Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

If you want to be set straight on the mathematics of DNA microevolution, first take a course in introductory probability theory. Once you do that, identify the random trial(s) for this stochastic process and the math is very easily derived from there.

Minor problem, I will grant you the validity of your mathematics as passing mathematical peer review, but when your mathematical model says that observed behavior is impossible, then the problem is that you are using the wrong math.

See bumblebee flight.

 

[Phred]

If you want to be set straight on the mathematics of DNA microevolution, first take a course in introductory probability theory. Once you do that, identify the random trial(s) for this stochastic process and the math is very easily derived from there.

Hey! Look at this! He made a post without mentioning Kishski and Lishoni.

You all done over at Urgent Care?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Minor problem, I will grant you the validity of your mathematics as passing mathematical peer review, but when your mathematical model says that observed behavior is impossible, then the problem is that you are using the wrong math.

See bumblebee flight.

The math I've presented very nicely models the Kishony and Lenski experiments and it shows that each adaptive DNA microevolutionary step takes a billion replications. Adaptive evolution is not impossible, if a variant can replicate sufficiently (about 1/mutation rate replications for a single selection pressure environment), there will be a reasonable probability of that adaptive mutation occurring. There is no empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The math I've presented very nicely models the Kishony and Lenski experiments and it shows that each adaptive DNA microevolutionary step takes a billion replications. Adaptive evolution is not impossible, if a variant can replicate sufficiently (about 1/mutation rate replications for a single selection pressure environment), there will be a reasonable probability of that adaptive mutation occurring. There is no empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

So that leaves the question, if your math indicates that this situation is possible, where or how does it indicate that it supports your argument? These are only a few contrived experiments to demonstrate some simple solutions. How is it that you extrapolate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the biologist's explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment. There is a mathematical explanation for this.

You do not have one. You only think that you do.

Tell us, why didn't you submit your paper to a site that specializes in evolution? Or did you and it was quickly rejected. I know that some people write papers and then "shop" for sites that will publish it.

As to why does it take billions of steps, when one is looking for a specific sort of mutation, such as a mutation that will increase resistance to antibiotics, it can take billions of mutations before the "right" one shows up. This is an example of artificial selection. With natural selection mutations will naturally accumulate in a population and when an extinction event happens the needed genes to survive those that already have the needed mutations will survive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The math I've presented very nicely models the Kishony and Lenski experiments and it shows that each adaptive DNA microevolutionary step takes a billion replications. Adaptive evolution is not impossible, if a variant can replicate sufficiently (about 1/mutation rate replications for a single selection pressure environment), there will be a reasonable probability of that adaptive mutation occurring. There is no empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

Your math is designed for asexual reproduction. And as you said the very limited cases where only one selective pressure exists. It poorly models the full gamut of different amounts of selection pressures found in nature. That is why your math, even if valid, does not appear to be of much use as a tool to try to refute evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Why don't you contact the editors of the journals I've published in and find out?

They are your papers. Why can't you just tell me?

Your "on topic" journals won't publish papers that correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. A correct understanding of DNA microevolution kills the concept of "common descent" and therefore the ToE goes down the tubes (where it belongs).

Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy to keep your writings out of said journals?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So that leaves the question, if your math indicates that this situation is possible, where or how does it indicate that it supports your argument? These are only a few contrived experiments to demonstrate some simple solutions. How is it that you extrapolate?

Each evolutionary adaptive step in a single selection pressure environment requires about (1/mutation rate replications). If adaptation to multiple simultaneous selection pressures is to have a reasonable probability of occurring, the number of replications goes up exponentially.

For example, the Kishony experiment takes about a billion replications for each adaptive step when the experiment is performed with a single drug. For that experiment to work with two drugs simultaneously, the number of replications necessary for each adaptive step goes to about a trillion. Kishony can get that experiment to work but he will need a petri dish thousands of times larger than his "mega-plate". The population sizes become so large for three simultaneous selection conditions that you have a successful treatment for HIV. Even HIV can't achieve the population sizes necessary to adapt under these conditions. And HIV has a very high mutation rate, does recombination, and exists in a huge carrying capacity environment.

Now consider an adaptive evolutionary process for human lineages. The total number of humans that have ever existed is about 100 billion, and 99% of those have lived in the last 10,000 years. You do not have the population size necessary for more than a small number of adaptive mutations. Adaptive evolution requires huge populations and recovery capabilities. Microbes, plants, and some small, rapidly reproducing small animals can meet the population requirements for adaptive evolution under very limited circumstances. But consider the population size necessary for the Lenski experiment to get 100 adaptive mutations. That experiment required 500,000,000 replications every day for 30 years. This is what the mathematics and empirical evidence reveals. This is not good news for the ToE but is great news if you want to develop treatment strategies for diseases that do microevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Each evolutionary adaptive step in a single selection pressure environment requires about (1/mutation rate replications). If adaptation to multiple simultaneous selection pressures is to have a reasonable probability of occurring, the number of replications goes up exponentially.

For example, the Kishony experiment takes about a billion replications for each adaptive step when the experiment is performed with a single drug. For that experiment to work with two drugs simultaneously, the number of replications necessary for each adaptive step goes to about a trillion. Kishony can get that experiment to work but he will need a petri dish thousands of times larger than his "mega-plate". The population sizes become so large for three simultaneous selection conditions that you have a successful treatment for HIV. Even HIV can't achieve the population sizes necessary to adapt under these conditions. And HIV has a very high mutation rate, does recombination, and exists in a huge carrying capacity environment.

Now consider an adaptive evolutionary process for human lineages. The total number of humans that have ever existed is about 100 billion, and 99% of those have lived in the last 10,000 years. You do not have the population size necessary for more than a small number of adaptive mutations. Adaptive evolution requires huge populations and recovery capabilities. Microbes, plants, and some small, rapidly reproducing small animals can meet the population requirements for adaptive evolution under very limited circumstances. But consider the population size necessary for the Lenski experiment to get 100 adaptive mutations. That experiment required 500,000,000 replications every day for 30 years. This is what the mathematics and empirical evidence reveals. This is not good news for the ToE but is great news if you want to develop treatment strategies for diseases that do microevolution.

Wow! This appears to be very wrong. You are using too simplistic of an approach. In each generation there are billions of experiments running simultaneously. With humans there on the order of 100 mutations per person per generation. That is 100 "experiments" per person. With only ten million humans that is one billion experiments per generation. Are you so sure about your claim when you consider this?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Your math is designed for asexual reproduction. And as you said the very limited cases where only one selective pressure exists. It poorly models the full gamut of different amounts of selection pressures found in nature. That is why your math, even if valid, does not appear to be of much use as a tool to try to refute evolution.

Increasing the number of selection pressures reduces the probabilities of the adaptive mutations occurring on some individual in a population. Here's how to do that math:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

The classic empirical example of this is the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. Also, note that HIV does recombination which has little effect on the adaptive process. There is a mathematical reason for this. You can learn this math here in this paper:
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance

If you have trouble understanding the math, I can explain it. The bottom line, recombination has very little effect on adaptive DNA evolution. And I'm not refuting evolution, I'm giving the correct explanation of how DNA microevolution operates.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

They are your papers. Why can't you just tell me?



Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy to keep your writings out of said journals?

I'm not a mind reader, if you want to know what the peer-reviewers were thinking, you will have to ask them. All I can tell you is that they agreed that these papers should be published. If you think they are wrong, you should publish the correct explanation.

And I think that your "on-topic" journals won't publish any papers by any authors that correctly describe the mathematics of DNA microevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Increasing the number of selection pressures reduces the probabilities of the adaptive mutations occurring on some individual in a population. Here's how to do that math:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

The classic empirical example of this is the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. Also, note that HIV does recombination which has little effect on the adaptive process. There is a mathematical reason for this. You can learn this math here in this paper:
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance

If you have trouble understanding the math, I can explain it. The bottom line, recombination has very little effect on adaptive DNA evolution. And I'm not refuting evolution, I'm giving the correct explanation of how DNA microevolution operates.

LOL Source fail.

Try again.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Wow! This appears to be very wrong. You are using too simplistic of an approach. In each generation there are billions of experiments running simultaneously. With humans there on the order of 100 mutations per person per generation. That is 100 "experiments" per person. With only ten million humans that is one billion experiments per generation. Are you so sure about your claim when you consider this?

Sure, there are lots of mutations occurring, but you are missing the key point. Consider what is happening in the Kishony experiment. Kishony starts with wild-type bacteria with no adaptive mutations for his antibiotic. The founder starts a colony with the descendants getting all kinds of mutations. Some lucky member gets the first adaptive mutation and starts a new colony in the lowest drug concentration region. Its descendants get all kinds of mutations but only until one of those descendants from the second colony gets another adaptive mutation so that it can grow in the next higher drug concentration region. That new variant with the two adaptive mutations can now start a new colony in the next higher drug concentration region and as the colony grows, the probability of the third adaptive mutation occurring on one of its descendants improves. Unless the particular variant can replicate sufficiently, the probability of another adaptive mutation occurring will be low.

Now consider the same situation for humans. For example, a mutation for the sickle cell trait gives some resistance to malaria. Let's say a different mutation might give some resistance to Tuberculosis. How do you get a member of the population with both mutations? If it occurs as in the Kishony experiment, the sickle cell variant will need about a billion descendants for a reasonable probability of the TB mutation occurring on a member that already has the sickle cell trait mutation. Perhaps you want to argue that you get the two adaptive mutations by recombination?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

LOL Source fail.

Try again.

Both links work for me. Try again and scroll down to the button "View Full-text"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both links work for me. Try again and scroll down to the button "View Full-text"

The problem is not with the links. It is the fact that it is a failed source,

 

[Alan Kleinman]

The problem is not with the links. It is the fact that it is a failed source,

So, where is your source that explains the Kishony and Lenski experiment? You certainly won't find it in your "on topic" journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, where is your source that explains the Kishony and Lenski experiment? You certainly won't find it in your "on topic" journals.

You seem to think that something needs to be explained beyond what was already done. Your failed attempt is not an explanation either. They seem to have explained it well enough for the scientific world, and that is in the existing journals already.;

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now consider an adaptive evolutionary process for human lineages. The total number of humans that have ever existed is about 100 billion, and 99% of those have lived in the last 10,000 years. You do not have the population size necessary for more than a small number of adaptive mutations. Adaptive evolution requires huge populations and recovery capabilities. Microbes, plants, and some small, rapidly reproducing small animals can meet the population requirements for adaptive evolution under very limited circumstances. But consider the population size necessary for the Lenski experiment to get 100 adaptive mutations. That experiment required 500,000,000 replications every day for 30 years. This is what the mathematics and empirical evidence reveals. This is not good news for the ToE but is great news if you want to develop treatment strategies for diseases that do microevolution.

And yet we see human evolution occurring in relatively small populations over relatively short periods... I wonder if this reflects some difference between human evolution in the real world and the experiments you've been studying and the maths you've been applying...

 

[pitabread]

All I can tell you is that they agreed that these papers should be published.

Ah, so they agreed the papers should be published, not necessarily that they agreed with the contents of the papers themselves.

Which goes back to my previous question: who actually agrees with the contents of the papers themselves? Because based on the lack of relevant citations and your previous discourse with professional scientists, there doesn't seem to be anyone.

And I think that your "on-topic" journals won't publish any papers by any authors that correctly describe the mathematics of DNA microevolution.

Have you actually submitted to any such journals?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And yet we see human evolution occurring in relatively small populations over relatively short periods... I wonder if this reflects some difference between human evolution in the real world and the experiments you've been studying and the maths you've been applying...

Sure, as long as mutations occur, microevolution will occur. But the probability of a lineage to accumulate adaptation mutations to some selection condition will be limited by the number of replications the given variant can produce at each evolutionary adaptive step in the same way as demonstrated by the Kishony experiment.

There are many factors that affect phenotype that has nothing to do with genotype. For example, two identical genotypes may appear completely different if fed different diets but this has nothing to do with DNA adaptive microevolution.