|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1:Let's consider the knowledge and wisdom that AZPaul3 has in making medical diagnoses (in particular psychiatric diagnoses) since he is too bored to explain anything about biological evolution. From Message 903: Kleinman:Let's start with his claim that I go on with errant logic and faulty math (even though my math has been peer-reviewed and published). The Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments both demonstrate that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step. Since you have demonstrated some knowledge of probability theory and descent with modification and adaptation is a stochastic process, you should recognize what the random trial(s) is/are and the possible outcomes for the random trials. You have a mutation rate, the probability of success in a single random trial. When that probability of success is very small as mutation rates tend to be, it will take many replications for the adaptive mutation to occur. Simply do the math and you can get a good estimate for the number of replications needed for the adaptive mutation to occur. If you have trouble doing the math for this case, try studying these two papers. For a single selection condition: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance See if you can find any errors in this math, you won't. So, what other evidence does AZPaul3 have that I'm a "mental looney"? Since I have had to make some psychiatric diagnoses on patients in the past, I'll give you some conditions necessary to do so. The kinds of things a physician does to make such a diagnosis includes the following, medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Laboratory tests include blood tests, radiographic imaging, electrograms, and other studies as necessary. AZPaul3 has not done a physical examination or any laboratory tests on me and if he did, he would be charged with practicing medicine without a license. So we are left with AZPaul3's idea of medical history for my lunacy. When making a psychiatric diagnosis on someone with a loss of contact with reality, one should consider what the person's mental state has been in the past. Has this person shown behavior consistent with a loss of contact with reality? I have, in the past, gone to school and studied engineering and obtained a PhD degree in that subject. I worked a few years in the aerospace industry and part-time in the university system teaching engineering and at that time, I took the state professional engineering exam and passed it to become a licensed engineer. But I was still young and impulsive at that time, and my real interest was in medicine/engineering, so I decided to go to medical school. Some people may claim this was the act of a lunatic and they might be right. Anyway, I completed medical school, passed all my licensing examinations, and am now a licensed physician as well as a licensed engineer. I then worked for more than 30 years as a primary care physician. I did about 150,000 patient encounters, and no medical malpractice judgments or medical board complaints against me. And I decided to try and understand the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatment fails. I then published a few papers on what my studies showed. That's pretty crazy, isn't it dwise1. So, what is a possible conclusion that we can draw from AZPaul3's diagnosis? AZPaul3 believes that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals, and I'm crazy because I give an explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail based on the laws of physics, mathematics, and experimental results. I also explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments using mathematics that you should understand. You should look for a second opinion when it comes to any medical diagnosis that AZPaul3 gives. You certainly shouldn't look to AZPaul3 for advice on how to do a probability calculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Since AZPaul3 knows as much about descent with modification and adaptation as he knows about making a psychiatric diagnosis, he will now explain to us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. He won't and he can't because he only knows the stories that biologists have told him. And biologists don't know and have never explained how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:It isn't actually a theory. Here is the definition for "theory" from the American Heritage Dictionary: Theory A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
AZPaul3 tries to include the concept of "universal common descent" with the concept of "evolution". There are no experimental tests that verify UCD. All evolutionary experiments contradict the notion of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:AZPaul3 may have had a lifetime filled with the inability of dealing with reality, but that only makes him experienced with that inability. Spending a lifetime being a psychiatric patient doesn't make a person any more knowledgeable about psychiatry than being a lifetime fan of baseball makes you a homerun hitter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:The "Theory of Evolution" is not the "Theory of Universal Common Descent". They are two different things. So far, you and biologists have failed to explain why drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You and biologists have gotten nowhere near verifying that the "Theory of Universal Common Descent" is a reasonable and rational theory. The fact is, all biological evolutionary experiments contradict this idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:Then it should be easy for you to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You won't because you don't have the ability to understand the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:That's AZPaul3's explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. He learned this from biologists. Their explanation is no better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:You and biologists' inability to understand the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation does not make UCA or UCD or whatever you want to call it necessary or possible. Biologists' experiments show that UCD is not possible simply because of the huge populations required and rapid recovery rates necessary for descent with modification and adaptation to work. And these findings are when only one selection condition is used at a time in these experiments. The populations required are exponentially larger when two or more selection conditions are applied to a population for descent with modification and adaptation to operate. That is why 3-drug therapy (3 selection conditions) works for the treatment of HIV. You still have not learned how biological evolution works and neither have biologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:Tangle will now explain to us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Nope, he won't and neither will biologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:Tangle's link is behind a paywall but he posts the link because he thinks this is proof. You need to understand the difference between probability theory and statistics. Probability theory lays the foundation for statistical analysis. In probability theory, you start with the concept of a random trial (e.g. toss of a coin, roll of a die, draw of a card,... etc.), and from that, you can construct a sample space and derive a distribution function. Once you do that, you know the frequency of success for your case. Statistical analysis starts from a point where you have a set of data, and from that data, you assume a distribution function and then try to establish a confidence interval. My work is based on probability theory, not statistical analysis. That was the only complaint that I got from one of the peer reviewers at Statistics in Medicine, that my work was not a statistical analysis. They were correct, I started from fundamental principles (the mutation rate) and derived the correct distribution for descent with modification and adaptation and showed that the distribution function was a variation of the binomial probability distribution. That's why the statistical data from the Kishony and Lenski biological evolution experiments fit the model I've presented. Biologists have no statistical data that doesn't fit this model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:Quote your proof if you think you have some. You won't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Quote your proof if you think you have some. You won't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:Let's start there. Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive step (adaptive mutation) in the Kishony evolution of bacterial resistance experiment? Is that your proof for UCD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:Good night Tangle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle:Their beliefs are so weird that vimesey thinks I can do photosynthesis. He pictures me as plankton! https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=903827#m903827
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024