Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Frank Robert]

And how does that accumulation occur mathematically? Why can't HIV accumulate the adaptive mutations to 3 simultaneous selection pressures acting at only two genetic loci?

It has already been pointed out to you that you elsewhere that you are neglecting parallel selection.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Wrong!

Frank is now going to present experimental evidence of macroevolutionary change. Don't hold your breath.

Only if you deny the consilience of supportive evidence from multiple independent scientific fields

I deny fossil tea-leaf reading, astrology, and phrenology.

Your math happens to explain microevolution in K & L but it does not falsify marcroevolution. Your errors were explained to at PS.

Well, there's half a step! Now, tell us where they posted experimental evidence of macroevolution at PS.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Do you still hold the belief that because there are more humans alive than chimpanzees that macroevolution is not true?
Because that is some pretty freaking naïve nonsense. As was explained to you a few months ago. And why I am not wasting my time here taking you seriously.
It is a mystery why you think anyone should take you seriously when you make such foolish and simpleminded claims/implications.

 

[tas8831]

But why can't numerous microevolutionary steps combine together to create an example of macroevolution? Why?

One of the big problems of this guy and people like Threepwood is that they have a very poor grasp of the relationship between genotype/genotype changes (i.e., mutation) and phenotype.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

At that 3rd rate Caribbean back-up school for most aspiring students?

They didn't require dumbbell math and a survey course in physics for the degree.

The whole engineering thing didn't pan out for you, I guess....

Sure it did, I wanted to apply my understanding of engineering to medical problems. It turns out my major field of thermodynamics was the correct field of study to explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution including the correct explanation of the evolution of drug resistance.

Hey tas, there are lawyers in my family and they have a saying that goes something like this. If you have the law on your side, you argue the law, if you have the evidence on your side, you argue the evidence, if you have neither, you attack your opponent.

You don't have the physics or mathematics on your side to argue, you don't have the experimental evidence on your side to argue, so what are you left with?

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank is now going to present experimental evidence of macroevolutionary change. Don't hold your breath.

Wow!!!! You are giving me exceptional credit if you think that not presenting experimental evidence does for macroevoltion falsifies it. The way you can falsify macroevolution is to falsify the evidence it. You can start here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I deny fossil tea-leaf reading, astrology, and phrenology.

Then don't use it.

Well, there's half a step! Now, tell us where they posted experimental evidence of macroevolution at PS.

See above.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not having difficulty grasping anything. You are having difficult in acknowledging this simple comment: if each species, extinct and extant, that exists has come about through macroevolutionary changes, then ipso facto macroevolution must be factual.
You also haven't answered my question at the end of: Because how can you explain all the massive biodiversity that has existed and does exist on Earth with just microevolution alone? How do you explain it with just microevolution?

It is almost as if the King of Science is avoiding something... Likely because he has realized that to honestly address it would require some serious cognitive dissonance/problems for his religious beliefs . Can't have that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, this is all very educational... all I can say is that we must be very lucky that such a mistaken idea as macroevolution has been so successful in practice, making fruitful predictions in a wide variety of fields, from palaeontology and biogeography to comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and molecular biology, and seemingly gathering ever more supporting evidence over the last 150 years, without any contradictory evidence emerging until now.

How lucky we are to have Alan Kleinman to provide the lab-derived mathematics that proves it all wrong!

OTOH, it may be that, rather than proving macroevolution itself wrong, it suggests that the lab study represented by his mathematics isn't the whole story...

Of course, as a scientist, he will realise that to overturn a successful theory, a better theory is required, a testable model providing the same or greater predictive power, insight & understanding of the observations, explanatory power, specificity, unifying scope, and parsimony, and which doesn't raise more questions than it answers (particularly unanswerable questions), and preferably coheres with existing knowledge.

I look forward to his great reveal!

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You really should read the first chapter in the Evolutionary Analysis textbook. They explain just that.

Post their math and give their explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. For that matter, post any paper written by a macroevolutionist that gives the mathematical explanation of either of these experiments.

 

[tas8831]

They didn't require dumbbell math and a survey course in physics for the degree.

Sure it did, I wanted to apply my understanding of engineering to medical problems. It turns out my major field of thermodynamics was the correct field of study to explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution including the correct explanation of the evolution of drug resistance.

Hey tas, there are lawyers in my family and they have a saying that goes something like this. If you have the law on your side, you argue the law, if you have the evidence on your side, you argue the evidence, if you have neither, you attack your opponent.

You don't have the physics or mathematics on your side to argue, you don't have the experimental evidence on your side to argue, so what are you left with?

I'm laughing at you. You forgot that option. You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so all your prattling is hilarious.
Almost as hilarious as the fact that your amazing math essays are virtually ignored. 7 citations or whatever since 2014? And most were you citing yourself? Shades of Dembski and ReMIne and Abel! Hilarious.

 

[pitabread]

Post their math and give their explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. For that matter, post any paper written by a macroevolutionist that gives the mathematical explanation of either of these experiments.

Deflection and attempts to change the subject. Again.

How predictable.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It has already been pointed out to you that you elsewhere that you are neglecting parallel selection.

Post an experimental example that demonstrates parallel selection.

 

[Frank Robert]

And how does that accumulation occur mathematically? Why can't HIV accumulate the adaptive mutations to 3 simultaneous selection pressures acting at only two genetic loci?

It's been explained to you before. Parallel selection.

 

[pitabread]

Almost as hilarious as the fact that your amazing math essays are virtually ignored. 7 citations or whatever since 2014?

Especially when you consider the number of biologists working today. Just in the U.S. there are over 100k and apparently none of them care about Kleinman's work.

Heck, even other creationists/ID proponents don't seem to care. If his work really was as demolishing to macroevolution as he thinks it is, you'd think creationist/ID organizations would be all over it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It is almost as if the King of Science is avoiding something... Likely because he has realized that to honestly address it would require some serious cognitive dissonance/problems for his religious beliefs . Can't have that.

Why do you avoid posting experimental examples of macroevolution?

 

[Frank Robert]

It's been explained to you before. Parallel selection.

It has been done before but not by myself. Here it is:
Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of Ectodysplasin Alleles 1

Colosimo et al
Science 25 Mar 2005: Vol. 307, Issue 5717, pp. 1928-1933

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Well, this is all very educational... all I can say is that we must be very lucky that such a mistaken idea as macroevolution has been so successful in practice, making fruitful predictions in a wide variety of fields, from palaeontology and biogeography to comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and molecular biology, and seemingly gathering ever more supporting evidence over the last 150 years, without any contradictory evidence emerging until now.

Why couldn't you macroevolutionist predict the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why did it take so long to figure out that the treatment of HIV requires 3 drug therapy. Why will it take so long to figure out that single drug targeted cancer therapy will only work in the very earliest stages of the cancer?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It has been done before but not by myself. Here it is:
Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of Ectodysplasin Alleles 1

Colosimo et al
Science 25 Mar 2005: Vol. 307, Issue 5717, pp. 1928-1933

Identify the selection pressures, the genes targeted and mutations required. And you do understand that fixation is not adaptation. Probably not.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Especially when you consider the number of biologists working today. Just in the U.S. there are over 100k and apparently none of them care about Kleinman's work.

And none of them have explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments and none of them have explained the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. Not much bang for the buck there.

Heck, even other creationists/ID proponents don't seem to care. If his work really was as demolishing to macroevolution as he thinks it is, you'd think creationist organizations would be all over it.

There are a few that gets this physics and math. For people who believe that macroevolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years show little patience that a correct explanation doesn't make an instantaneous impact. You macroevolutionists have had a couple of centuries to worm your mathematically irrational ideas into the field of biology. Perhaps one day, biologists will learn a little more about math and physics (and let's not forget experimental evidence, the key to the scientific method).

 

[tas8831]

You are assuming that these macroevolutionary genetic transformations can occur when all experimental evidence of DNA microevolutionary transformations says that you don't have the selection conditions or population sizes to do such a transformation.

You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so your contrived math is irrelevant.

Consider a limited example. You have some non-feather producing replicator, how many mutations at what genetic loci are required to get a feather producing replicator.

You don't know?
Shades of ReMine!

And the feathers have to appear at the correct location and grow at the correct time.

And what are those times and how do you know?

In other words, the mutations in the stem cell not only have to produce the correct proteins but control when and where these proteins are produced.

Keratin? We have keratin in nails, skin, hair, etc. And the amino acid sequences of keratins in different species are not identical. You suck at picking examples to 'prove your point.'

And that's just the start of your genetic transformation problem. Reptiles have different respiratory systems than birds, different cardiovascular systems, different excretory systems, different musculoskeletal systems... How does a single lineage accumulate the mutations that would do this genetic transformation?

Why would that have to happen in a "single lineage"? You suck at this.
You seem to be implying that those systems differ by some major chasm. I once had a creationist insist that claws and nails were so totally different that evolution cannot even explain how one evolved from the other. You seem to be of that mindset.
How many mutations do you suppose would have been required to get an avian respiratory system from a reptilian one? And how did you come to that conclusion?

I'm explaining to you how microevolution works.

Not really.

And a series of microevolutionary adaptive steps takes huge numbers of replications for each step to create the new adaptive allele.

Um...
Evidence? And do not mention your usual as that is irrelevant. Do you think an altered limb, for example, requires specific mutations to alter all of the structures in that limb? Mutations for muscles, mutations for bones, etc.? Heck, do you know how to produce an allele? How many mutations are needed to get a new allele, by your understanding?

It is up to you to explain how microevolution can create this biodiversity. And you need to substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

And the same to you - as you reject that accepted explanation, you need to provide your explanation then substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.