a row as a model of abiogenesis since the winning of a lottery occurs by random chance.

Taq:

---

Chemistry is not random chance. There's a reason why we have H2O and not H9O.
​
And there's still a cookie in it for you if you can figure out why I said 9.

---

---

ringo is now going to show us his chemistry experiment that demonstrates abiogenesis. He can do this because he knows his atomic numbers.

Kleinman:

---

Is it your system to use the addition rule improperly?

Taq:

---

I am saying that we can't apply your addition rule to unlinked genes in diploid organisms. You are saying that we can. Who do you think is right?

---

---

I don't know to make it any clearer. The sum of the frequencies of the different alleles in a population must always equal 1. It doesn't matter which strand of DNA the allele is on, whether the gene is linked to some other gene or not. You are wrong. This is why you are having difficulty doing the mathematics of random recombination.

Kleinman:

---

And we are still waiting for you to explain how diploidy, multiple chromosomes, gene linkage, meiosis, and sexual reproduction alter DNA evolution.

Taq:

---

I will repeat:
​
In bacteria, there is no crossover between copies of bacterial genomes because they are asexual and haploid. HGT does occur between bacteria on occasion and there are plasmids, but let's not complicate matters at this point. Let's say mutation I in gene X occurs in one bacteria in the population and mutation J happens in gene Y in a different bacteria in the same population. What would need to happen to get both mutations in the same individual in this case? We would have to have a repeat of the mutation in each of the lineages. However, the fittest of I and J could drive the other mutation to extinction in the mean time. All of this is very true in asexual populations.
​
Is this the case in sexual populations? NO, not in the case of unlinked genes. Do you know why? Because descendants of those carrying mutation I and J can mate and have offspring with BOTH MUTATIONS. The mutations doesn't have to happen again.

---

---

You are confusing the shuffling of existing alleles with the creation of new alleles (DNA evolution). How does the shuffling of existing alleles change the mathematics of DNA evolution (the creation of new alleles).

Kleinman:

---

That is how populations diversify the gene pool. Show how your list changes the DNA evolution process. You won't because it doesn't.

Taq:

---

See the picture above on linked and unlinked genes.

---

---

The shuffling of existing alleles is not the creation of new alleles (DNA evolution). How does the shuffling of existing alleles create new alleles?

Kleinman:

---

How does all of this affect DNA evolution?

Taq:

---

You keep asking how we get two beneficial mutations in the same individual. Those pictures demonstrate how it is done in diploid organisms who are sexually reproducing.
​
Notice the first case. You get a new allele combination between two different genes on the same chromosome. Notice the second case of unlinked genes. You get a new combination of chromosomes for different chromosome pairs.
​
That's how diploidy, multiple chromosomes, sexual recombination, and meiosis affects DNA evolution.

---

---

Recombination in some cases can get two beneficial mutations into the same individual, it can also cause the loss of two beneficial mutations in the same individual. You are still not answering the question of how the shuffling of existing alleles creates new alleles (DNA evolution). Or perhaps you are not being clear in your argument. Are you arguing that all the alleles necessary to give the reproductive advantage that humans have over chimps already existed in the primate precursor and that humans were just luckier than chimps in choosing their mates? If not, you should try that argument and don't say I never helped you. Perhaps you can use that principle with a chimp population and breed a biologist out of them.