Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

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.

This isn't an either/or scenario.

I really think you need to pick up a modern undergrad evolution textbook or two. The subject of the evolution of drug resistance is a topic in said textbooks.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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

Since you claim to have some understanding of microevolution, perhaps you want to try and explain why competition slows adaptation in the Lenski experiment. Read about it here:
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations
From that paper:

When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix. This phenomenon of interference arises from competition between mutations of different strengths as well as competition between mutations that arise on different fitness backgrounds. Previous work has explored each of these effects in isolation, but the way they combine to influence the dynamics of adaptation remains largely unknown.

Since you can't explain this observation (does that make it an experiment?), ask the experts at PS the reason. They can't and won't, that's a prediction.

The reason you and the experts at PS, and Lenski's team cannot explain why competition slows adaptation is that you don't learn the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply them to a physical system in your survey of physics courses.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

There is no reason any medical school can't teach both the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimpanzees and the mathematics of drug resistance. I rather suspect most medical schools actually teach about both.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

Did you forget to take your humility pill again?

 

[Frank Robert]

Since you claim to have some understanding of microevolution

perhaps you want to try and explain why competition slows adaptation in the Lenski experiment. Read about it here:
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations
From that paper:

Since you can't explain this observation (does that make it an experiment?), ask the experts at PS the reason. They can't and won't, that's a prediction.

The reason you and the experts at PS, and Lenski's team cannot explain why competition slows adaptation is that you don't learn the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply them to a physical system in your survey of physics courses.

I'm sorry to let you down, but I am unable to give you the acknowledgement you are seeking.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

This isn't an either/or scenario.

I really think you need to pick up a modern undergrad textbook or two. The subject of the evolution of drug resistance is a topic in said textbooks.

Swamidass goes around teaching people that humans and chimpanzees are related. I've watched his videos. He has no videos showing him explaining the evolution of drug resistance.

And give your "modern textbook's" explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Why does competition slow adaptation in the Lenski experiment? Try quoting a single line from any of your macroevolution textbooks that explain this. You won't.

A couple of courses of dumbbell math and a survey course in physics doesn't cut it if you want to explain the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

What does physics have to do with anything? Physics is a completely different set of science to biology and medicine.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm sorry to let you down, but I am unable to give you the acknowledgement you are seeking.

You also know nothing about microevolution even though you claim you do know something. You can't explain the simplest principles of the subject even though those principles are trivial. We know they are trivial because Hans said so.

 

[pitabread]

Swamidass goes around teaching people that humans and chimpanzees are related. I've watched his videos. He has no videos showing him explaining the evolution of drug resistance

So what? How is this even relevant?

(And what is the deal with your obsession with Swamidass?)

And give your "modern textbook's" explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Why does competition slow adaptation in the Lenski experiment? Try quoting a single line from any of your macroevolution textbooks that explain this. You won't.

You keep changing the subject, but it's not helping you here.

You seem to think that evolution of drug resistance and macroevolution are incongruous ideas and that somehow by talking about the latter, the field of evolutionary biology is ignoring the former.

I'm simply pointing out that if you open up a typical undergrad evolution textbook, you'll find discussion about the evolution of drug resistance. It's a pretty common topic.

You seem to be relentless in trying to strawman the entire field of evolutionary biology, but it's not really helping you here. The bluff and bluster is quite transparent and quite frankly, coming across as more than a little desperate.

A couple of courses of dumbbell math and a survey course in physics doesn't cut it if you want to explain the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.

And an engineering degree and an MD apparently doesn't cut it in trying to explain population genetics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You also know nothing about microevolution even though you claim you do know something. You can't explain the simplest principles of the subject even though those principles are trivial. We know they are trivial because Hans said so.

Well, I'm glad you accept my authority then.

 

[Frank Robert]

You also know nothing about microevolution even though you claim you do know something. You can't explain the simplest principles of the subject even though those principles are trivial. We know they are trivial because Hans said so.

I am having a great today, how about you?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What does physics have to do with anything? Physics is a completely different set of science to biology and medicine.

It's been a while Warden. Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to biology and medicine? It appears that you are not aware that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process and that microevolutionary DNA adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's been a while Warden. Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to biology and medicine? It appears that you are not aware that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process and that microevolutionary DNA adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics process.

Yes, the laws of physics apply to biology, since the laws of physics apply to everything, but explaining physics doesn't apply to medicine and biology since physics, the science, is a very different facet of science to medicine and biology.

And no, I've never once seen anyone make the claim that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process. Please elaborate.

And also, since I feel the need to say, I have seen you make the claim that macroevolution is incorrect. What do you suggest can replace it in science?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Well, I'm glad you accept my authority then.

On that point. We are waiting for Frank to give you a verbal explanation of the microevolutionary adaptation of a population to two simultaneous selection pressures. We know how much you like verbal explanations. At least you now understand that adaptation to a single selection pressure consists of a series of "at least one" probability equations linked by the multiplication rule. Sure seems that should transform reptiles into birds and fish into mammals.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I am having a great today, how about you?

I'm doing all right. It might be better if a stopped listening to silly claims of macroevolutionists that claim they understand something about microevolution but then fail to explain anything about microevolutionary experiments.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm doing all right. It might be better if a stopped listening to silly claims of macroevolutionists that claim they understand something about microevolution but then fail to explain anything about microevolutionary experiments.

Why do you refer to anyone who disagrees with you as 'macroevolutionists'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

On that point. We are waiting for Frank to give you a verbal explanation of the microevolutionary adaptation of a population to two simultaneous selection pressures. We know how much you like verbal explanations. At least you now understand that adaptation to a single selection pressure consists of a series of "at least one" probability equations linked by the multiplication rule. Sure seems that should transform reptiles into birds and fish into mammals.

Quit trying to play moderator or MC.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, the laws of physics apply to biology, since the laws of physics apply to everything, but explaining physics doesn't apply to medicine and biology since physics, the science, is a very different facet of science to medicine and biology.

That explains why biologists can't explain the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. You have to understand the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply them for that explanation.

And no, I've never once seen anyone make the claim that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process. Please elaborate.

I'll give you a couple of papers here that give that explanation, the first is Kimura's paper on the probability of fixation:
ON THE PROBABILITY OF FIXATION OF MUTANT GENES IN A POPULATION
If you look at equation (1) from his paper, that is a standard heat transfer model that is derived using the first law of thermodynamics. I really don't expect you to understand this paper but here is a simpler (and I think a better) model written by Haldane on the "Cost of Selection".
THE COST OF NATURAL SELECTION
And this paper shows that Haldane's model is a conservation of energy process.
An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept

I really don't expect you to understand these mathematical explanations so I'm going to give you a verbal explanation (especially because Hans likes verbal explanations).

Start with this first principle, it takes energy to replicate. Then consider what the meaning of the carrying capacity of the environment means. The carrying capacity of the environment is the amount of energy available to a population for survival and replication. That energy is used (divided up) between the different variants in the population. The variant that is the most effective user of that energy will replicate more and the less effective users will replicate less. Each generation, the most effective user of that energy for replication will increase in frequency while the less effective users will decrease in frequency. Over generations, the less effective users of that energy are driven to extinction while the most fit variant is now fixed.

And also, since I feel the need to say, I have seen you make the claim that macroevolution is incorrect. What do you suggest can replace it in science?

Macroevolution isn't incorrect, it just doesn't exist. There is only microevolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Quit trying to play moderator or MC.

Alan gives me way too much credit but I admit that I am not worthy of it.