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

ringo:

---

Vegetables don't question scientists, which makes them smarter than you.

Dredge:

---

You've got me there, blondie.

---

---

Nobody should question ringo, he doesn't need proof for what he believes.

Kleinman:

---

Sure, but it isn't advantageous outside the malaria environment. It gives no advantage to those living in northern Europe

PaulK:

---

Which does not change the fact that it is advantageous in malarial regions, and that that advantage is constant enough to spread the allele there.

---

---

And that's your proof for UCD?

Kleinman:

---

It isn't as common in northern Europe where malaria is not endemic. And if it is homozygous for the sickle cell allele, it is harmful. I treated a patient many years ago who was homozygous for sickle cell and this patient was hospitalized many times for sickle cell crisis.

PaulK:

---

Which still does not change the facts.

---

---

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:

---

Only in a constant environment will they increase and only within a limit. If an adaptive recombination event doesn't occur, competition and fixation will eliminate all but one of the adaptive alleles. If the environment is not constant, who knows what alleles will increase in frequencies.

PaulK:

---

As usual you haven’t thought out your argument. If the two alleles do not come into contact they cannot interfere. If they do then recombination becomes a possibility - and the greater the contact the greater the probability of it occurring.
​
It does not require an absolutely constant environment, only that the alleles remain advantageous which is implicit in your original argument.

---

---

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:

---

You are confused

PaulK:

---

Not at all. As you admit the Desai experiment proves the point:

Kleinman:

---

The Desai experiment behaves exactly as expected. 90 generations of a constant environment with asexual replication gives increases in frequencies of adaptive alleles, then at 90 generations, sexual reproduction is induced and adaptive recombination events occur. Sexual reproduction is induced before fixation has occurre

---

---

---

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:

---

I didn't bring up the Malaria example, you did.

PaulK:

---

I see. I am it supposed to bring up valid examples because you’ll make stupid mistakes?

---

---

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:

---

Multiply resistant bacteria requires a population size much greater than that for singly resistant bacteria. It take much larger populations because they have to diverge more to get variants with double mutants. And to get triple mutants requires such large populations that even HIV does not achieve such population size. That's why 3-drug therapy works.

PaulK:

---

Which does not change the fact that hospitals are a stable enough environment for the evolution of multiply-resistant bacteria.

---

---

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:

---

We won't hold our breath for that one.

Stile:

---

Over 1500 posts into your thread... and all you've done is shown a complete misunderstanding of physics and mathematics in anything you've posted.
​
And you think you have the ability to judge other people's math work?
I think you need to work on yourself a bit.

---

---

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.

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." 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. 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:

---

I'm the only one that has given a mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments

Stile:

---

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."

---

---

Other than being a complete blithering idiot, do you have anything to contribute?

Kleinman:

---

When are you going to explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in these experiments?

Stile:

---

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.

---

---

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 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.

Stile:

---

Nah bro, I'm good.
​
But you - well, you seem like you need to set aside some time for self-reflection.
Are you okay?

---

---

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.

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. Try not to deflect.
This is about you, Kleinman.
You don't seem well.
Do you need help?

Kleinman:

---

...it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Stile:

---

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.

---

---

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:

---

And take an introductory probability theory course, it will clear up some of the misconceptions you have about biological evolution.

Stile:

---

Try not to deflect.
This is about you, Kleinman.
You don't seem well.
Do you need help?

---

---

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.

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? Lenski counts the number of fixed beneficial mutations which is not the same as the rate of beneficial mutations. It's my argument that the results of the Lederberg experiment refute your argument. Your inability to address his evidence only furthers my argument. 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. Your mess up with the addition rule says otherwise. I have it right. You don't.

Bare assertions mean nothing.You are also avoiding this topic: Mutations Confirm Common DescentIn that topic I discuss how the differences evidence common ancestry amongst primates.

Science doesn't deal in either proof or belief. Why is that so hard to understand?Feel free to ask questions. EVERYBODY should question me.

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.

You are incapable of applying the 2LoT to evolution. Noted. 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:

---

Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

---

What do we observe in nature? A nested hierarchy of species.

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)?And what about your acolyte Dredge, who admits to being an idiot (and agrees with your thinking)?

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.

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 - PMCLuria 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?