|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo:Nobody should question ringo, he doesn't need proof for what he believes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:And that's your proof for UCD? Kleinman:What facts are those? A variation in a single gene in a small section of the population does not prove UCD. It is only an example of mutation and selection. Humans and chimps differ in virtually every coding gene and who knows how many differences in genes that control transcription. That's a fact. Kleinman:Your own example, the Malaria gene shows that it is not advantageous in every environment, but you have to pretend that there are some alleles that remain advantageous in any environment. Have you ever tried to imagine what they are? Kleinman:The point is the experiment is performed in a constant environment, something which doesn't exist in reality for humans. You are so confused, you think it does because the Malaria allele appears. Why aren't they resistant to Tuberculosis, or Small Pox, or Plague, or of a number of other infectious diseases? Kleinman:Not at all, you bring up invalid examples because you are confused. Try bringing up what is in your imagination, like those alleles that are advantageous in any environment. Kleinman:So humans can create an environment for bacteria to evolve resistance to drugs. It sounds like you have been teaching them how to be stupid. Good job PaulK, I'm impressed with your skill with bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I'm the only one that has given a mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All you do is blah, blah, blah. When are you going to explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in these experiments? You need to do some work on your math. Maybe a hundred more years of study will get you there and you will learn that the multiplication rule is the reason. But you are slow, really slow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Kleinman writes: I'm the only one that has given a mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments That's what I said, we're talking about the same thing: "all you've done is shown a complete misunderstanding of physics and mathematics."
When are you going to explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in these experiments? Again, we're talking about the same thing: "all you've done is shown a complete misunderstanding of physics and mathematics."Except this time you've added in a misunderstanding of biology as well. You need to do some work on your math. Maybe a hundred more years of study will get you there and you will learn that the multiplication rule is the reason. Nah bro, I'm good. But you - well, you seem like you need to set aside some time for self-reflection.Are you okay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Other than being a complete blithering idiot, do you have anything to contribute? Kleinman:So you are too stupid to understand why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Now that's established, what other stupidity do you have to offer. Kleinman:You should reflect on why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And take an introductory probability theory course, it will clear up some of the misconceptions you have about biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Kleinman writes: ...it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Thanks for continuing to agree with me that "all you've done is shown a complete misunderstanding of physics and mathematics."The evidence you have for such a claim is overwhelming. I'm on your side, you don't have to do it over and over again. And take an introductory probability theory course, it will clear up some of the misconceptions you have about biological evolution. Try not to deflect.This is about you, Kleinman. You don't seem well. Do you need help?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:You are a clown that can't explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Kleinman:Probability theory is used to describe stochastic processes of which descent with modification and recombination are two examples. Don't they use math up north? Apparently you don't. That explains why you have so little understanding of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: Of course, you won't see any calculations in the Kishony paper. They are only vaguely talking about descent with modification such as with this quote: You are claiming that the beneficial mutation rate in the Kishony paper is 1 in 1 billion. Where does it say that in the paper? Or did you just make it up?
I'm giving the mathematics that quantifies the population. Likewise, Lenski actually counts his populations and measures the number of adaptive mutations. That's why we know it takes about a billion replications for each adaptive mutation. Lenski counts the number of fixed beneficial mutations which is not the same as the rate of beneficial mutations.
As far as the Lederberg example goes, that's your argument. It's my argument that the results of the Lederberg experiment refute your argument. Your inability to address his evidence only furthers my argument.
At least I understand how to use the addition rule for mutually exclusive subsets and for arbitrary subsets, and how to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments and you don't. When are you going to learn how to do the mathematics of descent with modification and recombination? If you knew how to do the math you wouldn't be applying the addition rule to alleles in at different loci in sexual populations.
It's the stochastic portion of evolution that you don't get. Your mess up with the addition rule says otherwise. I have it right. You don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Kleinman writes: The mechanisms of evolutionary transition don't account for these differences. Don't you see that bacteria are not related to humans at the very least? Bare assertions mean nothing. You are also avoiding this topic:
Mutations Confirm Common Descent In that topic I discuss how the differences evidence common ancestry amongst primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Science doesn't deal in either proof or belief. Why is that so hard to understand? Nobody should question ringo, he doesn't need proof for what he believes. Feel free to ask questions. EVERYBODY should question me.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Kleinman writes: It does dumb, dumb. You simply have to subtract off the intersection so that you don't count those members twice. 1. That is found nowhere in the equation. 2. If this is the made up rule you are adding to the addition rule, then this means variants at different loci can move towards fixation simultaneously which you claimed couldn't happen because of the addition rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: It's your example, go for it. You are incapable of applying the 2LoT to evolution. Noted.
I'd rather do Markov chains for real evolutionary examples such as the Kishony experiment. Why don't you apply Markov chains to sexually reproducing populations? Why do you ignore the fact that Markov processes operating in these populations will produce nested hierarchies?
quote: What do we observe in nature? A nested hierarchy of species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
My question would be: Why do you spend so much time on a forum where everybody but you is a blithering idiot? Is it only among idiots that you compare well (in your own mind)? Other than being a complete blithering idiot, do you have anything to contribute? And what about your acolyte Dredge, who admits to being an idiot (and agrees with your thinking)?Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: The point of this calculation is to produce an AB variant. If the frequencies of A and B are very low in the population, then the probability of that happening by recombination will be very low. False. Your point is that the whichever of the two variants is fitter will drive the other to extinction. This isn't the case with sexually reproducing populations as your own posts have demonstrated. If both A and B are beneficial then their frequencies will increase, making a cross between carriers all but unavoidable. They will both increase in frequency simultaneously without any clonal interference if this is occurring in a sexual population. This is the conclusion you just can't seem to address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: Oh, I see. Then what is the reason that you bring up phages? It has nothing to do with UCD, so what is your point? I will repeat it again. Joshua and Esther Lederberg published a hallmark paper in 1951 titled, "Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants", which can be found here: REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC Luria and Delbruck went on to explain the processes that undergirded the Lederberg's results which later won Luria and Delbruck a Nobel Prize. There is one interesting observation in the Lederberg paper: "The culutre is fully sensitive to the phage T-1, as well as to streptomycin, and like most E. coli strains gives rise to resistant mutants at rates of approximately 10E-7 and 10E-10 per division, respectively." In this example we saw a beneficial mutation rate of 1 in 10 million and 1 in 10 billion to two different selection pressures using the same strain of E. coli. Kleinman is telling us that one beneficial adaptation every billion divisions is some universal constant, or something of the like. It is so universal that it can even be applied to human evolution. However, in another experiment using E. coli we see beneficial mutation rates that are quite different than what Kleinman claims. If Kleinman's math can't even apply universally to evolution in E. coli, what hope does it have of applying to any other species?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024