Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:Sure, I've thought about this. Do you know when random adaptive mutations are dependent or independent?
ringo:THAT isn't "this". We were talking about the lottery.
What's the matter? Are you tired of talking about descent with modification? Or perhaps you want to add the probabilities of winning multiple lotteries? If the probability of winning 1 lottery is one in a million and you win 2 million lotteries, do you compute that probability by P(X)=(1/1,000,000)+(1/1,000,000)+(1/1,000,000)+(1/1,000,000)+...+(1/1,000,000))=2? (Do I have to spell it out for you that you are adding (1/1,000,000) two million times?) So you do believe in probabilities greater than 1!
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:So, if the probability of one event occurring is 0.6 and the probability of another event occurring is 0.7, then the probability of both events occurring is 1.3?
ringo:Well, Dredge claims that probabilities can be greater that one and you're defending Dredge. So you tell us, can probabilites be greater than one?
What I'm saying is that Dredge is using exaggeration to mock your absurd claims. And you don't know when to use the addition rule or multiplication rule.
ringo:Liar.
Kleinman:You are such a dumb dodo that you can't see your own obvious blunders.
ringo:You lied through your teeth. You said in Message 808 that I believe probabilities can be greater than one whe I've been arguing all along that they can not. You're a liar.
ringo, when you use the addition rule improperly as you do, you will get probabilities greater than 1. So, either you believe there are probabilities greater than 1 or you are making a mathematical blunder. I think you understand that probabilities can only range between 0 and 1. I also think you are too ignorant to know when to use the addition rule and when to use the multiplication rule to compute probabilities. Why don't you watch the Khan Academy or Professor Leonard lectures on introductory probability theory on YouTube so you don't look like such a jerk on this subject?
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
ringo:Then you should also understand that winning the lottery twice is no harder than winning it once. And winning it ten times is no harder than winning it once. And winning it a thousand times is not harder than winning it once.
Dredge:Of course it's harder ... much harder ... bcoz you multiply the probabilities of winning each lottery.
So if the probability of winning once is one in a million (10-6), the probability of winning twice in a row is 10-6 × 10-6 = 10-12.
The probability of winning 1000 times in a row would be (10-6)¹⁰⁰⁰ = 10-6000
which represents a statistical impossibility.
Gambling casinos (and state-run lotteries) understand this principle and make a fortune off it. Most games in casinos don't make your chance of winning one in a million, they need a few more winners so as not to completely discourage all the losers. Casinos will make the odds in their games something like 52 times they win, 48 times the player wins in 100 games, but if you play long enough, they will own your home.
Now that you have some idea of how the multiplication rule works for joint random events (the probability that two or more random events occur), it should make more sense that this is the rule to use when computing the joint probability of two or more adaptive mutations occurring in a lineage (family line). This does occur but you have to have very large populations in that family. That's why universal common descent is not possible for primate precursor/human-chimp evolution. There isn't a large enough population size for adaptive evolution to operate to account for the fitness differences between humans and chimps. Taq understood this and tried to address this problem with recombination. But random recombination is also governed by the multiplication rule. Taq tried to address this with a physically impossible claim and he knew it. That's why he abandoned the discussion.
Kleinman:think what Dredge is saying is that the probability of abiogenesis is so low, that it might as well be negative.
Dredge:Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying ... and you seem to be the only poster here to realise that I was using a ridiculous hyperbole (a probability of less than 1) to match a ridiculous proposition (natural abiogenesis).
And they harp on this over and over even after you say that you know that probabilities must be between 0 and 1. ringo blew his stack when I claimed he believes in probabilities greater than 1. But that's exactly what he's doing when he uses the addition rule to compute joint probabilities. The rules of probability theory are different than the arithmetic rules most people are used to. The rules of probability theory aren't difficult, you just have to practice with them a little to get used to them. Once you do, then things like coin flipping, dice rolling, card drawing, and descent with modification start to make sense.
Kleinman:amino acids have a half-life, they are not stable molecules.
Dredge:Atheist dreamers who believe in natural abiogenesis expect us to believe that the first viable life-form began as maybe a lucky amino acid that rolled around in the ocean until it bumped into another lucky amino acid and some other lucky molecules, which together just happened to form part of a cell. This lucky process continued until ... hey presto! ... they formed a very lucky living organism that started living and feeding and reproducing! Wow! I wonder how much time elapsed between each lucky stage of construction. How would a lucky fraction of a cell manage to stay intact until it bumped into the next lucky part of the jigsaw? Why would such a mindless, aimless, lifeless process produce an organism that reproduces? The hypothesis of natural abiogenesis is so improbable, unscientific and idiotic that it beggars belief that any half-intelligent, half-sane adult would accept it.
And you know what they will say when their lab experiments to demonstrate abiogenesis don't work? We don't have billions of years to work with in the lab but we know that abiogenesis happened. When they do have experiments in the lab that demonstrate how descent with modification works, they ignore it.
Kleinman:Darwin did get two important things right. He understood that two important aspects of biological evolution are biological competition and descent with modification. The error is in grossly over-extrapolating these two physical processes into universal common descent.
Dredge:Yes, it's a bizarre case of applying wild extrapolation to science until it morphs into science-fiction ... a bit like saying, "Humans are running 100 metres faster today than they did 70 years ago. Therefore, in the very distant future, humans will be able to run 100 metres in just 1 second."
That's why it is important to carefully define the physical process, identify the variables involved in the process, and try and identify the mathematical relationship between the different variables. Sometimes things seem plausible until you do this kind of analysis.
Years ago, I wrote a PhD dissertation. Back in the 1970s, there was an attempt to use thermography to diagnose breast cancer. The idea was simple. Cancers are more metabolically active, require more blood flow, and therefore should heat up the skin over the cancer. The problem was they were getting 50% false positives when they tried to do this. There is an equation called the bioheat transfer equation that models this process but normally when people solve this equation, they specify the physical properties of the tissue (bone, muscle, fat, blood flow patterns, metabolism, etc.) But in this case, you must solve the inverse equation. You don't know the physical properties but you can measure extra information on the skin's surface (temperature and how much heat is coming off the surface). When you solve the bioheat transfer equation this way, the accuracy of your skin temperature measurement must be 8 or more significant figures. In reality, measuring temperatures accurately to 4 significant figures is very difficult and if round off to 4 significant figures, you get completely different blood flow patterns. That's why thermography doesn't work for diagnosing breast cancer. What seems plausible on the surface is not so plausible when you do the math.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:And you know what they will say when their lab experiments to demonstrate abiogenesis don't work? We don't have billions of years to work with in the lab but we know that abiogenesis happened.
Dredge:Ah yes, the magic wand of deep time - it can make scientific impossibilities possible! La La Land. I suspect abiogenesis research is driven by atheism's deep-seated psychological need to find the "silver bullet" that will prove God wasn't necessary for life to begin. But it's a fool's errand - they'll never find it. However, that won't stop the meaningless claims of "progress" and advances in "understanding" by deluded researchers.
You know that this abiogenesis research would stop if it wasn't paid for by taxpayers. Abiogenesis research hasn't provided anything useful to anyone except for those paid by government grants for this nonsense.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:You know that this abiogenesis research would stop if it wasn't paid for by taxpayers. Abiogenesis research hasn't provided anything useful to anyone except for those paid by government grants for this nonsense.
Dredge:A shameful waste of taxpayers hard-earned money, chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden. Abiogenesis research is as futile and useless as research into Universal Common Descent.
That's what happens when you put mathematically incompetent zealots in charge of the field of biology. Have you noticed that the only ones left arguing for these subjects are the C- team players? Don't hold your breath for Tany's explanation of how DNA evolution for viruses, bacteria, and yeasts differs from DNA evolution for complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms. All he can do is post an emoticon in support of ringo's use of the addition rule to compute the joint probability of random events occurring. You know Tany is a big fan of ringo. It has to be because ringo knows more about probability theory than Tany.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Dredge:I think you should give serious thought to writing science-fiction ...
AZPaul3:I am a talent. But I find things much more satisfying, awesome and powerful in writing about the science and reality. No need for fantasy. That pig is in your sty, not ours.
Why doesn't AZPaul3 put some of that talent into explaining descent with modification, in particular, the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments? Don't worry AZPaul3, we don't expect this from you. You have already given us a good demonstration of your scientific skill level.
Re: Taq's random recombination model and the trinomial distribution
Kleinman:When did I reject Mendelian genetics?
Taq:You reject Mendelian genetics when you require the percentage distribution of alleles in different genes to add up to 1. You keep doing this. I bet you do it later in this post.
What a pleasant surprise. Welcome back Taq. I thought I was going to be stuck debating the C- team or Tany who thinks that DNA evolution for viruses, bacteria, and yeast differs from complex, multicellular, sexually replicating organisms. As you already know ploidy doesn't change the math much and you still haven't quite figured out how random recombination can affect reproductive fitness.
And of course, I'm going to require that the sum of the individual frequencies of the different variants in a population must add up to 1. That's because, like probabilities where the sum of all possible outcomes must equal 1, the same applies to frequency distributions. That's why the sum of the frequencies in a population of all members with beneficial allele A at one genetic locus plus the frequency of all the members that have beneficial allele B at a different genetic locus plus the frequency of all members in that population that have neither beneficial allele must equal 1. Perhaps you imagine some other subset in that population such as a member with both A and B alleles already?
Kleinman:Why can't you add these frequencies? You have 3 subsets in the population. One subset has allele A at one genetic locus. Another subset has allele B at a different genetic locus and a third subset has neither allele. Unless there is an intersection of any of these three subsets, they are mutually exclusive. Each of these 3 subsets has a subpopulation size associated with their corresponding subset and if you add up these subpopulation sizes, you get the total population size.
Taq:And there it is. You still don't understand basic Mendelian genetics, at least at the time you wrote this post.
Taq, Mendelian Genetics doesn't change that math. If you want to include the possibility of heterozygosity, that just reduces the probability of an AB variant offspring occurring. We can do that math if you like but I suggest you start by assumming homozygosity where the math is a little simpler and the probabilities are a little greater for your AB recombination event occurring.
Taq:Let's see how this works out. Let's use 3 hypothetical disease alleles (e.g. cystic fibrosis, achondroplasia). Let's say 1 out of 1,000 people carries the diseases allele, or 0.1% of the population. This would mean that 99.9% of people don't carry the disease allele but the healthy allele. Let's call these Aa, Bb, and Cc alleles for genes A, B, C. According to you, I should be able to add up the number of people with the A, B, and C allele and get an accurate population count. Is that true? NO!!! If I do as you suggest I will get about 3x the actual population number. Do you know why?
Taq, you are confusing the use of the addition rule for mutually exclusive events and the addition rule for arbitrary events (events where there are intersections in the subsets you are trying to add). The subsets of a population that don't have your hypothetical disease alleles intersect. To do that frequency calculation correctly, you must subtract the intersection components, otherwise you will get about 3x the actual population number since most of the population do not have the disease alleles. You should know better than this. This is something you should have learned in your introductory probability theory class.
Kleinman:Fixation by selection involves the most fit allele going to a frequency of 1. Other adaptive alleles that give a smaller increase in fitness are not increasing in frequency.
Taq:You still don't understand how sexual reproduction works.
So, when Haldane did his computation for fixation of a beneficial allele, he was really doing the math for the fixation of multiple different beneficial alleles at different genetic loci simultaneously. Why don't you explain to us how that works?
Kleinman:How about every real, measurable, and repeatable empirical example of DNA evolution? Start with the Kishony and Lenski experiments, then go on with the success of combination herbicides, pesticides, and rodenticides inhibiting the evolution of selection pressure resistant variants. How about mathematical models that predict and simulate the behaviors of these evolutionary processes?
Taq:How about learning how genetics works? Why don't you start there? You seem to think that there is just one gene per genome. Perhaps you could start by learning how meiosis works, or perhaps what a chromosome is. Maybe you could learn that there are multiple genes in a genome, each with it's own set of alleles.
Biologists still haven't figured out the genetics of descent with modification in asexually reproducing populations. What makes you think you can correctly explain descent with modification in sexual replicators? You should start by learning how to use the addition rule to compute frequencies of different variants in a population.
We are waiting for you to give a coherent (mathematical) explanation of how meiosis with one parent with a beneficial allele A at one genetic locus and the other parent with a beneficial B at a different genetic locus gives an offspring with both beneficial alleles A and B when you have a population of different variants A, B, and C (the C variants have neither beneficial allele).
Taq:Me: You claim that the frequency of any two mutations anywhere in the genome can not add up to more than 1. Obviously, that is false.
Kleinman:You: Don't be silly, I haven't made a claim like that. And of course, frequencies are always less than or equal to 1. Frequencies range from 0 to 1. Why do believe that there can be frequencies greater than 1?
Taq:So you claim you don't make that claim, and then make that very claim in the next sentence. You effing moron.
I'm not making that claim, you are by using the addition rule incorrectly. The addition rule works differently for mutually exclusive events than for arbitrary events (when there are intersections of the subsets). It seems they didn't teach you that in your survey of math class.
Taq:Quiz for Kleinman: Why are gene 1 and 2 linked in the first example but not in the other two examples? What effects does linkage have on relative allele distributions between linked genes compared to unlinked genes?
You can have hitchhiking mutational alleles that will increase in frequency as the variant with the most beneficial allele moves to fixation. Are you claiming that the A and B alleles end up being linked or not linked? Do you think that increases the probability of one parent with an A allele and the other parent with a B allele having an offspring with both A and B alleles? I'm already assuming the best possible case where the A and B mating will always give an AB offspring. If you want to introduce Mendelian Genetics into the math or whether the genes are linked or not does not increase that probability, it decreases it.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Dredge:If you flip a coin three times, for example, each flip is an indepedent event. How would you calculate the probability of getting 3 heads from 3 flips?
Taq:We are getting more distant from the actual genetic system that got this all going. Kleinman is claiming that if we add up all of the allele frequencies for all genes in a genome that we will get 1. That's ridiculous. That shows a massive misunderstanding of the basic mathematics of genetics. Let's just say that there are two alleles for each of the ~30,000 genes in the human genome, and the frequency of each allele is 0.5, or 1.0 for each gene. If we add them up like Kleinman claims we can then we get 30,000, not 1.
Now you are just being stupid Taq. That is your calculation, not mine. You obviously need a lesson on the addition rule of probabilities, something which you didn't get in your survey of math course. Probability - Wikipedia
quote:Mutually exclusive events Main article: Mutual exclusivity If either event A or event B can occur but never both simultaneously, then they are called mutually exclusive events.
If two events are mutually exclusive, then the probability of both occurring is denoted as P(A ∩ B) and
P(A and B) = P(A ∩ B)
If two events are mutually exclusive, then the probability of either occurring is denoted as P(A ∪ B) and
P(A or B) = P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A ∩ B) = P(A) + P(B) - 0 = P(A) + P(B)
For example, the chance of rolling a 1 or 2 on a six-sided die is P(1 or 2) = P(1) + P(2) = 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3
Not mutually exclusive events
If the events are not mutually exclusive then
P(A or B) = P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A ∩ B)
For example, when drawing a card from a deck of cards, the chance of getting a heart or a face card (J,Q,K) (or both) is 13/52 + 12/52 - 3/52 = 11/26, since among the 52 cards of a deck, 13 are hearts, 12 are face cards, and 3 are both: here the possibilities included in the "3 that are both" are included in each of the "13 hearts" and the "12 face cards", but should only be counted once.
Taq, do not attribute your mathematical blunders to me. You are doing mathematics like your C- team does math. You are the one adding frequencies that are not mutually exclusive. Stop being a dummy, otherwise, you are going to be booted back to the C- team.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:Don't hold your breath for Tany's explanation of how DNA evolution for viruses, bacteria, and yeasts differs from DNA evolution for complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms.
Taq:We could start here:
And how do crossing over and recombination create new alleles? We are still waiting for your mathematical explanation of how two different adaptive alleles A and B at different genetic loci in different members of a population end up in an offspring. Perhaps you are running a breeding program?
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:This does occur but you have to have very large populations in that family. That's why universal common descent is not possible for primate precursor/human-chimp evolution. There isn't a large enough population size for adaptive evolution to operate to account for the fitness differences between humans and chimps. Taq understood this and tried to address this problem with recombination. But random recombination is also governed by the multiplication rule. Taq tried to address this with a physically impossible claim and he knew it. That's why he abandoned the discussion.
Taq:Bullshit, K-man. Life happens, and I got busy elsewhere. Let's revisit this classic you used in post 311
Kleinman:Define the following variables: n – is the total population size. nA – is the number of members in the population with beneficial allele A. nB – is the number of members in the population with beneficial allele B. nC – is the number of members in the population that have neither beneficial allele A nor beneficial allele B. In addition, we have the following condition: nA + nB + nC = n. And the frequency of each of the variants are: f_A = nA/n f_B = nB/n f_C = nC/n
Taq:Do you still stand by this? Do you add the allele frequencies for alleles in different genes?
Absolutely, I stand by this, slow learner. You obviously didn't review your introductory probability theory in your time away from here. This math couldn't be simpler. You have one subset of the population that has beneficial allele A at one genetic locus, a second subset of the population the population that has beneficial allele B at a different genetic locus, and the remainder of the population has neither allele A nor allele B. And these subsets are mutually exclusive. Understand rubberband?
Taq:What about the healthy alleles for 3 different genes associated with a genetic disease, each with a frequency of 0.999? 0.999A + 0.999B + 0.999C != 1 OOOOOPPPPPSSS!!!! Your math doesn't work.
This is your math, not my math. I know well enough that these frequencies are not mutually exclusive, you don't. When it comes to mathematics, biologists are pathetic. Learn how to use the addition rule you dummy.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Kleinman:Do you know when random adaptive mutations are dependent or independent?
Taq:Do you? Let's say we have three adaptive mutations: lactase persistance, lower melanin production in higher latitudes, and malarial resistance. If these adaptive mutations were in three different unlinked genes, would they be dependent or independent? Could all three mutations start moving towards fixation at the same time, or would they have to move towards fixation one at a time? Why?
Sure I know when random adaptive mutations are dependent or independent. Think back on the definition of conditional probabilities. For example, you want to calculate the probability that a lactase persistance mutation occurs on a member that already has the lower melanin production in higher altitudes mutation. You are computing that probability on a reduced sample space, ie., those members that already have the lower melanin production mutation in higher altitudes. If you want to see how to do this mathematically, read this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance The math for your case starts at paragraph 1.4 on page 5396. That's how you do the math for DNA evolution of 3 adaptive alleles occurring in some member of a population. In this case, all these mutations are dependent events if they are to occur in members that already have the other adaptive alleles.
While you were away, I posted a video that explains how to do conditional probabilities for novices, laymen, and biologists. Watch this video, it will help you understand this topic.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Dredge:How can you criticise Kleinman when you don't even understand the basics of probability maths?
Taq:The problem is how Kleinman tries to apply probabilities to genetics. He seems to think that if one beneficial mutation is at a frequency of 0.5 then all other beneficial mutations throughout the genome can not add up to more than a frequency of 0.5. I hope you can see how ridiculous that is.
What are you talking about? You still haven't figured out how to compute the frequencies of different variants in a population. You are starting to make the C- team look smart.
Re: Kleinman does not think mutations can be passed down to descendants
Dredge:How can you criticise Kleinman when you don't even understand the basics of probability maths?
ringo:How can YOU side with Kleinman when you admit to being an idiot?
It's not that complicated ringo, I know how to use the addition rule. It's clear that you and Taq have taken the same survey of math course based on the way you both use the addition rule. This is why social promotion is not a good idea in our educational system.
™ Version 4.2
