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

That's the problem with mental illness. It often makes the "sufferer" feel better . If you have a sore foot, you go to the doctor to make it feel better - but if you're already euphoric, why would you?Kleinman is already feeling pretty good about himself, at least on the surface. Deep down, there may be a lot of turmoil that will cause him to crash eventually.

ringo:

---

There are plenty of links. Kleinman is afraid to look at them because he knows there is NOTHING on the Internet that supports his nonsense. He supports himself. Nobody else does.

Kleinman:

---

There are plenty of links. Kleinman is afraid to look at them because he knows there is NOTHING on the Internet that supports his nonsense. He supports himself. Nobody else does.

ringo:

---

Yes, you may be having hallucinations. That would explain your blindness to reality.

---

---

---

Look at all those imaginary links that ringo has! They are just floating around his head.

ringo:

---

Yes, you may be having hallucinations. That would explain your blindness to reality.

dwise1:

---

I've recommended to him that he go see Psych, but he's too far gone to realize that he should.

---

---

The wise Dr. dwise1 was trained in psychiatry as part of his C++ training. He's stuck in a loop.

Kleinman:

---

You used a selection factor of 0.01 for all your examples. That insures that the frequencies will all be high after just 6 generations of selection.

Taq:

---

I didn't use any selection factors. What in the world are you talking about?
​
Also, you still haven't supplied any math for sexual reproduction from real populations. Where is it?

---

---

If you didn't use 0.01 as a selection factor, explain what you used for a selection factor. It is your program.

Kleinman:

---

If you think your model represents all cases of recombination, get it published. You won't because it doesn't.

Taq:

---

What I presented was so mundane as to be elementary. If 1% of a population of 1 million heterozygous carriers of either mutation A or mutation B then that would mean 0.01*0.01*1E6*0.5*0.5.01 offspring will carry both mutations, or 25 in total for random mating. It's a basic formula that isn't worth publishing on.
​
What are you on about? Do you think it is impossible for a beneficial mutation to increase in frequency?

---

---

Of course, your calculation is mundane. So, now you are claiming you used a population of 1 million? Why did you say "I will use a population of 100,000"? That is why your calculation is garbage. You don't even know what values you used. You just made up a problem out of your imagination. If multiple beneficial mutations can go to fixation simultaneously with a sexually reproducing population, why can't multiple beneficial mutations go to fixation simultaneously with an asexually reproducing population? And give us examples of each.

Kleinman:

---

I don't have to, Haldane and Kimura already did that. Of course, you think they are wrong.

Taq:

---

They have been shown to be wrong in the peer reviewed literature.

---

---

It didn't happen in the Lenski experiment. Only one mutation fixed at a time. And you haven't shown any examples of multiple simultaneous fixations with sexual reproducers. Desai simply changed the definition to 40% frequency for fixation. In your confused imagination, you think that all examples of evolution occur in a single selection pressure, constant environment. But they don't, that's why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy works on weeds, and insects. You don't have the skill to take what happens in the laboratory and apply it to real examples happening in a changing environment with multiple simultaneous selection pressures.

quote:

---

As stated above, Haldane (1957) argued that the costs of natural selection accumulate over loci, i.e., the reproductive cost of allele substitution at two loci would be twice the cost at a single locus. Consequently, the time required for substitution should be twice as long. In general, if it takes t generations for a gene substitution at a single locus, it should take Lt generations for substitutions at L loci. Applying this logic to our model, given that it takes 400 generations for allelic substitution at one locus, it should take 40 000 generations for substitutions at 100 loci. This prediction is in stark contrast to our finding that it takes only 400 generations for allelic substitution at all 100 loci (see Fig. 2F). How can we explain this major difference between Haldane’s prediction and our findings?
Clearly, Haldane’s scenario does not explain our simulation results as shown in Fig. 2. The reason for the discrepancy is, we believe, that Haldane’s argument assumed that the optimal genotypic combination had to be already present in the initial population and that genotypes could be considered as fixed entities that reproduce themselves from one generation to the next. But these assumptions do not hold for a sexually outbreeding population. First, the population is usually not large enough to contain even a single individual with the vanishingly rare optimal genotypic combination; this fact has already been pointed out by Ewens (1972) and Maynard Smith (1976). Second, specific genotypes are broken down by recombination each generation and replaced by other genotypic combinations (Hickey and Golding 2018). The process of recombination involves the continual disassembly of existing genotypes and reassembly of new genotypes from one generation to the next. Because of this process, however, those genotypes that are expected to be vanishingly rare when the allele frequencies are low will be automatically generated through recombination once the allele frequencies begin to rise in response to selection (Muller 1964; Hickey and Golding 2018). Consequently, there is no need for the massive culling that would be required in a very large initial population that contained an extremely rare optimal genotype. Thus, in an outbreeding sexual population, recombination solves the perceived problem of costs that are cumulative over different genetic loci. In Haldane’s scenario, it is necessary to “grow” the optimal genotypic combination from an initial, vanishingly rare frequency to fixation. In practice, however, this optimal combination is produced by recombination only near the end of the process. This avoids the huge cumulative cost of natural selection.
Canadian Science Publishing

Taq:

---

Before you complain about this not being based on real populations, you also have to remember that Haldane's work was also not based on real populations but on simulations.

---

---

You continue to cling to the notion that all evolutionary processes occur in constant environment, with single selection pressures that are only found in laboratories. That's what Desai and Peabody used in their experiments. But HIV treatment is done with 3 drug therapy so the probability of adaptive recombination is almost nil, that's why the treatment works. Likewise, combination therapy works for the control of insects and weeds because any alleles resistant to one or another selection pressure do not amplify like they can in a single selection pressure environment. Desai and Peabody both used constant environments (90 and 55 generations respectively) and only a single selection pressure to allow time for adaptive alleles to amplify. You refuse to accept the fact of multiple simultaneous selection pressures exist in real environments and the effect it has on biological evolution due to the multiplication rule of probabilities (both in descent with modification and recombination). You do not understand biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Those alleles are amplified because there is constant selection for 90 generations in a single selection pressure environment.

Taq:

---

There was 50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment, and yet you think this is a valid experiment.
​
Also, as I have said many, many, many times, both the asexual and sexual populations were under the very same constant conditions, and yet there was only clonal interference in the asexual population. You STILL won't address this.​

---

---

50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works. And each adaptive mutation improved fitness less and less. So, Desai and Peabody use 90 and 55 generations of constant selection for the amplification of adaptive alleles so that adaptive recombination can occur. I'll do this as many times as necessary. You cannot extrapolate these results to UCD because these experiments are carried out in a constant environment with a single selection pressure. The real world has multiple simultaneous selection pressures with a changing environment. This changes the effect of adaptive recombination. We don't have experimental results yet, but we do have empirical examples. HIV with 3 drug treatment, and combination therapy for the control of weeds, and insects. You won't accept the fact that multiple simultaneous selection pressure slow evolution, both descent with modification and recombination. There is a reason 99% of all species have gone extinct.

Kleinman:

---

What environment and selection condition give the selective advantage of humans over chimps?

Taq:

---

Open savanna, as I have stated over and over and over.

---

---

Now that's a constant environment with only a single selection pressure. No predation, no starvation, no thermal stress, no disease, no dehydration,... This environment works just like the Desai and Peabody experiments. Have you ever tried writing a model of allele amplification with multiple simultaneous selection conditions? And then you can test it with a real experiment and see if it works.

Kleinman:

---

Then I would ask you, is there any constant environment, single selection pressure environment that gives selection advantage of humans over chimps and you can use your numbers, 6 generations?

Taq:

---

I never used 6 generations. What a liar.

---

---

What was it, 21 generations? Why don't you fully document your mundane calculation? After all, you claim it models reality.

Kleinman:

---

and your selection factor from your Python program where you increment i

Taq:

---

That's not a selection factor. That's the percentage of the population that carries either mutation A or mutation B. What I am showing is that your addition rule allows those mutations to be any frequency from 0 to 1, something you claimed couldn't happen.

---

---

Your computer program is garbage. But, good for you, you finally learned how to use the addition rule.

Kleinman:

---

and from your paper, they have many references to the number of generations they ran their experiment, here's just one:
Sexual recombination and increased mutation rate expedite evolution of Escherichia coli in varied fitness landscapes - PMC

Taq:

---

What does that have to do with anything?

---

---

That's why your computer program is garbage, your generations don't match and you don't match selection conditions. You aren't simulating anything.

Kleinman:

---

Everyone knows you can't answer the question.

Taq:

---

I did answer it, you liar. If you don't think the mutations that differ between humans and chimps are responsible for the physical differences between chimps and humans, then what in the world are we discussing here?

---

---

Yeah, your answer is the savannah, a constant, single selection pressure environment. Just like the Desai and Peabody experiment. That's a brilliant answer.

Kleinman:

---

You claimed you wrote a computer simulation of the experiment.

Taq:

---

The model is in the paper. READ IT!!!

---

---

It's a constant, single-selection pressure environment. You know, just like the savannah. You are brilliant.

Kleinman:

---

That's right dumdum, and I was able to derive the equation for descent with modification and explain how biological competition affects adaptive evolution.

Taq:

---

But those same calculations don't apply when looking at the Desai experiment because the Desai experiment used a constant environment? What a fucking hypocrite.

---

---

I'm not so stupid to think that all environments are constant, single selection pressure environments like a dumbass virologist. 26 years of research and you end up being a complete idiot.

I didn't use a selection factor.FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME!!!!All I am showing you is that two mutations at unlinked loci can be at any percentage and still add up to one in your stupid addition rule. For example, two mutations can both be at a frequency of 0.9 (or 0.01) and still add up to 1 in your equation. You claimed this wasn't possible, and I showed you it was. Multiple beneficial mutations can go to fixation if they are in the same genetic background. However, if they are in different genetic backgrounds then clonal interference will prevent the less fit beneficial mutations from reaching fixation. This doesn't happen in sexual populations because of recombination which moves beneficial mutations from different genetic backgrounds onto the same genetic background.This is like the millionth time I've explained this. THAT'S BECAUSE THE E. COLI IN THE LENSKI EXPERIMENT WERE ASEXUAL!!!!!My god, man. I have shown multiple alleles independently increasing in frequency over time. For example, this figure from the Desai paper:Notice on the left, the asexual populations, that mutations come in waves? Notice how that does not occur in the sexual populations? Notice how there are many different mutations at different stages of moving towards fixation in the sexual populations with no apparent waves of mutations? That's just a distraction you are conning people into paying attention to. You don't have to have a constant environment in order for selection to occur. There are no generations in the program. Do you even understand how math works? It's like you don't even remember saying this:"You continue to cling to the notion that all evolutionary processes occur in constant environment, with single selection pressures that are only found in laboratories."You fucking hypocrite. "50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works."--KleinmanYou fucking hypocrite.

One does not need to have a degree to see when someone is severely mentally ill. That is why we almost instinctively avoid such people on the street.You present batshit all over the place. The stench is palpable.

Kleinman:

---

If you didn't use 0.01 as a selection factor, explain what you used for a selection factor. It is your program.

Taq:

---

I didn't use a selection factor.​

---

---

That is a great model for an experiment that does use a selection factor. That's brilliant.

Kleinman:

---

If multiple beneficial mutations can go to fixation simultaneously with a sexually reproducing population, why can't multiple beneficial mutations go to fixation simultaneously with an asexually reproducing population?

Taq:

---

Multiple beneficial mutations can go to fixation if they are in the same genetic background. However, if they are in different genetic backgrounds then clonal interference will prevent the less fit beneficial mutations from reaching fixation. This doesn't happen in sexual populations because of recombination which moves beneficial mutations from different genetic backgrounds onto the same genetic background.

---

---

Multiple beneficial mutations didn't go to fixation in either the Lenski or Desai experiment. They must have had different genetic backgrounds. Why did Desai have to use a constant environment and a single selection pressure?

Kleinman:

---

It didn't happen in the Lenski experiment. Only one mutation fixed at a time.

Taq:

---

THAT'S BECAUSE THE E. COLI IN THE LENSKI EXPERIMENT WERE ASEXUAL!!!!!

---

---

Or maybe he didn't define fixation as 40% frequency as Desai did.

Kleinman:

---

And you haven't shown any examples of multiple simultaneous fixations with sexual reproducers.

Taq:

---

I have shown multiple alleles independently increasing in frequency over time.

---

---

Increasing in frequency is not the same as fixation. You are confusing the two concepts. As usual.

Kleinman:

---

You continue to cling to the notion that all evolutionary processes occur in constant environment, with single selection pressures that are only found in laboratories.

Taq:

---

That's just a distraction you are conning people into paying attention to. You don't have to have a constant environment in order for selection to occur.

---

---

Sorry, you don't want to be distracted by reality but real environments aren't constant and have only a single selection pressure. That's why 3 drug therapy for HIV works, and combination selection pressures work for the control of weeds and insects. You still don't want to accept what combination selection pressures do to the biological evolutionary process. That's why you are wrong about UCD.

Kleinman:

---

That's why your computer program is garbage, your generations don't match and you don't match selection conditions. You aren't simulating anything.

Taq:

---

There are no generations in the program. Do you even understand how math works?

---

---

So your program has no selection and no generations. That's how you model the Peabody experiment, that's great.

Kleinman:

---

50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works.

Taq:

---

It's like you don't even remember saying this:
​
"You continue to cling to the notion that all evolutionary processes occur in constant environment, with single selection pressures that are only found in laboratories."
​
You fucking hypocrite.

---

---

We know that you so brilliantly pointed out to us that the savannah is a constant environment with a single selection pressure. No predation, no thermal stress, no starvation, no dehydration, no disease,... That's brilliantly ignorant.

Kleinman:

---

It's a constant, single-selection pressure environment.

Taq:

---

"50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works."--Kleinman
​
You fucking hypocrite.

---

---

You are the expert, evolution only occurs in a constant, single-selection pressure environment. Too bad you don't understand how biological evolution works. Perhaps you should write more computer programs that don't include selection or generations in them to show us how fish evolve into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds in this constant, single-selection pressure environment. We can call it Taqyland.

dwise1:

---

One does not need to have a degree to see when someone is severely mentally ill. That is why we almost instinctively avoid such people on the street.

---

Dr. dwise1 knows all. He thinks.

You are the one who introduced the addition rule. Now you are criticizing other people for using it. You fucking hypocrite. Then why are you even discussing fixation?Does a mutation have to a frequency of 1 in order to be beneficial? No.
Does a mutation have to reach a frequency of 1 in order for evolution to occur? No.What does have to happen is an increase in frequency. What we see in the Desai experiment is just that, and there is no clonal interference. You still won't address the lack of clonal interference in the sexual populations. Which is why I have always said "moving towards fixation". "50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works."--Kleinman
​
You fucking hypocrite.

One of my sailors thanked me for saving his life.While directing him through an online evolution (our more senior sailors with little to no computer experience needed almost constant supervision while online (which is why I packed a pocket laser -- "Don't you make me take out my laser!") ), I noticed a small scab on the top of his head that just didn't look right, so I told him about it and recommended that he see his doctor to have it checked. It turned out to be a pre-K that the doctor biopsied and removed -- being a Celt who spent almost his entire life in Southern Calif., I have had a lot of personal experience with those. He was a mail carrier, balding, who had spent years working out in the sun without a hat. He thanked me for saving him from skin cancer.I didn't attempt to diagnose him nor attempt to treat him. Rather, I noticed that something might be wrong and advise him to have it checked out. I certainly know a helluva lot more than you do.Seriously, you should go to Psych to get checked out. At the very least to assess the level of brain damage you have suffered due to creationism and other wackadoodle religious nonsense (eg, you recently expressed a strong interest in young-earth creationist claims, which is the most brain-damaged aspect of creationism).

Kleinman:

---

That is a great model for an experiment that does use a selection factor.

Taq:

---

You are the one who introduced the addition rule. Now you are criticizing other people for using it. You fucking hypocrite.

---

---

Don't blame me for the poor education you got in mathematics and science.

Kleinman:

---

Multiple beneficial mutations didn't go to fixation in either the Lenski or Desai experiment.

Taq:

---

Then why are you even discussing fixation?

---

---

Fixation is a possible outcome in biological competition. And if you understood the physics of biological evolution, you would know that biological competition slows evolution (descent with modification). Fixation does not occur nor does amplification in the evolutionary process seen in the Kishony experiment. It only takes a single occurrence of an adaptive mutation for that variant to grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. Under certain circumstances, biological competition will amplify multiple more fit alleles such as in a constant, single-selection pressure environment, as seen in the Desai and Peabody experiments. But that amplification process is much less likely in a varying, multiple-selection pressure environment, as see with 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV, and combination selection pressures used to control weeds and insects. That's why the Desai and Peabody experiments cannot be used to model varying environments with multiple simultaneous selection pressures. You can draw some conclusions about constant environment, and single selection pressure evolution from the Kishony and Lenski experiments such as the mathematics for descent with modification to a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
But, if you want to model descent with modification to multiple simultaneous selection pressures, you must use the following equations:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
When doing the mathematics of evolution in the Lenski experiment, you must include the mathematics of biological competition along with descent with modification to a single selection pressure. If you want to model the Desai or Peabody experiment, you must include the mathematics of recombination to model and simulate those experiments. That includes the 90 or 55 generations of constant selection used to amplify the adaptive alleles. You can use a similar approach in modeling 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV or combination therapy for controlling weeds and insects but you must use the descent with modification equation for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and measure whether amplification occurs or not in order to determine if adaptive recombination occurs. We don't have the numbers for the selection coefficient in these cases of multiple simultaneous selection pressures but we do know these work. Amplification of alleles is not occurring because these techniques work. You may find a tiny number of cases where it appears that recombination causes 3 drug therapy to fail as the single case you have presented but the treatment works tens of millions of times. You simply will not accept these numerical facts.

Kleinman:

---

Increasing in frequency is not the same as fixation.

Taq:

---

Which is why I have always said "moving towards fixation".

---

---

You are finally putting a tiny bit of precision in your terminology. Now try putting some more precision in by adding "under certain circumstances". When does that amplification occur?

Kleinman:

---

Sorry, you don't want to be distracted by reality but real environments aren't constant and have only a single selection pressure.

Taq:

---

"50,000 generations of constant selection in the Lenski experiment and about 75 different biological competitions as adaptive mutations accumulated. This more than demonstrates how descent with modification works."--Kleinman
​
You fucking hypocrite.

---

---

Here is where you go off track. I understand that the Kishony, Lenski, Desai, and Peabody experiments are constant environment, single selection pressure experiments. You have to modify the model to take into account if the environment is varying and you have more than one selection pressure acting on the population. If I were modeling the motion of a building or bridge in an earthquake, I wouldn't use a model of a pendulum or mass and spring. I have to include all the components of the building or bridge and include the effects of all the forces on the structure. You want to model all evolution as a constant environment, single selection pressure process, but it isn't. There are many selection pressures acting all the time and the environment is always changing. Until you understand this fundamental concept of evolution, you will not understand how biological evolution works.

I am using the addition rule you put forward, you fucking hypocrite. How in the world would there be evolution without competition?????? The one thing that would stop evolution is a lack of competition. Amplification does occur in the Kishony experiment. The mutations for chloramphenicol are amplified as the bacteria move up in the drug gradient. Prove it. Show us the evolving genomes of every single species that lives in a varying environment and demonstrate to us that this isn't happening. Yes, for asexual populations. Not for sexual populations. That doesn't model every possible changing environment. You can't make the sweeping conclusions you are trying to make. Extremely harsh selection regimes are not the normal situation in nature. You first. You are the one who is trying to make sweeping conclusions about evolution based on very artificial selection regimes that are very different from what is found in nature. We have the fucking experimental results!!! You have to take into account sexual reproduction.

No, they're floating around the internet where anybody can see them. You can't wish them away.

Kleinman:

---

Don't blame me for the poor education you got in mathematics and science.

Taq:

---

I am using the addition rule you put forward, you fucking hypocrite.

---

---

I put forward the standard definition used in any introductory probability text. I can't help it if you haven't studied introductory probability theory. That would explain why you don't understand stochastic processes such as descent with modification and recombination. Your training in mathematics and science is pathetic.

Kleinman:

---

And if you understood the physics of biological evolution, you would know that biological competition slows evolution (descent with modification).

Taq:

---

How in the world would there be evolution without competition?????? The one thing that would stop evolution is a lack of competition.

---

---

If the population size is less than the carrying capacity, then competition will be minimal to none. That is clearly demonstrated in the Kishony experiment. This is a simple thermodynamic principle that you didn't learn in your suboptimal training.

Kleinman:

---

Fixation does not occur nor does amplification in the evolutionary process seen in the Kishony experiment. It only takes a single occurrence of an adaptive mutation for that variant to grow in the next higher drug-concentration region.

Taq:

---

Amplification does occur in the Kishony experiment. The mutations for chloramphenicol are amplified as the bacteria move up in the drug gradient.

---

---

You are confused. Chloramphenicol was used in the Peabody experiment, not the Kishony experiment. Amplification does not occur in the Kishony experiment. This debate is getting to you. You confuse descent with modification and adaptive recombination.

Kleinman:

---

Under certain circumstances, biological competition will amplify multiple more fit alleles such as in a constant, single-selection pressure environment, as seen in the Desai and Peabody experiments. But that amplification process is much less likely in a varying, multiple-selection pressure environment, as seen with 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV, and combination selection pressures used to control weeds and insects.

Taq:

---

Prove it. Show us the evolving genomes of every single species that lives in a varying environment and demonstrate to us that this isn't happening.

---

---

Sure, biological competition amplifies alleles in both the Desai and Peabody experiment. They do this by allowing 90 and 55 generations of constant selection and using a single selection pressure. This doesn't happen with HIV, weeds, insects, and many other examples of evolution when a varying environment and multiple simultaneous selection pressures are acting on the population. All you have to do is find a measurable, repeatable example of a population evolving more efficiently to multiple simultaneous selection pressures than a single selection pressure. The reason it doesn't happen is the multiplication rule. And if the rule is imposed in an extra instance as is the case of HIV, you have durable treatment for this disease. You simply do not want to accept this physical and mathematical fact of life.

Kleinman:

---

You can draw some conclusions about constant environment, and single selection pressure evolution from the Kishony and Lenski experiments such as the mathematics for descent with modification to a single selection pressure:

Taq:

---

Yes, for asexual populations. Not for sexual populations.

---

---

You still don't get it and are a very slow learner. Descent with modification works the same way for asexual and sexual replicators. With sexual replicators, you must also include the possibility of adaptive recombination. Descent with modification creates new alleles, recombination shuffles existing alleles. Under certain circumstances, recombination can recombine adaptive alleles and improve fitness for a variant as shown in the Desai and Peabody experiments. But that requires a constant environment and single selection pressure with a waiting time of 90 and 55 generations to amplify adaptive alleles. That effect doesn't happen when multiple simultaneous selection pressures are applied to a population. That's why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV, and combination therapy works for controlling weeds, and insects, as well as many other examples. You have no examples that show otherwise. You really need to learn how biological evolution works. Your 26 years of research failed to give you the answer.

Kleinman:

---

But, if you want to model descent with modification to multiple simultaneous selection pressures, you must use the following equations:

Taq:

---

That doesn't model every possible changing environment. You can't make the sweeping conclusions you are trying to make. Extremely harsh selection regimes are not the normal situation in nature.

---

---

Once again, you fail to understand the physical and mathematical facts of how evolution works. The mathematics of descent with modification tells you how many replications the population will need for adaptive mutation(s) to occur. The environment doesn't determine that number, the environment can only slow the rate of accumulation of replications. So, the Kishony and Lenski experiments both take about a billion replications for each adaptive mutation to the single selection condition. But the much, much larger carrying capacity (thus the lack of biological competition) of the Kishony experiment allows the population to grow much more quickly. This allows the evolutionary process to work more quickly.

Kleinman:

---

You are finally putting a tiny bit of precision in your terminology. Now try putting some more precision in by adding "under certain circumstances".

Taq:

---

You first. You are the one who is trying to make sweeping conclusions about evolution based on very artificial selection regimes that are very different from what is found in nature.

---

---

I have been putting precision into this discussion by using mathematics. You might not like the fact that the multiplication rule applies to joint probabilities such as two or more beneficial mutations occurring or an adaptive recombination event occurring but it is a physical and mathematical fact of life. That's why adaptive recombination only has a high probability of occurring when evolution is occurring in a constant environment with a single selection pressure. That is the circumstance which adaptive recombination has a high probability of occurring. 3 drug therapy for treating HIV and combination therapy for controlling weeds and insects don't allow for the amplification of alleles. Otherwise, these strategies would fail. But, feel free to find a real, measurable, and repeatable example of evolution to two or more simultaneous selection pressures where evolution occurs more quickly. Perhaps Desai should apply thermal stress to his population and descent with modification and adaptive recombination will work more quickly. Or perhaps Peabody should use chloramphenicol and trimethoprim simultaneously and his experiment will show that descent with modification and adaptive recombination works more quickly.

Kleinman:

---

If you want to model the Desai or Peabody experiment, you must include the mathematics of recombination to model and simulate those experiments.

Taq:

---

We have the fucking experimental results!!!

---

---

You still aren't getting it slow poke. They used a constant environment and a single selection pressure. They then gave 90 and 55 generations time for amplification so that adaptive recombination would have a high probability of occurring. You want to apply this model to all evolution when real environments aren't constant and there are many selection pressures acting on the population. Stop thinking like a poorly trained lower-division student. Maybe you can't.

Kleinman:

---

I understand that the Kishony, Lenski, Desai, and Peabody experiments are constant environment, single selection pressure experiments. You have to modify the model to take into account if the environment is varying and you have more than one selection pressure acting on the population.

Taq:

---

You have to take into account sexual reproduction.

---

---

The number of selection conditions is far more important. The Desai and Peabody experiments do have sexual reproduction and the only reason they work is that it is a constant environment with a single selection condition with 90 and 55 generations of amplification time. You want to apply this model to all evolution. That's like applying the pendulum model or mass-spring model to all equation of motion problems. It doesn't work that way.

Kleinman:

---

Look at all those imaginary links that ringo has! They are just floating around his head.

ringo:

---

No, they're floating around the internet where anybody can see them. You can't wish them away.

---

---

So that's why ringo posts those links, they're floating around the internet.