Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[tas8831]

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

Don't they all? ReMine outright claimed a conspiracy against his submission many years ago. One of the reviewers got perturbed by his whining and released his review. It was rejected because, among other things, 'the non-academic style' (ReMine wrote about himself, insulted actual scientists, etc.), the fact that it offered no original research, etc.
Creationists are pretty predictable.

 

[pitabread]

I looked for a journal where they had expertise in the mathematics and familiarity with the problem of evolution of drug resistance.

As I said above, the reasons I chose this journal. Where is the evolutionary biologist mathematical explanation of the evolution of drug resistance?

This is what I don't understand though. On the one hand you're continuously complaining that evolutionary biology related journals aren't publishing the "correct" mathematical explanations for these microevolutionary events. But on the other hand, you're not submitting your own papers to said journals in the first place.

So if you think you have the correct explanations for these things, why not submit to journals related evolutionary biology

The math I've presented only applies to DNA microevolutionary adaptation which is a stochastic process. Evolutionary competition is a deterministic process which in my view is best formulated by the Haldane model. His model can be easily modified to address different situations such as competition and bottlenecking as seen with the Lenski experiment. This paper shows how you model DNA microevolutionary adaptation when superimposed in the competitive Lenski environment.
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment

The differences should be apparent between the Kishony and Lenski experiments. The former has a much higher carrying capacity with minimal competition so fixation is not required for DNA microevolutionary adaptation while the later experiment is carried out in a highly competitive environment where fixation is required for DNA microevolutionary adaptation to occur. This competion slows the adaptation process. Do you understand why?

I'm not going to have a direct debate with about this, so trying to bait me into such a discussion is pointless.

What I was asking is where are the evolutionary biologists are that agree with what you're proposing. Because like I said, from what I've seen based on your own direct discussions with other evolutionary biologists, nobody seems to agree with you. And on top of that, you're not publishing in the relevant field to begin with and your work isn't getting any real attention other than among these types of discussion on internet forums.

So what is the actual purpose of all of this? Why are you here?

 

[tas8831]

The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

Of the 8 citations to that paper, 4 are in... your other papers.
If your work is so amazing, odd that in 4 years only 4 non-you researchers even cited it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Right. Don't assume that other people have your flaws.

Still no links for the correct mathematical explanation of the microevolution of drug resistance from your "on topic" journals. How said for those people suffering from sepsis and pneumonia.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And yet when that is not the case?

There are no cases that show otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

Don't they all? ReMine outright claimed a conspiracy against his submission many years ago.

Well in this case he's not even submitting to those journals in the first place. It seems doubly strange to complain about said journals not publishing work that they aren't receiving to begin with. :/

 

[Alan Kleinman]

This is what I don't understand though. On the one hand you're continuously complaining that evolutionary biology related journals aren't publishing the "correct" mathematical explanations for these microevolutionary events. But on the other hand, you're not submitting your own papers to said journals in the first place.

So if you think you have the correct explanations for these things, why not submit to journals related evolutionary biology



I'm not going to have a direct debate with about this, so trying to bait me into such a discussion is pointless.

What I was asking is where are the evolutionary biologists are that agree with what you're proposing. Because like I said, from what I've seen based on your own direct discussions with other evolutionary biologists, nobody seems to agree with you. And on top of that, you're not publishing in the relevant field to begin with and your work isn't getting any real attention other than among these types of discussion on internet forums.

So what is the actual purpose of all of this? Why are you here?

Where have I complained? What I have claimed is that your so-called "on-topic' journals have never published a paper that correctly explains microevolution. That's why the authors in these journals can't give the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. If you think the math or physics I've presented is wrong, correct it. You won't.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Well in this case he's not even submitting to those journals in the first place. It seems doubly strange to complain about said journals not publishing work that they aren't receiving to begin with. :/

Any of the writers in these so-called "on topic" journals could try to refute the math and physics I've presented. But they can't, all the empirical and experimental evidence support this math. But feel free to post any experimental evidence that contradicts this math. Macroevolution is a figment of your imagination. The mathematical reason is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities.

 

[pitabread]

Where have I complained?

Do you have an hour?

What I have claimed is that your so-called "on-topic' journals have never published a paper that correctly explains microevolution. That's why the authors in these journals can't give the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. If you think the math or physics I've presented is wrong, correct it. You won't.

This is again what I find so bizarre about responses like the above.

You're complaining about what is or isn't allegedly published in certain journals. Yet rather than submit to those journals, you're instead trying to pick an argument with random internet posters.

I really don't understand what you think you're accomplishing.

 

[pitabread]

Any of the writers in these so-called "on topic" journals could try to refute the math and physics I've presented. But they can't, all the empirical and experimental evidence support this math. But feel free to post any experimental evidence that contradicts this math. Macroevolution is a figment of your imagination. The mathematical reason it is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities.

This has been covered ad nauseum in other discussions. The issue doesn't seem to be the math specifically. Rather it's a question of whether the model is broadly applicable to population genetics.

But you've already had these discussions with pop. geneticists that have pointed all this out to you.

If you think you have some paradigm-shifting data re: evolution, go write up some papers and submit them to the relevant journals. See how that goes.

Complaining about it here isn't going to change anything.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Of the 8 citations to that paper, 4 are in... your other papers.
If your work is so amazing, odd that in 4 years only 4 non-you researchers even cited it.

Believers in macroevolution have no interest in understanding microevolution. Those who want to actually deal with the problem of drug resistance will have to accept this math. The way you suppress microevolution is to force the population to evolve to multiple selection pressures simultaneously. Believers in macroevolution are very slow in understanding how the multiplication rule of probabilities affects DNA microevolution. You think they would learn this mathematical fact of life with the successful use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. There is an old saying, "there is no education in the second kick of a mule".

 

[Phred]

I really don't understand what you think you're accomplishing.

He's set a world record for mentioning Kishony and Lenski.

 

[Phred]

Believers in macroevolution have no interest in understanding microevolution. Those who want to actually deal with the problem of drug resistance will have to accept this math. The way you suppress microevolution is to force the population to evolve to multiple selection pressures simultaneously. Believers in macroevolution are very slow in understanding how the multiplication rule of probabilities affects DNA microevolution. You think they would learn this mathematical fact of life with the successful use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. There is an old saying, "there is no education in the second kick of a mule".

This is astounding.

Since I obviously do not understand oh great keeper of knowledge, explain to me what the difference is between microevolution and macroevolution. I don't care about your grand equations. I want you to explain this as if you were explaining it to a six-year old.

Don't deviate. Don't change the subject. Just explain it. You've been harping on this for days. Explain it. Simply and concisely.

I'll bet you can't.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Do you have an hour?



This is again what I find so bizarre about responses like the above.

You're complaining about what is or isn't allegedly published in certain journals. Yet rather than submit to those journals, you're instead trying to pick an argument with random internet posters.

I really don't understand what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm getting practice debating believers in the concept of macroevolution that also has no understanding of introductory probability theory.

Your so-called "on topic" journals publish lots of papers where they don't understand microevolution. You can start with Lenski's own work.

Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations

If Lenski's team understood the physics and mathematics of their own experiment, they could easily explain why competition slows adaptive evolution. He should read my paper that explains his experiment. Oh, that's right, believers in macroevolution only read their so-called "on topic" journals.

 

[pitabread]

If Lenski's team understood the physics and mathematics of their own experiment, they could easily explain why competition slows adaptive evolution. He should read my paper that explains his experiment. Oh, that's right, believers in macroevolution only read their so-called "on topic" journals.

So why don't you contact Lenski and/or his team and send them a link to your paper?

I don't understand why you're complaining about this here. Why not go do something about it where it actually might matter?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

This has been covered ad nauseum in other discussions. The issue doesn't seem to be the math specifically. Rather it's a question of whether the model is broadly applicable to population genetics.

But you've already had these discussions with pop. geneticists that have pointed all this out to you.

If you think you have some paradigm-shifting data re: evolution, go write up some papers and submit them to the relevant journals. See how that goes.

Complaining about it here isn't going to change anything.

No matter how many times you repeat your wrong ideas, it doesn't make it right. Get your experts in population genetics to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Your so-called expert population geneticists think this study would take too long. It doesn't take long if you understand the physics.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

This is astounding.

Since I obviously do not understand oh great keeper of knowledge, explain to me what the difference is between microevolution and macroevolution. I don't care about your grand equations. I want you to explain this as if you were explaining it to a six-year old.

Don't deviate. Don't change the subject. Just explain it. You've been harping on this for days. Explain it. Simply and concisely.

I'll bet you can't.

It is just the engineers argument that because the specific set of mutations that occurred in a given pathway was of low probability then evolution cannot work. It relies on the idea that there is only one way for anything to work, which obviously isn't terribly relevant to how evolution works.

 

[pitabread]

No matter how many times you repeat your wrong ideas, it doesn't make it right. Get your experts in population genetics to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Your so-called expert population geneticists think this study would take too long. It doesn't take long if you understand the physics.

So take it up with them. Don't complain to me about it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So why don't you contact Lenski and/or his team and send them a link to your paper?

I don't understand why you're complaining about this here. Why not go do something about it where it actually might matter?

I've attempted to contact Lenski, so far no response. I'll try again and send him a link to my paper that gives the mathematics for his experiment.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No matter how many times you repeat your wrong ideas, it doesn't make it right. Get your experts in population genetics to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Your so-called expert population geneticists think this study would take too long. It doesn't take long if you understand the physics.

Look, what you have basically done is modelled a very small portion of a very large space with a linear equation. And like modelling an exponential curve over a short segment, you get apparent agreement. You then try to extrapolate this to the whole curve and deny the observed curve because it doesn't fit your extrapolation. All this says is that while your argument might even be useful for quick calculations in some spaces, it is not a useful description of the whole situation.
Your tangential argument is irrelevant which is why it gains no traction since it just leads to the unobserved.