|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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. Kleinman:That's what Lenski's experiment shows. Some member of the most fit variant sub-population gets an adaptive mutation and that new variant ultimately drives the now less fit variants to extinction. The probability that the new variant gets another adaptive mutation depends on the number of replications it does. The probability that any particular variant gets two adaptive mutations before fixation in that experiment is very low because of the low population sizes being used. It's the same math as if two selection conditions are used simultaneously. For example, Kishony's experiment doesn't work when he uses two drugs simultaneously. Some member of the population has to get two adaptive mutations before it can grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. In order to have resonable probabilities for that to happen, Kishony would need a much much larger mega-plate. The colony size would have to reach about a trillion. If you are interested, here's a paper that shows how to do the math:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance Kleinman: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. Likewise, HIV does recombination but it does not defeat the use of combination therapy. You should learn how to do the math of random recombination. If you can't figure it out, I'll show you how to do the math. Only in very specific instances will recombination lead to variants with beneficial alleles recombining to give offspring with multiple adaptive alleles. You still have the multiplication rule when considering biological adaptive evolution in sexually reproducing organisms. Kleinman:These equations give the mathematica! reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive transition in a single selection pressure evolutionary process. When the probability of success for an adaptive mutation occurring in a single replication is the beneficial mutation rate, you will need a large number of replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one of those events occurring. Here's a simple analogy to help you understand: Consider if for your family to survive that your family needs to win two lotteries. And the probability of winning one lottery is 1 in a million, and the probability of winning the other lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability is 1 in a million times 1 in a million equals 1 in a trillion, a very low probability indeed. But let's say, you win one of those lotteries. And because of this, you are a very wealthy man and you can raise a very large family. And all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, there will be a high probability that one of your descendants wins that second lottery for your family. The probability of an adaptive mutation occurring on some variant in a population depends on the number of replications that variant does and the mutation rate, nothing else. There are lots of factors that affect that variant from doing the necessary number of replications for the next adaptive mutation. Competition is one of those factors. It is also possible that a single adaptive mutation does not exist for the given selection conditions. But it all comes down to the fact that the number of replications and the mutation rate determine that probability. And adaptive evolutionary events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule as are your chances of winning two lotteries are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong? The same number that they got right: none! They were bicycle mechanics, not engineers. Like almost all those aeronautical pioneers, they tinkered together their aircraft primarily by guess and by golly and as such, many died when their aircraft would break up in mid-flight because of stresses that none of them knew how to deal with or design for. The ones who went on to create the aerospace industry were just lucky to have not crashed. In 1912, Glenn L. Martin flew the seaplane that he had built himself from Newport Beach to Catalina Island and back, breaking the over-water record. He also had no training in engineering but rather was a tinkerer, so he's lucky that he survived that flight to go on to form the Glenn L. Martin Company which has gone on to be merged with many other companies (eg, Lockheed-Martin). Jack Northrop was one of the first ones to analyze those stresses using the geometry and physics that he had learned in high school. His aeronautical career started in 1916 when he was hired by the Loughead brothers (they changed their name later to Lockheed). That was more than a decade after the Wright brothers' 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk. Donald Douglas was the first one to arrive with an actual engineering degree (the first BS Aeronautical Engineering degree earned at MIT, 1914), going to work for Glenn L. Martin in 1915. Commentary in Blue Sky Metropolis (PBS) about Douglas' main contribution was that now you could build an airplane that was a little less likely to break your neck. So the Wright Brothers knew nothing about aeronautical engineering, but rather tinkered their way along. Which supports ringo's remark:
ringo writes: That's like bringing up the Wright Brothers in a discussion about twenty-first-century aviation. Twenty-first-century aviation involves a helluva lot of engineering. The Wright Brothers involved none!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:dwise1 thinks that the inventors of powered flight knew nothing about aeronautical engineering. When is dwise1 going to give us his explanation of the physics and math of Darwinian evolution? That really won't fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What a fucking idiot you are! Did creationism make you that way? Or were you already damaged and was attracted to creationism?
Learn the history some time. Aeronautical engineering had to be developed (with MIT's first degree presented a full decade after Kitty Hawk), so in the meantime they had to tinker and stumble their way through it (and do a lot of crashing). The mathematics of studying evolution came long after Darwin with neo-Darwinism. Why don't you ask about Darwin's mathematical explanation of genetics? He didn't provide one because we didn't know about genetics yet! And the development of the mathematics of population genetics also didn't come until after Darwin. So why do you keep harping on about Darwinian evolution? You may as well ask about all the creationist research I did on the Internet in 1980. The bullshit is strong in you. Please take a bath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And you still haven’t explained how microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution, just as I predicted. Of course he hasn't. He's a creationist. Creationists only know to follow their scripts. Outside of their scripts, they don't know what to say, so they just keep repeating their scripts. They cannot even think, but rather all they can do is to follow their scripts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
They didn't know anything about supersonic flight, for example.
What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong? Kleinman writes:
He didn't know anything about genetics, for example. Do you think Darwin got biological evolutionary competition and descent with modification wrong? The point is, why are you stuck in the past? Why not just call it "evolution": instead of "Darwinism"?
Kleinman writes:
I didn't say anything about conservation principles. I was suggesting a reason for the bullshit coming out of you: bullshit in (from creationist sources), bullshit out.
At least you have some idea of what a conservation principle is. Kleinman writes:
Again, why not just "Evolution"? Now, only if you could figure out how to apply it to Darwinian Evolution."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:HIV does recombination. If you want, I'll provide you with links to papers where they show this. As for recombination reducing cycles, it doesn't when producing adaptive alleles. What I think you are trying to point out that in some population, you will have one parent with a beneficial allele (call that allele A) at one locus and the other parent having a beneficial allele (call that allele B) at a different locus and when those parents breed, they can produce an offspring with both beneficial alleles A and B. 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. Both farmers are treating the same weed. So, some of the weeds have allele A, other weeds have allele B, and the remaining weeds have neither allele A nor allele B (call those allele C). What is the probability distribution function that describes this problem and compute the probability that you will get an A parent and a B parent giving an AB offspring as a function of population size, and frequencies of A, B, and C members.
Kleinman:Read this paper by Lenski: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/...10.1098/rspb.2015.2292 Lenski: Kleinman:There are no empirical examples that show that a population evolves more rapidly as they are subject to multiple simultaneous selection pressures. Kleinman:The only numbers you need to use are the mutation rate and population size. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Didn't they teach you in your physics class (perhaps you didn't take one) that you compute a conservation principle by what goes in must come out or stays inside? So try applying that principle to biological evolutionary competition and see what you get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It obviously does away with the need to wait until the population with the first beneficial mutation reaches sufficient size,
quote: This looks like an artificial example which would produce more heat than light.
quote: 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: As Haldane worked out decades ago. Nice to see he was right.
quote: Wrong. You would need to know the mutation rate and the proportion of beneficial mutations.
quote: 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.”?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Sure, that's why they use combination herbicides and pesticides in agriculture. Kleinman:OK, so you formulate what you think is a realistic example and show us how to do the math of random recombination. Kleinman: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. Kleinman:I could have worded that better. It is the size of the population with would benefit from the particular mutation. The total population size or proportion of beneficial mutations does not affect that probability. Kleinman:So you think that joint random events are mutually exclusive events? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: They would work anyway.
quote: Maybe later.
quote: 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: No.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:So, how many beneficial mutations do humans have compared to chimpanzees have you counted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Can you define a beneficial mutation?
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Theodoric:That's a reasonable question. A beneficial mutation is a mutation that gives improve reproductive fitness to that variant with respect to related variants without that particular mutation. This is manifested by the greater population size of that variant with that beneficial mutation than those related variants without that beneficial mutation. A neutral mutation does not change the reproductive fitness of the particular variant with respect to those related variants without that neutral mutation. And a detrimental mutation reduces the reproductive fitness of those variants with that detrimental mutation with respects to those related variants without that detrimental mutation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024