Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think your colleagues would have any problem with the triviality of the math if it didn't contradict the concept of macroevolution. I've heard many "scientists" over the years say that the multiplication rule of probabilities does not apply to biological evolution. It is this axiom that contradicts the notion of macroevolution.

With or without the support of colleagues, I will persist in this because I believe it is correct and needs to be known. I will not stop because it disrupts a bad foundational concept for the field of modern biology, not when that concept harms people suffering from diseases that can evolve.

My colleagues would never make a publication decision based on anything about evolution as they are not working in biology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Classical physics breaks down at both micro/quantum and macro/cosmological scales. It cannot explain the observations at these levels- this is hardly controversial.

Classical physics works just fine at the macroscale of cosmology. Quantum physics is operative at the microscale. If you have other specific claims make them.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There is a distinction to be made between the theory and the observation though- i.e. I'm saying what we can observe and measure is breaking the laws of Darwinian evolution- as light waves disobeyed classical physics- the disparity shows that something more is at work.

So, what is this observation? Give us a real example, not an analogy.

As above- apples still fall from trees, genetic apples will still fall not far from there's - but something beyond a handful of simple laws + time and random interaction is at work in both cases. Specifically- information.
Some secular scientists already already use pre-existing information as an argument against God- 'no divine intervention needed, the necessary genetic information already existed and just needed to be switched on'

Try to move your thinking from the abstract to a concrete example if you can. I like to use examples such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments to bring reality to the math. These examples show the rate at which populations can diverge (how far the genetic apples can fall from the tree).

Another clue that Newtonian physics was insufficient, was the observation that the universe itself did not develop in smooth incremental steps, but sudden explosive stages- speaking to more specific information driving these explosive events. And the observation of increasingly 'explosive events' are likewise a growing hurdle for ToE.

I doubt you are going to convince these macroevolutionists that there are hurdles for the ToE. They are seeing what they want to see.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

My colleagues would never make a publication decision based on anything about evolution as they are not working in biology.

That's alright, I found people that have an interest in this subject. The editors and peer reviewers from Statistics in Medicine have an interest in the evolution of drug resistance and failure of cancer treatments. In fact, the only change I was asked to make in one of my papers was to give an explanation of how to apply these concepts to give an estimate of the number of resistant variants in a cancer. If you can estimate the numbers of cells in the cancer and know the mutation rate of the tumor cells, you can make that estimate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, what is this observation? Give us a real example, not an analogy.

Any observation contrary to Darwinism's predicted incremental improvements; horseshoe crabs remain in virtual stasis for 100's of millions of years, explosive appearances of most phyla within a geological blink of the eye, & we see very little evidence of any gradual improvement in the fossil record.

Try to move your thinking from the abstract to a concrete example if you can. I like to use examples such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments to bring reality to the math. These examples show the rate at which populations can diverge (how far the genetic apples can fall from the tree).

I'm saying ToE is the abstract thinking which doesn't fit the concrete examples. Darwin predicted the Cambrian explosion to be merely an artifact of an incomplete record.- While the evidence shows the opposite- it gets ever more explosive the more data is collected

I doubt you are going to convince these macroevolutionists that there are hurdles for the ToE. They are seeing what they want to see.

Well I'm a recovering macroevolutionist myself..

Appreciate the thoughtful discussion as always- must run for now.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Classical physics works just fine at the macroscale of cosmology. Quantum physics is operative at the microscale. If you have other specific claims make them.

I make an argument to those that think that they can describe evolution using fossils. They are trying to describe events that occur on a molecular scale using gross anatomy. That's like trying to use classical physics to describe quantum mechanics.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Any observation contrary to Darwinism's predicted incremental improvements; horseshoe crabs remain in virtual stasis for 100's of millions of years, explosive appearances of most phyla within a geological blink of the eye, & we see very little evidence of any gradual improvement in the fossil record.

Maybe macroevolutionists think that horseshoe crabs have a zero mutation rate and therefore their genomes never diverge.

I'm saying ToE is the abstract thinking which doesn't fit the concrete examples. Darwin predicted the Cambrian explosion to be merely an artifact of an incomplete record.- While the evidence shows the opposite- it gets ever more explosive the more data is collected

You have to remember that biologists depend on observations and not experimentation to formulate their concepts. If they believe that macroevolution is true, that will bias their interpretation of their observations. Why do you think they are so stubborn and refuse to consider the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? It's because these experiments are contradicting their belief system.

Well I'm a recovering macroevolutionist myself..

Appreciate the thoughtful discussion as always- must run for now.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Frank Robert]

Now you are a mind reader. Did you learn how to do that when you learned how to read fossil tea leaves?

No need to read minds your paper was about math.

I got your reason, you are chicken.

Now who is playing mind reader? Whether I am chicken or not you are the one who pays the price. I am not so mean to give you a platform to make a clown out of yourself as you have been doing for years. But if you want to play a clown again you don't need my help.

 

[Frank Robert]

I make an argument to those that think that they can describe evolution using fossils. They are trying to describe events that occur on a molecular scale using gross anatomy. That's like trying to use classical physics to describe quantum mechanics.

It is not only gross anatomy it is also DNA that goes back to 1.7 million years.
Evidence for evolution
Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Predictions
Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive

... broad predictions – including the age of Earth, the existence of transitional fossils and the common origin of life – are crucial tests of the basic theory (see Evolution cannot be disproved).​

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No need to read minds your paper was about math.

And the mathematics of DNA adaptive evolution to a single selection pressure is trivially simple, even Hans gets it.

Now who is playing mind reader? Whether I am chicken or not you are the one who pays the price. I am not so mean to give you a platform to make a clown out of yourself as you have been doing for years. But if you want to play a clown again you don't need my help.

Frank, you said that Miller asked for a definition of macroevolution. Miller didn't ask me that question, you asked me. I don't know whether Miller really asked that question or you are just blowing smoke. But that doesn't matter because you are the one that asked me. And now you want me to start a discussion on PS about a question that you asked me here and I gave you the answer here. If you think I'm wrong but can't explain why, you go ask them to explain to you why that answer is wrong. And good luck finding a replicator that can evolve more quickly and can generate larger populations than HIV.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It is not only gross anatomy it is also DNA that goes back to 1.7 million years.
Evidence for evolution
Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Frank, there is evolution, microevolution. If you think you are related to that 1.7 million-year-old DNA, send it to ancestry.com because that's how to use the genetic code to reflect shared ancestry.

Predictions
Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive
... broad predictions – including the age of Earth, the existence of transitional fossils and the common origin of life – are crucial tests of the basic theory (see Evolution cannot be disprove

The earth is already here, you don't predict its age, you can try to estimate its age. If macroevolutionists wanted to try and predict something, they should have tried to predict how the Kishony experiment would work before the experiment was performed. That's what the trivial math that I've presented did. Frank, learn how microevolution works, see how the multiplication rule affects adaptive evolution, understand why it takes huge populations for a lineage to accumulate even a small number of adaptive mutations. Fossils don't explain this.

 

[Frank Robert]

And the mathematics of DNA adaptive evolution to a single selection pressure is trivially simple, even Hans gets it.

No one is claiming it is not simple. Misdirection will not get to where you want to be.

Frank, you said that Miller asked for a definition of macroevolution. Miller didn't ask me that question, you asked me. I don't know whether Miller really asked that question or you are just blowing smoke. But that doesn't matter because you are the one that asked me.

I took it from Miller's quote. Perhaps you missed it.

And now you want me to start a discussion on PS about a question that you asked me here and I gave you the answer here. If you think I'm wrong but can't explain why, you go ask them to explain to you why that answer is wrong. And good luck finding a replicator that can evolve more quickly and can generate larger populations than HIV.

Not particularly. I said that I don't want to be seen as the one setting you up to be a clown, but since you appeared eager for me to do so I stated the obvious that 'nothing prevents you from doing so yourself.'

It doesn't make any difference though. You did not answer Miller's challenge. If fact your answer was already been covered at PS where you appear to be trying to force explanations and equations that fit microevolution unto macroevolution. According to the experts there the elephant in the room is your lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of parallel selection. The purpose of Dr. Swamidass' suggested simulation was to test your explanations and equations against those of the PS experts. He accurately predicted that you would not.

See Comments on Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank, there is evolution, microevolution. If you think you are related to that 1.7 million-year-old DNA, send it to ancestry.com because that's how to use the genetic code to reflect shared ancestry.

I don't know if is denial or lack of understanding, but in either case you are misrepresenting common descent.

The earth is already here, you don't predict its age, you can try to estimate its age. If macroevolutionists wanted to try and predict something, they should have tried to predict how the Kishony experiment would work before the experiment was performed. That's what the trivial math that I've presented did.

Misdirection with K & E will not get you where you need to go. I

Frank, learn how microevolution works, see how the multiplication rule affects adaptive evolution, understand why it takes huge populations for a lineage to accumulate even a small number of adaptive mutations. Fossils don't explain this.

I have a decent understanding of microevolution. On the other hand, you continue to display your lack of understanding of macroevolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No one is claiming it is not simple. Misdirection will not get to where you want to be.

Only a macroevolutionist would think that directing you to the correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolution is misdirection.

Not particularly. I said that I don't want to be seen as the one setting you up to be a clown, but since you appeared eager for me to do so I stated the obvious that 'nothing prevents you from doing so yourself.'

You are just a chicken.

It doesn't make any difference though. You did not answer Miller's challenge. If fact your answer was already been covered at PS where you appear to be trying to force explanations and equations that fit microevolution unto macroevolution. According to the experts there the elephant in the room is your lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of parallel selection. The purpose of Dr. Swamidass' suggested simulation was to test your explanations and equations against those of the PS experts. He accurately predicted that you would not.

See Comments on Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution.

Oh? So Miller's challenge was not to define macroevolution? Maybe you can get Swamidass to model macroevolution in SLIM 3. Of course, I don't expect him to do that, he's too busy telling people that humans and chimpanzees are related using neutral evolution. The problem with that claim is that there are 7 billion humans and only 300,000 chimps, that doesn't sound like that evolution was neutral. His medical students would be better served by him giving the correct explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail but that would mean he would have to understand the physics and mathematics of microevolution which he doesn't.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't know if is denial or lack of understanding, but in either case you are misrepresenting common descent.

Check out my math, adaptive evolution occurs along lineages. If you think you have bacteria in your lineage, oh well.

Misdirection with K & E will not get you where you need to go. I

I suppose you meant K & L.

I have a decent understanding of microevolution. On the other hand, you continue to display your lack of understanding of macroevolution.

Why don't you give a verbal explanation of how adaptive microevolution works when there are two simultaneous selection pressures acting on a population? Hans likes verbal explanations.

 

[pitabread]

That explains why biologists can't properly explain the evolution of drug resistance

As I said earlier in the thread, this subject is literally the first chapter of the evolution textbook, Evolutionary Analysis (5th ed).

You keep saying biologists can't do this and that and the other thing, but honestly it just seems like desperate strawmanning on your part.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

As I said earlier in the thread, this subject is literally the first chapter of the evolution textbook, Evolutionary Analysis (5th ed).

You keep saying biologists can't do this and that and the other thing, but honestly it just seems like desperate strawmanning on your part.

You should send a copy of that text to the Lenski team so that they could figure out the mathematical behavior of their experiment. They don't understand why competition slows adaptation in their experiment. Here, read this paper where they are trying to figure out why:
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations

I tried to give you macroevolutionist biologists the first law of thermodynamics explanation but your survey of physics instructors didn't cover the topic of conservation of energy. What sad preparation biologists get to understand and analyze the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Only a macroevolutionist would think that directing Is is when you unable to define macroevolution.

You failed to define macroevolution.

You are just a chicken.

That is one way to look at not wanting to be involved in setting you up to make a clown of yourself.

Oh? So Miller's challenge was not to define macroevolution?

Yes, it was.

Maybe you can get Swamidass to model macroevolution in SLIM 3. Of course, I don't expect him to do that, he's too busy telling people that humans and chimpanzees are related using neutral evolution. The problem with that claim is that there are 7 billion humans and only 300,000 chimps, that doesn't sound like that evolution was neutral. His medical students would be better served by him giving the correct explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail but that would mean he would have to understand the physics and mathematics of microevolution which he doesn't.

Your need to belittle and degrade an accomplished scientist and other professionals is an obvious display of envy and tells us loads about your self-concept.

 

[Frank Robert]

Check out my math, adaptive evolution occurs along lineages. If you think you have bacteria in your lineage, oh well.

You do like to use your math as a misdirection weapon, unfortunately you give your math too much credit.

I suppose you meant K & L.

Yes Thank you for the correction.

Why don't you give a verbal explanation of how adaptive microevolution works when there are two simultaneous selection pressures acting on a population? Hans likes verbal explanations.

If the experts at PS were unable to correct your misunderstanding, I doubt that I could better.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Your need to belittle and degrade an accomplished scientist and other professionals is an obvious display of envy and tells us loads about your self-concept.

If the Washington University School of Medicine administration wants its faculty to teach its students that humans and chimpanzees are related rather than correctly describing the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance that's their prerogative. But I think they do a disservice to their medical students and the patients they are being trained to serve.