Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

I have a MS in math. And yes, that's exactly it. The paper starts off noting what I said, that a population can be affected by a variety of selection pressures. Then it explores a single continuous selection pressure, an antibiotic, and the probability of developing the mutations necessary to overcome it. That's not macroevolution. That's one small step on the way to macroevolution.

And since the selection pressures eventually resulting in macroevolution can vary wildly, the probabilities are not multiplicative. It's not a matter of advantages stacking on top of advantages.

What???? You are a mathematician and you think that joint probabilities of random events occurring are not computed using the multiplication rule? How do you think the joint probabilities are computed?

But, let's say you have multiple selection conditions acting simultaneously, here's how you do the math for that situation:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Equation (9) gives the mathematical explanation of why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

 

[Frank Robert]

The NYT as a scientific reference, and you complain about Statistics in Medicine.

You obviously don't know the difference between a reference and an introduction.

So if explaining the evolution of bacteria into humans is a bit too complicated,

Why would I want to explain something to you when you are in denial especially when you don't even know what the LUCA is?

why don't you explain the K & L experiments. Oh, I forgot, you already accept my explanation.

I don't have any reason to question your explanation. Your explanation does not debunk macroevolution. You have not shown how K & L debunks the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevoluiton. Denial of the evidence will not get you when you want to go.

Hey Frank, when I first saw this post, I thought to myself, how does Luca Brasi have anything to do with biological evolution?

Only that he like all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You are a master at avoiding the question. So I repeat:

There are whole fields of science outside of evolutionary biology that work exclusively or primarily on observation starting with geology, astronomy, archeology. Do you deny the scientific nature of those fields?

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm pointing out that observation alone is not sufficient. Here's an example. Many fossils of dinosaurs are found with soft tissue still on the fossil. Experimental evidence shows that under the best of circumstances, the degradation half-life of polypeptides is perhaps 2000 years. Yet macroevolutionists insist that these fossils are 10s of millions of years old. At what point do these people question the validity of their interpretation of their observations?

Anyone reading this post, do not start a debate with me on the age of fossils, I will not respond to those posts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm pointing out that observation alone is not sufficient. Here's an example. Many fossils of dinosaurs are found with soft tissue still on the fossil. Experimental evidence shows that under the best of circumstances, the degradation half-life of polypeptides is perhaps 2000 years. Yet macroevolutionists insist that these fossils are 10s of millions of years old. At what point do these people question the validity of their interpretation of their observations?

Anyone reading this post, do not start a debate with me on the age of fossils, I will not respond to those posts.

So you don't understand Mary Schweizter's work either.

Do you think Astronomy is a science?

Do you think Geology is a science?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You obviously don't know the difference between a reference and an introduction.

Why would I want to explain something to you when you are in denial especially when you don't even know what the LUCA is?
I don't have any reason to question your explanation. Your explanation does not debunk macroevolution. You have not shown how K & L debunks the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevoluiton. Denial of the evidence will not get you when you want to go.
Only that he like all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Go ahead Frank, tell us your story about LUCA. Make me an offer I can't refuse.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So you don't understand Mary Schweizter's work either.

A 75 million-year-old rbc? Give me a break.

Do you think Astronomy is a science?

If an astronomer made a claim about the law of gravity that contradicts experimental measurements here on earth, I would question that claim. By the way, what was before the big bang? Was there a loud sound of the racking of a shotgun?

Do you think Geology is a science?

Sure, but I think that some of the assumptions they use to date rocks are open to question.

Hans, do you really believe all these stories? If so, you a pretty gullible. Did you ever hear that saying, when you are young you get Mother Goose and when you are old you get PoppaGander?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Tell us, how common is coinfection of influenza with a bacterial infection?

When presenting with what? Where?

 

[Frank Robert]

Go ahead Frank, tell us your story about LUCA

There is no story only evidence which you deny. I have learned from my work in addictions confronting denial is a loosing effort which is why the only thing I been asking you to do is supply the evidence that debunks the scientific evidence for marcroevolution. So far all you have offered is an argument from improbability. That is not science it is a fallacy.

Make me an offer I can't refuse.

Tell me what you can not refuse and perhaps I will make you an offer.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

When presenting with what? Where?

The common presentation of influenza is a sudden onset of fevers and chills and muscle aches and pains. The bacterial coinfection signs usually start 2 or 3 days after, cough productive purulent mucus, sometimes pleuritic chest pain, increased difficulty breathing, other signs and symptoms are possible.

 

[Astrophile]

If an astronomer made a claim about the law of gravity that contradicts experimental measurements here on earth, I would question that claim. By the way, what was before the big bang?

Nobody knows. It may be that time began with the big bang, so there was no 'before the big bang' any more than there is anywhere north of the North Pole. The fact that nobody knows 'what was before the big bang' doesn't vitiate the scientific evidence for the big bang itself and the events that followed it.

Was there a loud sound of the racking of a shotgun?

No.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There is no story only evidence which you deny. I have learned from my work in addictions confronting denial is a loosing effort which is why the only thing I been asking you to do is supply the evidence that debunks the scientific evidence for marcroevolution. So far all you have offered is an argument from improbability. That is not science it is a fallacy.

Start with the mathematical fact of life that microevolutionary adaptational steps don't add up, they are linked by the multiplication rule. Then the population sizes and recovery rates that are necessary for a lineage to follow an adaptive evolutionary trajectory, and then the selection conditions that would select for the transformation of reptiles into birds and fish into mammals, but, I know Luca Brasi contradicts all of this.

Tell me what you can not refuse and perhaps I will make you an offer.

Thanks for the offer Frank but I'm actually pretty content.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A 75 million-year-old rbc? Give me a break.

Like I said, you don't understand that work. It wasn't a red blood cell. Go read about it from a reputable source. (A science site, not a pseudoscience site.)

If an astronomer made a claim about the law of gravity that contradicts experimental measurements here on earth, I would question that claim. By the way, what was before the big bang? Was there a loud sound of the racking of a shotgun?

Astronomers certainly make claims about gravity (or rather claims using Einstein's gravitational theory) that can't be replicated on Earth with black holes, etc. Got problems with that?

Sure, but I think that some of the assumptions they use to date rocks are open to question.

Are you questioning radioactive decay rates, or the geochemistry?

Hans, do you really believe all these stories? If so, you a pretty gullible. Did you ever hear that saying, when you are young you get Mother Goose and when you are old you get PoppaGander?

Grow up.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nobody knows. It may be that time began with the big bang, so there was no 'before the big bang' any more than there is anywhere north of the North Pole. The fact that nobody knows 'what was before the big bang' doesn't vitiate the scientific evidence for the big bang itself and the events that followed it.

If you get a bang out of it, that's ok with me.

No.

Obviously, California's gun control laws have spread universe-wide.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Like I said, you don't understand that work. It wasn't a red blood cell. Go read about it from a reputable source. (A science site, not a pseudoscience site.)

The Smithsonian is not a reputable source? Is it in the NYT?

Astronomers certainly make claims about gravity (or rather claims using Einstein's gravitational theory) that can't be replicated on Earth with black holes, etc. Got problems with that?

It's ok to make claims, it's not ok to say those claims are scientific facts without repeatable experimental evidence.

Are you questioning radioactive decay rates, or the geochemistry?

I don't question the decay rates, I question the validity of assumed initial conditions. I haven't done any research on this subject but I have heard geologists argue on this point and present contradictory evidence on the measurement of rock ages.

Grow up.

You ask too much.

 

[Yttrium]

What???? You are a mathematician and you think that joint probabilities of random events occurring are not computed using the multiplication rule? How do you think the joint probabilities are computed?

But, let's say you have multiple selection conditions acting simultaneously, here's how you do the math for that situation:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Equation (9) gives the mathematical explanation of why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

My whole point is that with macroevolution, you're not dealing with joint probabilities for the most part. They don't depend on each other for the most part. Thus they're not multiplicative.

You keep focusing on probabilities for isolated cases in which the probabilities do multiply together. And macroevolution as a whole doesn't work like that. You're extrapolating an isolated case of genetic change onto macroevolution, and that's completely wrong.

 

[Frank Robert]

Start with the mathematical fact of life that microevolutionary adaptational steps don't add up, they are linked by the multiplication rule. Then the population sizes and recovery rates that are necessary for a lineage to follow an adaptive evolutionary trajectory, and then the selection conditions that would select for the transformation of reptiles into birds and fish into mammals, but, I know Luca Brasi contradicts all of this.

You claim that macroevolution is improbable yet there is overwhelming evidence that it happened. You are not able to debunk the science and can't face the fact that your math is wrong or that you applied it incorrectly, so you deny the evidence by claiming its not experimental evidence.

There are now two elephants in the room.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Alan Kleinman]

My whole point is that with macroevolution, you're not dealing with joint probabilities for the most part. They don't depend on each other for the most part. Thus they're not multiplicative.

You keep focusing on probabilities for isolated cases in which the probabilities do multiply together. And macroevolution as a whole doesn't work like that. You're extrapolating an isolated case of genetic change onto macroevolution, and that's completely wrong.

You are a mathematician, give us your mathematical explanation of macroevolution. Start here, are mutations random events?

 

[Yttrium]

You are a mathematician, give us your mathematical explanation of macroevolution. Start here, are mutations random events?

To a degree, within the bounds of the molecules. Mutations happen. Selection events happen. Allele frequencies in a population change.

The math is simple. I said it before. Changes are additive. A lot of small changes eventually add up to a big change. There's nothing we know of in the DNA that will stop the process.

Probabilities only come into place when you have a desired outcome. If you want a bacteria that's resistant to a certain antibiotic, then the right mutations have to happen. The real world doesn't care about outcomes. Changes happen.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You claim that macroevolution is improbable yet there is overwhelming evidence that it happened. You are not able to debunk the science and can't face the fact that your math is wrong or that you applied it incorrectly, so you deny the evidence by claiming its not experimental evidence.

There are now two elephants in the room.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Frank, I'm not arguing intelligent design, I'm proposing and arguing the physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation. I've also given you a limit for which microevolutionary adaptation can operate, 3 selection pressures acting at 2 genetic loci simultaneously. The reason being both mathematical, the probability of 3 particular random mutations occurring requires a huge population on the order of 1e15 and the empirical example of the microevolution of HIV to 3 drug therapy.

Even if this math that I've presented only represents a special case of the evolution of drug resistance, everyone dealing with the problems involving evolving populations should understand this math, especially in medicine and agriculture.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

To a degree, within the bounds of the molecules. Mutations happen. Selection events happen. Allele frequencies in a population change.

To a degree, do you mean that mutations can be a little bit random? Mutations are the mechanism for the creation of new alleles. And sure, selection operates on these alleles as well as the preexisting alleles.

The math is simple. I said it before. Changes are additive. A lot of small changes eventually add up to a big change. There's nothing we know of in the DNA that will stop the process.

OK, so you want to add these probabilities. Let's say the probability of a single change is 0.02, and the next change has a probability of 0.2, and you have a total of a hundred changes, each with a probability of 0.02. Is the total probability 2?

Probabilities only come into place when you have a desired outcome. If you want a bacteria that's resistant to a certain antibiotic, then the right mutations have to happen. The real world doesn't care about outcomes. Changes happen.

You have a problem there. The number of replications necessary for that adaptation mutation to occur is also the same number of replications for every other possible mutation to occur on that genome. The bacteria is sampling every possible mutation in the sample space. The environment determines which of all these mutations occurring is the beneficial mutation.