Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

Oh no, it can happen genetically at the rate of about 1 adaptation mutation/billion replications.

So how many billion replications did it take for the 20+ identified mutations under selection in contemporary Inuit populations?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I have a feeling he'd first want us to lock a population of humans in fridge for a few million generations to see if they adapt to cold climates before he'd accept it.

Nope, the correct physics, and mathematics of DNA microevolution and DNA microevolutionary experiments with bacteria tell the scientific story well enough. Perhaps you think microevolutionary adaptation works differently with bacteria than other replicators?

This discussion would be much more interesting if you could present some mathematical or experimental arguments. You've given up on the math after claiming that microevolutionary changes add up, not even that much in experimental evidence. Oh well, why don't you try to post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern biology texts that explain the evolution of drug resistance?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So how many billion replications did it take for the 20+ identified mutations under selection in contemporary Inuit populations?

Every site in the genome is under selection. And with every genome replication and a mutation rate of 1e-8, you should expect 30 new mutations in the genome. Care to tell us which of those mutations made your mother tell you to put your coat on when you went out in the cold?

 

[pitabread]

This discussion would be much more interesting if you could present some mathematical or experimental arguments.

Not how the burden of proof works. You're the one claiming your model somehow applies universally to evolution or that it somehow prohibits macroevolution.

I suggested you could take you model and try applying it human evolution and how it fares relative to what we observe in human population genetics. Of course you don't seem particularly interested in testing your model, instead preferring the bluff and bluster approach of the same tired posts over and over.

If you're wondering why nobody is taking you seriously, this is why.

Oh well, why don't you try to post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern biology texts that explain the evolution of drug resistance?

There is a fare bit of math found in modern evolutionary biology textbooks. Probably better you just pick up a copy yourself. That is if you have a genuine interest in any of this as opposed to trying to score imaginary Internet points in an online debate.

 

[Frank Robert]

Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?

You give me much too much credit. I have no reason to question your K & L math but assuming it is factual does not falsify macroevolution.

 

[pitabread]

Every site in the genome is under selection.

Wait, what? Every single site in a human genome is under selection?

And with every genome replication and a mutation rate of 1e-8, you should expect 30 new mutations in the genome. Care to tell us which of those mutations made your mother tell you to put your coat on when you went out in the cold?

You're trying to deflect again. It really is not a good look for you.

I pointed you to the paper earlier in the thread. You can have a look. Or you can keep ignoring it. Your call.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Not how the burden of proof works. You're the one claiming your model somehow applies universally to evolution or that it somehow prohibits macroevolution.

So far, no contradictory experimental evidence. Even all the empirical evidence supports this math, combination herbicides, combination pesticides, combination antivirals,... Of course, experience can be a hard teacher, especially when biologists teach mathematically irrational theories.

I suggested you could take you model and try applying it human evolution and how it fares relative to what we observe in human population genetics. Of course you don't seem particularly interested in testing your model, instead preferring the bluff and bluster approach of the same tired posts over and over.

Tell us which mutation made your mother tell you to put on your coat when you went out in the cold.

If you're wondering why nobody is taking you seriously, this is why.

You know everybody?

There is a fare bit of math found in modern evolutionary biology textbooks. Probably better you just pick up a copy yourself. That is if you have a genuine interest in any of this as opposed to trying to score imaginary Internet points in an online debate.

Pretty please, post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern evolutionary biology textbooks. How about the equation that explains how microevolutionary adaptation works to a single selection pressure? Put some sugar on top of that.

Wait, what? Every single site in a human genome is under selection?

Absolutely, sometimes mutations are beneficial, sometimes the mutations are neutral, and sometimes the mutations are detrimental. The environment determines which.

If you understood the Kishony experiment, you would understand this. When his colony reaches a population of a billion, there will be a variant in that population with an adaptation mutation for ciprofloxacin and another variant with an adaptation mutation for trimethoprim. The environment determines which are beneficial.

You're trying to deflect again. It really is not a good look for you.

I pointed you to the paper earlier in the thread. You can have a look. Or you can keep ignoring it. Your call.

What deflection? You are just confused to think that only 20 sites in a genome or under selection.

 

[pitabread]

So far, no contradictory experimental evidence.

Again, not how the burden of proof works.

You know everybody?

I'm speaking of the lack of citations of your published works and the lack of positive reception to your postings on various forums.

Pretty please, post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern evolutionary biology textbooks. How about the equation that explains how microevolutionary adaptation works to a single selection pressure? Put some sugar on top of that.

Hit up Amazon and grab a book yourself. C'mon, you're claiming to be publishing works relevant to the field of evolutionary biology. How is it you *don't* have any textbooks on the subject?

Serious question: Have you ever read a textbook on evolutionary biology?

Absolutely, sometimes mutations are beneficial, sometimes the mutations are neutral, and sometimes the mutations are detrimental. The environment determines which.

If you understood the Kishony experiment, you would understand this. When his colony reaches a population of a billion, there will be a variant in that population with an adaptation mutation for ciprofloxacin and another variant with an adaptation mutation for trimethoprim. The environment determines which are beneficial.

This isn't answering what I posted. What I was posting was my incredulity to your claim that "Every site in the genome is under selection."

Perhaps you didn't actually mean that the way it was written?

What deflection? You are just confused to think that only 20 sites in a genome or under selection.

For clarification, the paper listed 20+ mutations under strong selection in its study of Inuit populations.

I simply referenced that (among other examples) in contrast your earlier claim about adaptions to climate being a result of intelligent and not genetics.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You give me much too much credit. I have no reason to question your K & L math but assuming it is factual does not falsify macroevolution.

Do you understand that I published the math that predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before he performed the experiment? And this math explains how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations? These adaptational mutations don't add up, they are joint random events. And they are events where the probability of success in a single trial (replication) is very small. That's why it takes so many replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one success. But when that lucky member does get that adaptational mutation, the probability of one of its descendants getting another adaptational mutation is very small unless that new variant replicates many times. If it takes two or more mutations to give an improvement in fitness, it takes exponentially more replications to have any probability of adaptation success for that circumstance. That's why my answer to your question about macroevolution is 3 selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. That's all it takes to blunt the microevolutionary process of HIV and have successful treatment. It takes vast populations to evolve and adapt to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, much larger populations than have ever existed on earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

So far, no contradictory experimental evidence. Even all the empirical evidence supports this math, combination herbicides, combination pesticides, combination antivirals,... Of course, experience can be a hard teacher, especially when biologists teach mathematically irrational theories.

You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.

 

[pitabread]

You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.

It's all bluff and bluster, no substance.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Again, not how the burden of proof works.

What's your proof for macroevolution? Zero, nada, zilch. Yet you teach this nonsense to biology students as if it is fact.

I'm speaking of the lack of citations of your published works and the lack of positive reception to your postings on various forums.

I've never expected macroevolutionist zealots to respond positively to this math. Be patient, this math will sink into the scientific community, especially those dealing with drug resistance and failed cancer treatments.

Hit up Amazon and grab a book yourself. C'mon, you're claiming to be publishing works relevant to the field of evolutionary biology. How is it you *don't* have any textbooks on the subject?

I've taken courses in genetics and biology and have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of papers on evolutionary biology. None of these books or papers have ever explained correctly the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution. So, now you say there is some magical book that explains all this. Give us the name of the book and post an equation from the book that explains DNA evolution. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke. No, for sure you are blowing smoke. If you had any explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation, you could produce the papers that explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Why don't you get a real physics book and learn something about thermodynamics and take some real math courses instead of your dumbbell math courses so that you could learn how to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of evolutionary biology. You don't even understand that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process.

This isn't answering what I posted. What I was posting was my incredulity to your claim that "Every site in the genome is under selection."

Perhaps you didn't actually mean that the way it was written?

And every site in a genome is under selection.

For clarification, the paper listed 20+ mutations under strong selection in its study of Inuit populations.

Tell us what the selection pressure is.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.

Feel free to test away against any experimental or empirical evidence you can find. It already correctly models the Kishony and Lenski experiments, it fits all the empirical examples of mutational adaptation. If Swamidass wants to use SLIM 3 to try and verify this model, he should do it independently from my work. He doesn't need me to hold his hand to do this. But he does have a responsibility as a medical school professor to explain correct the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. That is an issue his students will have to face.

 

[pitabread]

What's your proof for macroevolution?

What is this, creationist arguments 101?

I've taken courses in genetics and biology and have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of papers on evolutionary biology.

Then why are you so bad at it?

I still can't get over the fact you tried to claim that human adaptions to climate were a result of intelligence and not genetic adaptions. Despite the fact the literature is full of the latter (and it's not like these were hard to locate).

Give us the name of the book and post an equation from the book that explains DNA evolution.

I gave you the name of the textbook repeatedly. Evolutionary Analysis, 5th Edition. Chapter 1 all about HIV and it specifically covers the subject of HIV drug resistance and the use of drug cocktails to combat anti-viral resistance. There are also numerous references in said chapter to the published literature.

My point was that this is not some idea that is unknown in the world of evolutionary biology. All your claims about evolutionary biologists not understanding drug resistance has no basis.

You're free to look it up. Or don't. At this point, I don't really care any more.

And every site in a genome is under selection.

I'm just going to chalk this up to either you don't understand what you're writing or you don't actually mean what you're writing.

Tell us what the selection pressure is.

I posted a link to the paper earlier in the thread. Go read it. Or not. Your choice.

At any rate, unless you have something new to say, I won't be rehashing the same points over and over. This is becoming boring.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It's all bluff and bluster, no substance.

You are the one that claims there is some magical evolutionary biology book out there that explains microevolutionary adaptation. I present the math and the experimental evidence. You don't even have smoke.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I gave you the name of the textbook repeatedly. Evolutionary Analysis, 5th Edition. Chapter 1 all about HIV and it specifically covers the subject of HIV drug resistance and the use of drug cocktails to combat anti-viral resistance. There are also numerous references in said chapter to the published literature.

Show the math. You won't.

Let me show you how to do it. Here's the paper that explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Equation (9) is the correct mathematics for the evolution of HIV subject to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. A graphical representation of the equation is given in Figure (5)

It's really simple when you have the mathematics and empirical evidence which you don't have.

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you understand that I published the math that predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before he performed the experiment? And this math explains how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations? These adaptational mutations don't add up, they are joint random events. And they are events where the probability of success in a single trial (replication) is very small. That's why it takes so many replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one success. But when that lucky member does get that adaptational mutation, the probability of one of its descendants getting another adaptational mutation is very small unless that new variant replicates many times. If it takes two or more mutations to give an improvement in fitness, it takes exponentially more replications to have any probability of adaptation success for that circumstance. That's why my answer to your question about macroevolution is 3 selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. That's all it takes to blunt the microevolutionary process of HIV and have successful treatment. It takes vast populations to evolve and adapt to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, much larger populations than have ever existed on earth.

Misdirection will not get you where you want to be.

I told you several times that I have no reason to question your math. My point, for the 3rd time, your math along with your predictions does not disprove macroevolution.

You have not falsified any of the
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Your non-acceptance of evidence is not falsification of evidence.

 

[pitabread]

You are the one that claims there is some magical evolutionary biology book out there that explains microevolutionary adaptation.

Are you trying to deny the existence of said textbook now?

It's right there on Amazon. Go grab a copy: https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Analysis-5th-Jon-Herron/dp/0321616677/

Or if you have access to a university library, they might already have a copy in the archives.

I present the math and the experimental evidence.

You present an untested, unverified model with the hubristic claims that you've somehow overturned the entire underpinnings of evolutionary biology and common descent.

You'll forgive me if I don't put much if any stock in anything you write at this point.

 

[pitabread]

Show the math. You won't.

Look up the book. You won't.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted