Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

LOL, another unsubstantiated claim. Your paper fails because you did not publish it in an area where proper peers could review it. You should be able to support this claim easily since I can site studies that show far over 90% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution. I seriously doubt if most "experts in probability theory" are as ignorant as you claim.

You might have a point if any of your "proper peers" published the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments but those papers by your peers don't exist. These experiments are easy to explain if you understand introductory probability theory. Why can't your 90% of scientists explain these simple evolutionary experiments correctly?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nope, I am sorry but you are not a source and citing an article that you wrote from an off topic journal does not help you.

Where is the publication that explains the Lenski experiment in your "on-topic" journal? Lenski's team doesn't even know why competition slows evolutionary adaptation. If you understand the laws of thermodynamics, the explanation is simple.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Everyone is wrong but you, huh?

I mean, there's not much you can do but publish and see if anyone gives credence to your work. Although based on the minimal citations of your work and the conversations on Peaceful Science, it doesn't look it's taken very seriously.

Not everyone, just those who think that macroevolution is a real thing. Those that believe this should learn something about the multiplication rule of probabilities.

If scientists want to solve the problem of the evolution of drug resistance and develop successful targeted therapy for cancer will have to take this math seriously. You won't do this with a misunderstanding of microevolution, the only DNA evolutionary process that is demonstrated experimentally.

 

[pitabread]

Not everyone, just those who think that macroevolution is a real thing.

Are you referring to common ancestry?

What's the alternative?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Are you referring to common ancestry?

What's the alternative?

My purpose is to explain DNA microevolution correctly. The empirical and mathematical evidence shows the limitations of common ancestry (descent). This ends up being fortuitous when treating diseases subject to evolutionary processes. It is not supportive of the belief that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals and to teach this belief to naive school children does a disservice to the fields of medicine and agriculture.

 

[pitabread]

It is not supportive of the belief that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals and to teach this belief to naive school children does a disservice to the fields of medicine and agriculture.

What is the alternative?

(Especially if you're suggesting there are industry implications for this.)

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What is the alternative?

(Especially if you're suggesting there are industry implications for this.)

Explaining the physics and mathematics of DNA microevolution correctly is not enough for you? Do you think that industry is going to collapse if naive school children are not indoctrinated with the belief that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? Teach school children the correct physics and mathematics of DNA microevolution, that's your alternative.

 

[pitabread]

Explaining the physics and mathematics of DNA microevolution correctly

Explanations by whom? I've looked into your publication history and history of discourse with other scientists and nobody seems to agree with you.

Why is that?

Do you think that industry is going to collapse if naive school children are not indoctrinated with the belief that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?

I'm asking you what the alternative is. That you are avoiding answering the question is highly telling.

Let's try again: if you don't accept common ancestry, what is the alternative?

Teach school children the correct physics and mathematics of DNA microevolution, that's your alternative.

Generally the way this works is you start by convincing the experts in the respective field. Then after the work is evaluated and confirmed, it eventually trickles down through the educational sector starting at the grad level on down.

I'll grant that you've at least been publishing your ideas. But you've got a long way to go before getting these ideas to the primary school level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might have a point if any of your "proper peers" published the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments but those papers by your peers don't exist. These experiments are easy to explain if you understand introductory probability theory. Why can't your 90% of scientists explain these simple evolutionary experiments correctly?

You are not fooling anyone here. Sanford tried the same trick when he published his book on genetic entropy. He went to a publishing house and tried to get a "peer reviewed" seal of approval. But he went more to a mathematical part of the house rather than the biology part. His math seemed sound and it was close to being published with a peer reviewed status, but at the last moment someone had the bright idea that since it was about evolution that they should ask those that understand the topic the best. At that point the book was all but out the door. It does not have a peer reviewed status.

From what I saw people that understand the biology of this were telling you what you did wrong in the link that @pitabread supplied.

If this is so easy to understand then why didn't you publish in an appropriate journal? I have not even checked yet to see if that is merely an example of the glamour press. There is a lot of so called peer review that sneaks in that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the publication that explains the Lenski experiment in your "on-topic" journal? Lenski's team doesn't even know why competition slows evolutionary adaptation. If you understand the laws of thermodynamics, the explanation is simple.

What makes you think that they can't? Remember, you are but one voice at best. One that cannot seem to back up your claims except for your one trick. It should have been easy for you to support your claims about experts in probability not accepting evolution. I think that you may be a legend in your own mind.

Get your work peer reviewed at an on topic journal and then you might have something.

 

[Frank Robert]

None of your "legitimate journals" give the correct explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. They can't and still believe that macroevolution occurs.

Of course not. You know better than all the experts.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you compute the joint probabilities of random events by the addition of those probabilities? What happens if the two microevolutionary events, each with a probability of occurring are 0.6? Is the joint probability 1.2?

I would think that the first mutation would have a probability of 0.6, then to have another occur immediately after the first, it would be something like 0.6*0.6.

If the mutations were to occur generations apart, then this number would change given that fixation slows as fitness increases. So you may end up with something like 0.6*0.7.

Awaits responses*

 

[Frank Robert]

My purpose is to explain DNA microevolution correctly.

Why do all and I mean all the experts say you got it wrong?

The empirical and mathematical evidence shows the limitations of common ancestry (descent). This ends up being fortuitous when treating diseases subject to evolutionary processes. It is not supportive of the belief that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals and to teach this belief to naive school children does a disservice to the fields of medicine and agriculture.

Birds and reptiles are related via a common ancestor but birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

None of your "legitimate journals" give the correct explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. They can't and still believe that macroevolution occurs.

You have been peddling the same illusion for years with the same result.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know, just pointing to discussions you've had on forums so folks here can get some context for where the discussion here may go.

We've been through all this with A.K before in these forums. Nothing came of it.

 

[Phred]

Then you should stop making your thoughtless and simple-minded claims about how antibiotics should be used.

I was exactly and specifically correct. I'm sorry, do you not have the slightest idea what happens when you post your drivel on an open internet forum? Please say Kishony and Lenski again. I live for that.

Or you could whip up a paper on some basic math regarding probabilities when you have five known variables. It's cute. Sad though since evolution is far more complex. What happens when the mutation requires a combination of two chromosomes? Or three? Or a previous mutation and then three? You figured out the grade-school version of basic bacteria single site probability and proved nothing. Which is why nobody is heralding your paper. You can't show the probabilities of mutations unless you know what the mutations are going to be. You said yourself, they are "random." Not random as in "amongst these five." Absolutely RANDOM.

But Kishony and Lenski. Kishony and Lenski. Kishony and Lenski.

Now if you'd done something special, like predicted the probability of the occurrence of mutations that would be useful, don'tcha think? Your little paper there would be cited all over the place. It's not. Because you didn't. You did math homework on a very specific equation. One set of parameters and it works for that set. Congratulations. You figured out the probability for a mutation that already happened.

The award for wasting everyone's time goes to...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would think that the first mutation would have a probability of 0.6, then to have another occur immediately after the first, it would be something like 0.6*0.6.

If the mutations were to occur generations apart, then this number would change given that fixation slows as fitness increases. So you may end up with something like 0.6*0.7.

Awaits responses*

The problem with this kind of calculation for mutation sequences that provide a selective advantage is that it doesn't tell you anything useful.

 

[tas8831]

Where is the publication that explains the Lenski experiment in your "on-topic" journal? Lenski's team doesn't even know why competition slows evolutionary adaptation. If you understand the laws of thermodynamics, the explanation is simple.

Well golly, set us all straight!! Give us your amazing 2LoT explanation. I'm sure it is totally relevant and original.

added in edit:
Never mind - just another religious fanatic with an engineering background pontificating o things he doesn't understand to prop up his failing faith...

"I read Kenneth Miller's “The Flagellum Unspun”(2) quite a few years back on the simple, elegant argument of “exaptation” and asked Professor Miller what the purpose of Helicase and Gyrase were before DNA and the DNA replicase system existed. His private response to this question was, “that's a good question.” I've never seen Miller give a public response to this question. Perhaps the authors of this review would try to explain the evolution of Helicase and Gyrase before the DNA replicase system existed? Or perhaps these authors could explain how this simple, elegant argument of “exaptation” works in a little more detail, such as how all these individual proteins evolve separately and then self assemble is some lineage. What is the requirement for each of these proteins to evolve?"

 

[tas8831]

The award for wasting everyone's time goes to...

Careful - here's his professional affiliation:

"Department of Medicine, USA"

 

[tas8831]

The most common argument is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. This is a mathematical blunder. Do you understand why?

You don't.

 

[tas8831]

Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.

Cool assertion. I've always found that when people try to argue against evolution with math it is because they have some blind spot about how evolution/ genetics actually work.