Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Subduction Zone]

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.

When people look as if they are trolling more than if they are debating I begin to ignore them.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Linear equation - Wikipedia

And this supports your argument how?

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.

What do sepsis and pneumonia have to do in and of themselves with drug resistance through microevolution?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And this supports your argument how?

Just trying to get you to understand the mathematical meaning of linear. DNA microevolution is a highly non-linear process. The probability curves are actually sigmoidal. And microevolutionary steps are not additive, they are linked by the multiplication rule. That's why the number of replications necessary to improve the probability of adaption goes up exponentially as the number of selection conditions increase. It is the multiplication rule that makes HIV cocktails work.

What do sepsis and pneumonia have to do in and of themselves with drug resistance through microevolution?

It has been suggested that a big part of the problem of drug resistance is due to the overuse of antibiotics by primary care medical providers and that antibiotic usage should be reduced by these medical providers.

I'm pointing out that sepsis and pneumonia are among the top medical reasons for hospital admission. In addition, sepsis is the most expensive medical hospitalization. Pressuring primary care providers to reduce antibiotic usage will only increase the number of sepsis and pneumonia cases by delaying the treatment in the outpatient environment. In addition, drug-resistant infections are a greater problem in the hospitalized patient than in the outpatient environment. One of the main reasons for this is that hospitalize patients tend to be more ill with immune systems that tend not to function as well as with the healthier outpatient populations.

 

[Phred]

I'm pointing out that sepsis and pneumonia are among the top medical reasons for hospital admission. In addition, sepsis is the most expensive medical hospitalization. Pressuring primary care providers to reduce antibiotic usage will only increase the number of sepsis and pneumonia cases by delaying the treatment in the outpatient environment.

Asking you not to write a prescription for antibiotics to someone with a cold will endanger someone with septicemia how exactly? Or are you saying you're unable to tell the difference?

You know giving birth is the third most expensive hospitalization in the US. Perhaps you've been prescribing antibiotics when they just needed to go give birth.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Asking you not to write a prescription for antibiotics to someone with a cold will endanger someone with septicemia how exactly? Or are you saying you're unable to tell the difference?

There is a lot of overlap in the symptoms and presentation of viral and bacterial infections. This is part of the conundrum of practicing medicine in the outpatient environment. You don't have access to stat laboratories and decisions have to be made primarily on a clinical basis (medical history and physical examination). And think about this, most patients don't like going to the doctor's office. If they do go, it is usually because they feel too ill to ride it out at home. If the medical provider denies antibiotics when someone presents with a fever and sore throat, they had better do rapid follow-up because they may end up with a patient with full-blown sepsis or pneumonia. Obviously, a lot of people are ending up in the hospital with pneumonia and sepsis. So, are you going to tell us what the early signs of sepsis are? Or do you still don't care?

You know giving birth is the third most expensive hospitalization in the US. Perhaps you've been prescribing antibiotics when they just needed to go give birth.

Last I heard, childbirth is not considered a medical diagnosis. You are such a bore!

 

[tas8831]

What even was that?

It's one thing to inject into a thread that at least is semi-relevant, but to start babbling about Lenski and Kishony in a post about a web site update? Yeesh.

Are you familiar with this guy Andras Pellionisz? Alan reminds me very much of him.

 

[pitabread]

Are you familiar with this guy Andras Pellionisz? Alan reminds me very much of him.

Never heard of him.

 

[Ophiolite]

What even was that?

It's one thing to inject into a thread that at least is semi-relevant, but to start babbling about Lenski and Kishony in a post about a web site update? Yeesh.

I was not familiar with Joe Felsentein, but anyone who can compose the put down "I don't need some supercilious outside arbiter to lecture me on how to do it" has my vote.

Focus is a valuable survival trait. Fixation, not so much.

 

[tas8831]

Never heard of him.

You've not missed much. He made the rounds on cre v. ev forums a few years back. His big thing was fractals. Claimed to have found fractal patterns in DNA or some such craziness. Threatened to sue several people who kept pointing out problems with his claims (as he was using his claims to start a couple of businesses). Our boy here hasn't done that (yet) as far as I know, but argued in much the same way.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I was not familiar with Joe Felsentein, but anyone who can compose the put down "I don't need some supercilious outside arbiter to lecture me on how to do it" has my vote.

Focus is a valuable survival trait. Fixation, not so much.

Joseph Felsenstein - Wikipedia
If you go back and read my discussion that I had with Joshua Swamidass on the "Peaceful Science" forum, you will find that Joe Felsenstein agreed with me that Swamidass was improperly applying the concept of neutral evolution when saying humans and chimpanzees are related.

 

[Ophiolite]

Joseph Felsenstein - Wikipedia
If you go back and read my discussion that I had with Joshua Swamidass on the "Peaceful Science" forum, you will find that Joe Felsenstein agreed with me that Swamidass was improperly applying the concept of neutral evolution when saying humans and chimpanzees are related.

I was addressing Mr. Felsenstein's fluency with language, not his impressive professional reputation. You were trolling on that website. If that trolling was unconscious, it was nevertheless real. Your scatter gun approach to discussion on this thread is making a similar impression.

Your application of probabilities to evolution has a fundamental error that renders your conclusions invalid. (Pointless, not even wrong, would be nearer the mark.) It is apparent from your posts here and your history, that you are now, and are likely to remain indefinitely, blind to this error. I have no interest in wasting time correcting your aberration. Normally I would make the effort for the benefits of lurkers who might be misled, but I cannot see anyone falling for your particular claims, especially given the implicit histrionics.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Joseph Felsenstein - Wikipedia
If you go back and read my discussion that I had with Joshua Swamidass on the "Peaceful Science" forum, you will find that Joe Felsenstein agreed with me that Swamidass was improperly applying the concept of neutral evolution when saying humans and chimpanzees are related.

Anybody want to play a Kishony-Lenski drinking game. Are you seriously arguing that humans have more beneficial mutations than chimps because there are more of us than them? Well then why don't you bow to your bacterial overlords since there are way more of them. And no he is not agreeing with you, he is disagreeing with others but not necessarily because he agrees with you.

 

[pitabread]

Anybody want to play a Kishony-Lenski drinking game.

I would, but I'd be worried I'd suffer alcohol poisoning within 5 minutes.

 

[pitabread]

You've not missed much. He made the rounds on cre v. ev forums a few years back. His big thing was fractals. Claimed to have found fractal patterns in DNA or some such craziness. Threatened to sue several people who kept pointing out problems with his claims (as he was using his claims to start a couple of businesses). Our boy here hasn't done that (yet) as far as I know, but argued in much the same way.

In this context, it seems like A.K. is more interested in just trying to get people to read his stuff in the first place.

On that note, has anyone seen behavior like this before? In a couple decades of debating science and creationism on the internet, I don't think I've ever seen someone chronically linking to their own published works in this way. It's very odd.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I was addressing Mr. Felsenstein's fluency with language, not his impressive professional reputation. You were trolling on that website. If that trolling was unconscious, it was nevertheless real. Your scatter gun approach to discussion on this thread is making a similar impression.

Your application of probabilities to evolution has a fundamental error that renders your conclusions invalid. (Pointless, not even wrong, would be nearer the mark.) It is apparent from your posts here and your history, that you are now, and are likely to remain indefinitely, blind to this error. I have no interest in wasting time correcting your aberration. Normally I would make the effort for the benefits of lurkers who might be misled, but I cannot see anyone falling for your particular claims, especially given the implicit histrionics.

Why don't you tell us what that fundamental error is and then tell us the correct way to mathematically model DNA evolution. Explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. You can't and you won't.

The math I presented predicted that it would take a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step and it was published years before Kishony ran his experiment. Where is the error in that?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

In this context, it seems like A.K. is more interested in just trying to get people to read his stuff in the first place.

On that note, has anyone seen behavior like this before? In a couple decades of debating science and creationism on the internet, I don't think I've ever seen someone chronically linking to their own published works in this way. It's very odd.

You certainly can't link to any work in your so-called "on topic" journals that explain microevolutionary adaptation correctly. These papers don't exist. If they did exist, they could explain the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You believers in macroevolution need to learn about the multiplication rule of probabilities then you might get the science right.

 

[pitabread]

You believers in macroevolution

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

Do you reject the common ancestry of species?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Anybody want to play a Kishony-Lenski drinking game. Are you seriously arguing that humans have more beneficial mutations than chimps because there are more of us than them? Well then why don't you bow to your bacterial overlords since there are way more of them. And no he is not agreeing with you, he is disagreeing with others but not necessarily because he agrees with you.

Do you think that humans and bacteria evolved from a common ancestor by neutral evolution? And of course, Swamidass's blunder was using neutral evolution to explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. So, how many beneficial mutations did humans get in order to have our reproductive fitness advantage over chimps? Which mutations gave humans the ability to do industrial farming, build aircraft, make computers,...?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

Definition of MACRO

Do you reject the common ancestry of species?

You are not going to get reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals by microevolution. The multiplication rule of probabilities requires far too large populations for this kind of genetic transformation.

 

[pitabread]

You are not going to get reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals by microevolution. The multiplication rule of probabilities requires far too large populations for this kind of genetic transformation.

That didn't answer my question. I asked if you reject common ancestry.

Let's try again:

Do you reject common ancestry of species? Are you rejecting the notion of theropods evolving into birds, etc.?

A simple yes/no will suffice.