Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
5 online now:
GDR, Tanypteryx, Taq (3 members, 2 visitors)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,622 Year: 12,734/6,534 Month: 17/2,210 Week: 348/460 Day: 17/22 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 40 of 2383 (898028)
09-17-2022 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 3:50 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Biological competition "disrupt" (slows) adaptation. This is a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics.
How do you achieve adaption in the absence of competition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 3:50 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 5:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 46 of 2383 (898034)
09-17-2022 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 5:03 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Diversification in populations is simply a matter of replication. That's because replication gives the chance for mutations to occur.
Diversification is not identical with adaption.
quote:
It takes energy to replicate and if you force different variants to compete for a limited amount of energy, this will limit the population size of the most fit variant. This slows the diversification (adaptation) of all variants in the given environment. Most or all of the less fit variants end up going extinct.
More accurately then competition is needed for adaption, which is slower than unconstrained drift (which you mistakenly call “adaption”)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 5:03 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 5:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 60 of 2383 (898050)
09-18-2022 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Kleinman
09-17-2022 5:29 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Experimental evidence shows you are incorrect.
Really? You’ve already misrepresented Lenski once.
quote:
That is why the Lenski variants evolve more slowly than the Kishony variants. Lenski energy limits his populations which slows the growth of the individual variant populations.
That is not what the Lenski paper you quoted says. Lenski argues that in asexually reproducing life, large populations slow adaption because more advantageous mutations are available.
Message 41
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations
Why did the Lenski team say the following:
quote:
When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix. This phenomenon of interference arises from competition between mutations of different strengths as well as competition between mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds.
quote:
Kishony's colonies easily achieve population sizes of a billion or more. That size population gives a reasonable probability that all possible mutations will occur on some member of that colony when a mutation rate is 1e-9.
And, per Lenski that should slow adaption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Kleinman, posted 09-17-2022 5:29 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 10:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 63 of 2383 (898067)
09-18-2022 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 10:54 AM


Re: Video not available
quote:
I added the bold face.
Which shows the question Lenski is addressing.
quote:
Lenski's Team doesn't understand why competition slows adaptation. That's why I wrote the following and you incorrectly responed:
You’re arrogantly blustering without understanding. Adaption is not simply generating mutations.
quote:
The Lenski Team knows that competition slows adaptation, they see that in their experiment, they just don't know why
You are wrong. Utterly utterly wrong. As you would know if you read the paper. As you would know if you actually understood the quote.
quote:
Do you think that the ability to form larger colony size slows adaptation?
Of course not. I agree with Lenski’s explanation.
quote:
Do you think that doubling the population size doubles the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring?
No, although if the probability is low it will come close.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 10:54 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 66 of 2383 (898071)
09-18-2022 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 11:44 AM


Re: Video not available
quote:
They address this question but fail to answer it. If you think they do, feel free to post a quote from their paper that gives the correct explanation and law of physics that justifies their answer. You won't because they didn't.
I fully grant that they don’t make the silly mistake of appealing to the laws of physics when that would only serve to obfuscate the issues.
And I really don’t think that their model is amenable to quoting either.
quote:
Don't be silly. I know the difference between modification and adaptation. Not every genetic modification is an adaptation.
You know that adaption requires fixation? Really?
quote:
Feel free to post the quote from their paper that explains why competition slows adaptation.
They don’t make that blanket claim. They only claim that competition between beneficial mutations slows adaption. Which would seem intuitively obvious - which is why their contribution is to produce a better model of the effects.
quote:
Do you think that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change?
I don’t see any reason why it could not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:44 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 68 of 2383 (898075)
09-18-2022 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 12:47 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Of course you won't post their explanation because they have none.
You are making no sense. The way that Lenski addresses the question of how competition between “mutations of different strengths” interacts with competiton between “mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds” is to construct a model. Which is what I said. How you can expect this to be an “answer” that is readily quotable I have no idea.
quote:
OF course, adaptation does not require fixation. The Kishony experiment clearly demonstrates that.
Of course it will in any practical situation. Even a mega plate has finite resources.
quote:
Do you understand that the beneficial mutation that gives the greatest improve in fitness fixes first, the beneficial mutation that gives the second greatest improvement in fitness fixes second and so on
That is silly. How could that reliably occur?
quote:
Now you need to learn that the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring
That has nothing to do with how a sequence of microevolutionary events can lead to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 12:47 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 1:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 70 of 2383 (898080)
09-18-2022 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 1:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
It's really not that complicated. You have a population consisting of a variety of different with different reproductive fitness competing for a limited amount of energy (food). The most effective variant able to reproduce will drive all the rest of the less fit variants to extinction over generations. That's how biological competition works.
Quantifying the effects, however, is not so simple - and that was what Lenski said had not been done and what Lenski set out to do.
quote:
That's probably true. But the carrying capacity of a given environment for bacteria and other microbes will be many orders of magnitude larger than that for say, humans and chimpanzees.
Which is why adaptive change in the real world relies on fixation.
quote:
It's what the Lenski Team measured in their experiment. The number of generations to fixation has been increasing ever since the beginning of the experiment. This shouldn't be surprising to you. Why would a less fit variant fix before a more fit variant? This is about relative reproductive fitness.
You are making no sense again. We are talking about clinal reproduction. If the two mutations occur in the same lineage then the one that occurred first should reach fixation first. If they occurred in different lineages the one that fixes the first will have eliminated the other, so the second will never reach fixation.
quote:
Are you one of those that think that mutations aren't random occurrences?
No. But please go on, explain how the fact that “the addition rule of probabilities does not apply to the joint probability of random events occurring” prevents microevolutionary events adding up to macroevolution.
(You won’t.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 1:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 2383 (898091)
09-18-2022 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 3:22 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
How many fixation/adaptation cycles do you think humans and chimpanzees have done?
I think that sexual reproduction significantly complicates the issue. There is no need for mutations to occur in the same lineage,
quote:
Do you mean "clonal" not "clinal"? Lenski's experiment operates by the most fit variant with the previous beneficial mutation fixes and as that subset accumulates replications over generations, the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members increases. This occurs in a sequential manner.
Yes, I meant clonal. And the auto “correct” feature insisted on changing it to “clinal”.
However your reply has nothing to do with your assertion that the most beneficial mutation would fix first, followed by the second most beneficial.
quote:
Kishony correctly recognizes that each adaptive mutation requires about a billion replications. Each time some variant gets an adaptive mutation, it must form a new colony which must achieve a population size sufficient for there to be a reasonable probability for the next adaptive mutation to occur on one of its members. This is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.
That seems to have more to do with clonal reproduction. And even then it only tells us that a sequence of microevolutionary events will take time. Not that they cannot add up to a macro evolutionary event.
quote:
Equations (12,13) show how you apply the multiplication rule to compute the joint probability for a lineage to accumulate a set of adaptive mutations.
Your equations do not seem to offer any reason why a number of microevolutionary events cannot add up to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 3:22 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 80 of 2383 (898104)
09-19-2022 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 5:16 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
It doesn't complicate it as much as you think. You can do the math for recombination using a trinomial distribution. If you do the math correctly, you will understand why recombination does not defeat the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
So you think that HIV reproduces sexually,
Aside from that sexual reproduction does away with the need for your cycles so it is still an important factor.
quote:
That's what Lenski's experiment shows.
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t show that the second mutation to be fixed has to be less adaptive than the first or more adaptive than any other mutations in the wider population.
quote:
It works the same empirically with sexually reproducing organisms. Common empirical examples of this are the use of combination herbicides and combination pesticides when dealing with weeds and insects in agriculture, both of which are sexually reproducing organisms.
Haldane showed that a combination of selective pressures would work decades ago, for other reasons.
And, of course, you can’t generalise a special case to a more normal situation.
quote:
These equations give the mathematica! reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive transition in a single selection pressure evolutionary process
You’d have to put numbers to them to get that answer. The equations alone won’t do that.
And you still haven’t explained how microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution, just as I predicted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:16 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2022 12:46 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 85 of 2383 (898144)
09-19-2022 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 2:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
As for recombination reducing cycles, it doesn't when producing adaptive alleles.
It obviously does away with the need to wait until the population with the first beneficial mutation reaches sufficient size,
quote:
Let's put this into the context of a real situation. One farmer uses a herbicide on his field that selects for allele A and a different farmer uses a different herbicide on a different field that selects for allele B.
This looks like an artificial example which would produce more heat than light.
quote:
Read this paper by LenskI
I should point out that fitness is relative, which will affect the calculation. As Lenski points out, the more fit the population, the less effect a beneficial mutation is likely to have.
quote:
There are no empirical examples that show that a population evolves more rapidly as they are subject to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
As Haldane worked out decades ago. Nice to see he was right.
quote:
The only numbers you need to use are the mutation rate and population size
Wrong. You would need to know the mutation rate and the proportion of beneficial mutations.
quote:
The reason why microevolutionary events don't add is they random events. You must compute the joint probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition
That’s just silly. Events are not probabilities. If you toss a coin continually adding the times it comes up heads, how would you react to somebody who said “the reason Heads don’t add is they are random events. You must compute the probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition.”?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 2:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 87 of 2383 (898147)
09-19-2022 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 3:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Sure, that's why they use combination herbicides and pesticides in agriculture.
They would work anyway.
quote:
OK, so you formulate what you think is a realistic example and show us how to do the math of random recombination
Maybe later.
quote:
You claimed that the sequence of adaptive mutations and fitness gain in the Lenski experiment doesn't decline over time. In Lenski's published words, he says they do.
No, I didn’t. I said that the order of fixation doesn’t depend on how beneficial the mutations are. It’s the order that affects the relative fitness gains, not the reverse,
quote:
So you think that joint random events are mutually exclusive events?
No.
quote:
What happens when the probability of the first adaptive mutation occurring is 0.98 and the probability of the second adaptive mutation occurring is 0.97? Is the probability of those two events occuring 1.95
Don’t be silly. I’m saying that if both happen you have two beneficial mutations. That’s what it means to count.
Now, are you going to explain why a sequence of microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 3:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 7:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 98 of 2383 (898171)
09-20-2022 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 7:34 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
So, how many beneficial mutations do humans have compared to chimpanzees have you counted?
This is a silly question. Not least because it is incredibly vague.
If you mean the number of beneficial mutations that have fixed since the common ancestor in each lineage I don’t know of a good way to tell. The number of mutations might be estimated, some might be identifiable as beneficial, but I doubt that all would be.
Population size generates more mutations but it also makes it harder to fix them - and the current human advantage there would have been a lot less even 1000 years ago.
Anyway, it hardly matters. Are you going to explain why microevolutionary events cannot add up to macroevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 7:34 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Kleinman, posted 09-20-2022 9:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 124 of 2383 (898203)
09-20-2022 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kleinman
09-20-2022 9:14 AM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Perhaps it is silly to ask you a question you can't answer
When the question is so vague it can’t be answered the silliness is definitely with the asker. I don’t notice you answering it either. Nor do I notice you giving any reason why microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kleinman, posted 09-20-2022 9:14 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 131 of 2383 (898210)
09-20-2022 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Kleinman
09-20-2022 2:44 PM


Re: Apples and oranges
quote:
Didn't you say you could add up microevolution changes to get a macroevolutionary change?
I said that I saw no reason why they couldn’t. And obviously you can’t either.
quote:
I'm asking you what microevolutionary changes occurred to give the reproductive advantage that humans have over chimps. What's so vague about that?
That isn’t what you asked me at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Kleinman, posted 09-20-2022 2:44 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17366
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1395 of 2383 (901395)
11-09-2022 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1384 by Kleinman
11-08-2022 5:19 PM


Re: Kleinman does not know asexual vs sexual
quote:
They are until an adaptive recombination event occurs or a mutation gives an A or B allele where none existed. You are a dummy.
First, adding up the frequencies of different things makes no mathematical sense. The sum of the frequencies of the alleles for any locus will be 1. Adding in the frequencies for another is pointless as any contribution must be cancelled.
Second, in the situation you describe, the “overlap” will be total for the rarer allele. So it will - unsurprisingly - contribute nothing to the total.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1384 by Kleinman, posted 11-08-2022 5:19 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1409 by Kleinman, posted 11-10-2022 8:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022