|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Tell that to the people dying of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Kleinman:At least I can explain how bacteria evolve drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Your friends have failed at their job. Of course, they are really smart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
People die from car accidents too. That doesn't mean Ford and Suzuki don't know what they're doing.
They can explain it to everybody's satisfaction but yours.Tell that to the people dying of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Kleinman writes:
To nobody's satisfaction but your own.
At least I can explain how bacteria evolve drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Kleinman writes:
In nobody's opinion but yours. Your friends have failed at their job.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The Peabody et. al. (2017) paper mentioned earlier has a great illustration of how adaptation differs in asexual and sexual populations:
from the paper: Theoretical impacts of mutation rate and sexual recombination on population structures. a Mutationally limited fitness landscape, where most mutations fix in a single sweep with very little inter-clonal competition. b Increased mutation rate over (a), more competition and faster evolution observed, but some mutations are lost due to inter-clonal competition. c Adding sexual recombination to (a), due to few available beneficial mutations, no strong influence on evolution is observed. d Both sexual recombination and increase in mutation rate from (a), more rapid evolution is observed and fewer beneficial mutations are lost due to clonal interference The two variables here are mutation rate and recombination. The two plots on the left are with the lower mutation rate. The two plots at the bottom are with sexual recombination. a. low mutation, asexualb. low mutation, sexual c. high mutation, asexual d. high mutation, sexual Even at low mutation rates, you can see that the sexual population gets all 5 beneficial mutations which the asexual population is limited to 4 because clonal interference drove the ABD lineage to extinction. In the sexual population, recombination between the ABC and ABD lineages put all 5 beneficial mutations into the same background. When mutation rates are even higher, the differences can be even more stark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:If you understood the Kishony or Lenski experiments, you would have done the mathematics long ago, but you don't. The only way that Desai could get his experiment to work was to use a constant environment, let adaptive alleles increase in frequencies for 90 generations in a constant environment, and then induce sexual reproduction. You are just too stupid to understand this. quote:You are so stupid, you think that recombination works the same way in a varying environments. You stupidly extrapolate a constant environment to all environments. quote:It doesn't work with HIV, weeds, and insects. You extrapolate a result and you get garbage. Kleinman:And you are so stupid, you extrapolate this result to all evolution. You are a mathematically incompetent idiot. Kleinman:Because they aren't increasing in frequency. The adaptive alleles change as the environment changes, moron. Do you think these alleles increase in frequency in one generation? Why did Desai use 90 generations of constant selection? Since you are too stupid to answer that question, here's the answer, it takes time (many generations to increase the frequencies of adaptive alleles) and that process is disrupted by a changing environment and changing selection conditions. Kleinman:Yeah, you simpleton, in a constant environment you get a slight increase in relative fitness. Now, learn that this principle doesn't apply when the environment and selection conditions are changing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Taq:The problem is their theory doesn't match up with reality, just like your claim of constant selection being a realistic model for recombination. Try dealing with reality, we already know your reality of Covid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Kleinman writes: If you understood the Kishony or Lenski experiments, you would have done the mathematics long ago, but you don't. You still haven't addressed what I said. The Lenski experiment had a constant environment for 10's of thousands of generations. Are you saying that a constant environment does not disqualify an experiment? The only way that Desai could get his experiment to work was to use a constant environment, let adaptive alleles increase in frequencies for 90 generations in a constant environment, and then induce sexual reproduction. The adaptive alleles would increase in frequency if there was sexual reproduction in every generation.
You are so stupid, you think that recombination works the same way in a varying environments. How does recombination work differently in varying environments?
You stupidly extrapolate a constant environment to all environments. The Lenski experiment used a constant environment of 10's of thousands of generations. "The Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate exactly how descent with modification operates."--Kleinman quote: Yes, it does.
quote: And you are so stupid, you extrapolate this result to all evolution. So says the person who extrapolates the Kishony/Lenski experiment to all of evolution.
Because they aren't increasing in frequency. The adaptive alleles change as the environment changes, moron. You are really mixed up now. You were saying that Desai had to asexual reproduction in a constant environment in order to increase the frequency of beneficial alleles. Why wouldn't those same alleles increase in fitness with sexual reproduction in every generation and a constant environment?
Why did Desai use 90 generations of constant selection? Why did Lenski use 10's of thousands of generations of constant selection?
Yeah, you simpleton, in a constant environment you get a slight increase in relative fitness. Now, learn that this principle doesn't apply when the environment and selection conditions are changing. Why don't you show us the principle. Show us a real world example that compares asexual and sexual reproduction in a changing environment. Show us the math. Put up or shut up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
And yet you still cannot understand the simple reality that sexual reproduction is different than asexual reproduction? And you still cannot understand that a math model for asexual reproduction will not work to model sexual reproduction? You silly creationists say the stupidest things!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Kleinman writes: The problem is their theory doesn't match up with reality, Except that it does. Peabody et al. observed those same effects in their experiment.
Sexual recombination and increased mutation rate expedite evolution of Escherichia coli in varied fitness landscapes Beneficial mutations for CM resistance can occur in different genes which makes it a candidate for studies on sexual recombination. They found that the combination of a faster mutation rate and sexual recombination increased the speed of adaptation to CM resistance. The genderless are the sexual reproducers, and higher mutation rates were induced with arabinose (ara). Therefore, the sexual reproducers with high mutation rates are the genderless ara+, and they adapted to CM the fastest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The more you look around the more examples you can find of sexual recombination increasing the efficiency of adaptation.
quote: The rec+ populations were recombination positive. Wouldn't you know it, recombination alleviated clonal interference and sped up adaptation by putting beneficial mutations from different lineages into the same genetic background. Seems to be a repeating theme.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I've said it many times, you just don't get it. It takes 1/(mutation rate) replications in a single selection pressure environment to get an adaptive mutation. Change the environment as much as you want and it still takes 1/(mutation rate) replications to get an adaptive mutation. When recombination is a possibility, a changing environment reduces the probability because the selection condition is changing therefore, the adaptive alleles are changing. Lenski's experiment would have been even slower if the environment was changing. Learn this math you dummy. Kleinman:So you dream. None of the adaptive alleles would have had a chance to increase in frequency. Of course, you think they magically do increase in frequencies. Kleinman:You should know the answer to this one dummy, even Tany blundered into this one. The adaptive alleles change depending on the selection conditions. Only in your imagination do alleles increase in a changing environment. Kleinman:And you are supposed to be in the varsity. The Lenski experiment would operate more slowly in a changing environment. Change the temperature, change the osmotic pressure, change any selection condition you want and evolution will work more slowly because of the changing evolutionary trajectories. You know, Lenski did run experiments in non-optimal conditions and it required different mutations than his starvation condition experiment. Of course, in your twisted imagination, evolution would occur more quickly. Kleinman:The genius virologist has just proven that 3 drug combination therapy does not work for the treatment of HIV. You are a blithering genius. Kleinman:Biological evolution only gets slower with changing environments and multiple selection pressures. You really don't know anything about biological evolution. Kleinman:You think it would increase the frequencies of adaptive alleles but that just proves you speculate. Kleinman:You are so dumb. Lenski's experiment would have worked far more slowly if he had a changing environment with changing selection conditions. Instead of taking 30 years to get 100 adaptive mutations, it might have taken much longer. You simply don't understand what combination selection pressures do to an evolutionary process. It imposes more instances of the multiplication rule on the population and requires exponentially more replication to evolve. That's why HIV cannot evolve to 3 drug therapy, even with recombination, it can't achieve the population size necessary to give a reasonable probability of a 3 drug resistant variant. Learn how to do the math. Kleinman:I've given you many empirical examples, HIV, insects, and weeds. You have this strange imagination that evolution occurs in a constant environment when it doesn't. Experiments in constant environments show how slow the process is with the constant environments and single selection conditions. Multiple selection conditions give treatment for HIV, insects, and weeds. These are real examples and I've given the correct mathematics that explains why this works. Take a course in introductory probability theory and learn how biological evolution works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Hey, dummy, why do lab tests done in vitro show drug resistance, and yet in vivo, the drugs sometimes work? When you can't figure that out, I'll explain it to you and perhaps you will understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Taq:Is that all you can find is constant environment experiments with a single selection pressure. No wonder you don't understand biological evolution when everything evolves in a constant environment single selection pressure environment. And it still takes thousands of generations to evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Kleinman writes: Is that all you can find is constant environment experiments with a single selection pressure. The Lenski experiment used a constant environment and a single selection pressure for 50,000 generations. "The Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate exactly how descent with modification operates."--Kleinman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Kleinman writes: I've said it many times, you just don't get it. It takes 1/(mutation rate) replications in a single selection pressure environment to get an adaptive mutation. Joshua and Esther Lederberg published a hallmark paper in 1951 titled, "Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants", which can be found here: REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC Luria and Delbruck went on to explain the processes that undergirded the Lederberg's results which later won Luria and Delbruck a Nobel Prize. There is one interesting observation in the Lederberg paper: "The culutre is fully sensitive to the phage T-1, as well as to streptomycin, and like most E. coli strains gives rise to resistant mutants at rates of approximately 10E-7 and 10E-10 per division, respectively." In this example we saw a beneficial mutation rate of 1 in 10 million and 1 in 10 billion to two different selection pressures using the same strain of E. coli. Kleinman is telling us that one beneficial adaptation every billion divisions is some universal constant, or something of the like. It is so universal that it can even be applied to human evolution. However, in another experiment using E. coli we see beneficial mutation rates that are quite different than what Kleinman claims. If Kleinman's math can't even apply universally to evolution in E. coli, what hope does it have of applying to any other species?
When recombination is a possibility, a changing environment reduces the probability because the selection condition is changing therefore, the adaptive alleles are changing. Reduces the probability of what, and compared to what? Would a changing environment cause clonal interference in a sexually reproducing population? NO. Would beneficial alleles in the new environment increase in frequency in the new environment in sexually reproducing populations? YES Would you get a combination of beneficial alleles faster in a changing environment with a sexually reproducing population compared to an asexual population? YES
So you dream. None of the adaptive alleles would have had a chance to increase in frequency. In a constant environment, why wouldn't beneficial alleles increase in frequency in a sexually reproducing population?
You should know the answer to this one dummy, even Tany blundered into this one. I do know the answer. Sexual recombination doesn't change in a changing environment. It works the same way. When humans move to a different environment their gametes still work in the very same way.
The Lenski experiment would operate more slowly in a changing environment. You said the Lenski experiment demonstrates exactly how descent with modification works, and it had 50,000 generations in the same exact environment. You reject the Desai experiment because it had a constant environment for 90 generations. Hypocrisy much?
The genius virologist has just proven that 3 drug combination therapy does not work for the treatment of HIV. I'm not the one rejecting published science. You are.
Biological evolution only gets slower with changing environments and multiple selection pressures. You really don't know anything about biological evolution. Then show it in a real population. Show how an asexual and sexual population evolve in changing environments with multiple selection pressures.
I've given you many empirical examples, HIV, insects, and weeds. All of which increase their rate of adaptation through sexual recombination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
quote: Wouldn't you know it, recombination can speed up the acquisition of multi-herbicide resistance.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024