|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
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? I've recommended to him that he go see Psych, but he's too far gone to realize that he should. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo:Look at all those imaginary links that ringo has! They are just floating around his head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo:The wise Dr. dwise1 was trained in psychiatry as part of his C++ training. He's stuck in a loop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:If you didn't use 0.01 as a selection factor, explain what you used for a selection factor. It is your program. Kleinman: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: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: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: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: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:What was it, 21 generations? Why don't you fully document your mundane calculation? After all, you claim it models reality. Kleinman:Your computer program is garbage. But, good for you, you finally learned how to use the addition rule. 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. Kleinman: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:It's a constant, single-selection pressure environment. You know, just like the savannah. You are brilliant. Kleinman: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: If you didn't use 0.01 as a selection factor, explain what you used for a selection factor. It is your program. 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.
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? 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.
It didn't happen in the Lenski experiment. Only one mutation fixed at a time. THAT'S BECAUSE THE E. COLI IN THE LENSKI EXPERIMENT WERE ASEXUAL!!!!! My god, man.
And you haven't shown any examples of multiple simultaneous fixations with sexual reproducers. 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?
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 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.
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. There are no generations in the program. Do you even understand how math works?
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. 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.
It's a constant, single-selection pressure environment. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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 Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:That is a great model for an experiment that does use a selection factor. That's brilliant. Kleinman: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:Or maybe he didn't define fixation as 40% frequency as Desai did. Kleinman:Increasing in frequency is not the same as fixation. You are confusing the two concepts. As usual. Kleinman: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:So your program has no selection and no generations. That's how you model the Peabody experiment, that's great. Kleinman: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1:Dr. dwise1 knows all. He thinks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: That is a great model for an experiment that does use a selection factor. You are the one who introduced the addition rule. Now you are criticizing other people for using it. You fucking hypocrite.
Multiple beneficial mutations didn't go to fixation in either the Lenski or Desai experiment. 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.
Increasing in frequency is not the same as fixation. Which is why I have always said "moving towards fixation".
Kleinman writes: Sorry, you don't want to be distracted by reality but real environments aren't constant and have only a single selection pressure. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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.
Dr. dwise1 knows all. 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 Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Don't blame me for the poor education you got in mathematics and science. Kleinman: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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Don't blame me for the poor education you got in mathematics and science. I am using the addition rule you put forward, you fucking hypocrite.
And if you understood the physics of biological evolution, you would know that biological competition slows evolution (descent with modification). How in the world would there be evolution without competition?????? The one thing that would stop evolution is a lack of competition.
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. Amplification does occur in the Kishony experiment. The mutations for chloramphenicol are amplified as the bacteria move up in the drug gradient.
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. 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.
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: Yes, for asexual populations. Not for sexual populations.
But, if you want to model descent with modification to multiple simultaneous selection pressures, you must use the following equations: 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 are finally putting a tiny bit of precision in your terminology. Now try putting some more precision in by adding "under certain circumstances". 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.
If you want to model the Desai or Peabody experiment, you must include the mathematics of recombination to model and simulate those experiments. We have the fucking experimental results!!!
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. You have to take into account sexual reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
No, they're floating around the internet where anybody can see them. You can't wish them away. Look at all those imaginary links that ringo has! They are just floating around his head.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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: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: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: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 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: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: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: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: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 Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:So that's why ringo posts those links, they're floating around the internet.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024