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

Which journals are they published in?

This is going over your head.
You need to slow down. Catch your breath.
I'm here for you.Just tell me who hurt you.

Kleinman:

---

If you are too stupid to do descent with modification for the Kishony and Lenski experiments, just admit it.

Taq:

---

I can do the math just fine. What you can't seem to understand is that the math doesn't apply to sexually reproducing populations.

---

---

We can tell by the number of posts where you have done the math, zero. And descent with modification applies to sexually reproducing populations as well, you just have to superimpose recombination on the process. Of course, you bungle that math as well.

Descent with modification does apply to sexually reproducing populations. Your mathematic models based on clonal reproduction do not. This was demonstrated beautifully in the Desai paper:

quote:

---

To investigate how sex improves the efficiency of selection, we analysed the dynamics of adaptation. As in earlier studies21,22, asexual populations exhibit signatures of hitchhiking and clonal interference (Fig. 2a–d). Groups of functionally unrelated mutations, linked within the same genetic background, change in frequency together as clonal cohorts. The outcomes of evolution are determined by competition between these cohorts. In contrast, sexual populations are not characterized by cohorts of linked mutations (Fig. 2e–h). Instead, the dynamics of each mutation is largely independent of other variation in the population. In these populations, mutations that occur on different backgrounds fix independently, while others briefly hitchhike to moderate frequencies where they persist or are eliminated from the population.
Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution | Nature

---

Both clonal and sexual populations were grown in the same environment. Only in the sexual population was there a lack of clonal interference where beneficial alleles moved towards fixation independently. Your claim that the fittest variant drives all other variants at all other loci to extinction is false in sexually reproducing populations. Pointing to math based on clonal populations does nothing to change this conclusion.

Kleinman:

---

How did you get to be so stupid with 26 years of research experience? Just ignore my papers, therefore they don't exist. You are a dummy.

Taq:

---

Which journals are they published in?

---

---

Ones like stupid asses such as you that don't understand descent modification and the addition rule don't understand. You stupid ass. Learn how to do the mathematics of descent with modification, but first, learn introductory probability theory. You will find out how the multiplication rule affects biological evolution. You are so stupid.

You might have missed my previous question.Which journals are your papers published in?

Kleinman:

---

And descent with modification applies to sexually reproducing populations as well, you just have to superimpose recombination on the process.

Taq:

---

Descent with modification does apply to sexually reproducing populations. Your mathematic models based on clonal reproduction do not. This was demonstrated beautifully in the Desai paper:

---

---

Hey, it's a free country. If you want to be stupid, you can be stupid. It's sad that you teach naive schoolchildren this stupidity. They really should be able to explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Kleinman:

---

Ones like stupid asses such as you that don't understand descent modification and the addition rule don't understand. You stupid ass. Learn how to do the mathematics of descent with modification, but first, learn introductory probability theory. You will find out how the multiplication rule affects biological evolution. You are so stupid.

Taq:

---

You might have missed my previous question.
​
Which journals are your papers published in?

---

---

Look it up yourself you idiot. You can't handle the simplest task.

So you refuse to address the fact that sexual reproduction negates clonal interference?

Desai et al. did the math for their observations, and they found that sexual reproduction alleviates clonal interference. Pointing to clonal interference in experiments using clonal populations does not refute their findings.

Kleinman:

---

Hey, it's a free country. If you want to be stupid, you can be stupid. It's sad that you teach naive schoolchildren this stupidity. They really should be able to explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Taq:

---

So you refuse to address the fact that sexual reproduction negates clonal interference?

---

---

Only in limited circumstances such as the Desai experiment which is carried out in a constant environment. Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend that. And does that make UCD possible? Only in your mathematically incompetent mind.

The asexual population was in a constant environment and there was clonal interference. It isn't the constant environment that is alleviating clonal interference. If all you can do is call people stupid then you have no argument.

A paper describing how sexual reproduction speeds adaptation in changing environments compared to clonal populations due to the fact that sex alleviates clonal interference in changing environments.

quote:

---

Background
Sex in higher diploids carries a two-fold cost of males that should reduce its fitness relative to cloning, and result in its extinction. Instead, sex is widespread and clonal species face early obsolescence. One possible reason is that sex is an adaptation that allows organisms to respond more effectively to endless changes in their environment. The purpose of this study was to model mutation and selection in a diploid organism in an evolving environment and ascertain their support for sex.

​

Results
We used a computational approach to model finite populations where a haploid environment subjects a diploid host to endlessly evolving change. Evolution in both populations is primarily through adoption of novel advantageous mutations within a large allele space. Sex outcompetes cloning by two complementary mechanisms. First, sexual diploids adopt advantageous homozygous mutations more rapidly than clonal ones under conditions of lag load (the gap between the actual adaptation of the diploid population and its theoretical optimum). This rate advantage can offset the higher fecundity of cloning. Second, a relative advantage to sex emerges where populations are significantly polymorphic, because clonal polymorphism runs the risk of clonal interference caused by selection on numerous lines of similar adaptation. This interference extends allele lifetime and reduces the rate of adaptation. Sex abolishes the interference, making selection faster and elevating population fitness. Differences in adaptation between sexual and clonal populations increase markedly with the number of loci under selection, the rate of mutation in the host, and a rapidly evolving environment. Clonal interference in these circumstances leads to conditions where the greater fecundity of clones is unable to offset their poor adaptation. Sexual and clonal populations then either co-exist, or sex emerges as the more stable evolutionary strategy.

​

Conclusions
Sex can out-compete clones in a rapidly evolving environment, such as that characterized by pathogens, where clonal interference reduces the adaptation of clonal populations and clones adopt advantageous mutations more slowly. Since all organisms carry parasitic loads, the model is of potentially general applicability.
The maintenance of sex: Ronald Fisher meets the Red Queen | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text

---

Kleinman:

---

Only in limited circumstances such as the Desai experiment which is carried out in a constant environment.

Taq:

---

The asexual population was in a constant environment and there was clonal interference. It isn't the constant environment that is alleviating clonal interference.

---

---

It's the constant environment that allows a few adaptive alleles to amplify (increase in frequencies for the mathematically incompetent). That increases the probability of an adaptive recombination event.

Kleinman:

---

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend that. And does that make UCD possible? Only in your mathematically incompetent mind.

Taq:

---

If all you can do is call people stupid then you have no argument.

---

---

You are a whiner and you are stupid. Why do you lie when you claim to have done the mathematics of descent with modification? You are not only stupid, but you are also a liar.

Why wouldn't adaptive alleles amplify in a changing environment?You also assume that no mutation will be beneficial in more than one environment, which is false. Perfect example of what people do when the evidence is stacked against them.