Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

Estrid · Feb 15, 2021

Speedwell said:
You forgot the most important reason: lack of a plausible alternative theory.

Well, two things really.
Nobody has a plausible alternative
And
Nobody has disproved the ToE.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Estrid said:
As I said, if you understood what you are going on about,
you could explain it. You can't.
Blaming me doesn't cut it.

Physics..
That 2LOT thing is what I guessed you would
bring up. Its a moldy old pratt if ever there was.
The earth is not a closed system. Concentrating energy
is as simple as recharging your car battery.

Claiming as you now have clearly done that
the world scientific community is dishonest
and incomprtent as a reason your theory gets no traction
( blame blame blame) is, frankly, ludicrous.

I've posted the peer-reviewed and published mathematics that describes evolutionary adaptation to a single selection pressure (the Kishony and Lenski experiments are empirical examples of this). If you don't want to read and try to understand this paper, that is your choice. But you have chosen a harmful path. When you fail to correctly describe the evolution of drug-resistance, you harm people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. That's what you get from the zealots who believe in the ToE. Why don't you put some effort into studying the Lenski experiment, it is not a closed system but that experiment still obeys this math.

Estrid · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
I've posted the peer-reviewed and published mathematics that describes evolutionary adaptation to a single selection pressure (the Kishony and Lenski experiments are empirical examples of this). If you don't want to read and try to understand this paper, that is your choice. But you have chosen a harmful path. When you fail to correctly describe the evolution of drug-resistance, you harm people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. That's what you get from the zealots who believe in the ToE. Why don't you put some effort into studying the Lenski experiment, it is not a closed system but that experiment still obeys this math.

You cannot explain your position.

Name calling and blaming others is
getting you nowhere, never will.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Ophiolite said:
Clearly I have done, as I suggested I probably would, an incomeptent job of communicating on this topic. The researchers I referenced, and that you are presumably referring to here, did not argue that mutations are not random. They claimed that they identified non-random aspects of mutations in a specific organism. I apologise for inadvertenly trapping you into making an egregious equivocation.
An easy assertion to make. When will we have an opportunity of viewing these results?

Side Note: I think probably all members participating in this thread are well aware of the scientific method and do not require links to explain the concept. You run the risk of being thought patronising by that approach.

Evolutionary adaptation is a random process, evolutionary competition is deterministic. Where is your experimental evidence which supports the ToE? Why do you deny that the multiplication rule of probabilities is the primary mathematics which governs evolutionary adaptation?

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Estrid said:
Your thermodynamics are pellucid nonsense.

You cannot explain your position.

Name calling and blaming others is
getting you nowhere, never will.

Here's a paper that shows that evolutionary competition is a 1st law of thermodynamics conservative process. An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept . Perhaps you think these researchers are ludicrous. Perhaps you are not aware that Kimura's diffusion model of fixation is nothing more than a heat transfer equation that is obtained using the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You have a lot of homework to do to come up to speed on this subject.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Speedwell said:
You forgot the most important reason: lack of a plausible alternative theory.

My job is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolutionary processes because that is what I have to deal with. The ToE is useless for this. In fact, the ToE is distracting mythology that has taken over much of the field of biology. Biologists would be better served to study the laws of physics and learning how to correctly apply mathematical principles to biological systems.

Ophiolite · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Evolutionary adaptation is a random process, evolutionary competition is deterministic. Where is your experimental evidence which supports the ToE? Why do you deny that the multiplication rule of probabilities is the primary mathematics which governs evolutionary adaptation?

What makes you think any of that post relates in any significant way to the post of mine that you are responding to?
The observational evidence from palaeontology, embryology, anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, etc are more than adequate supports for the ToE.
Where have I denied(or affirmed) that the multiplication rule of probabilities is the primary mathematics which governs evolutionary adaptation?

You are jumping about with all the energy and the absence of any sustained direction of a gecko finding itself on a hotplate. I recommend you start a new thread, lay out your ideas clearly, with supporting data, at which point I shall be happy to discuss those ideas with you there. In the meantime I will not be party to taking this thread any more off-topic than it already is.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Ophiolite said:
What makes you think any of that post relates in any significant way to the post of mine that you are responding to?

The observational evidence from palaeontology, embryology, anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, etc are more than adequate supports for the ToE.

Where have I denied(or affirmed) that the multiplication rule of probabilities is the primary mathematics which governs evolutionary adaptation?

You are jumping about with all the energy and the absence of any sustained direction of a gecko finding itself on a hotplate. I recommend you start a new thread, lay out your ideas clearly, with supporting data, at which point I shall be happy to discuss those ideas with you there. In the meantime I will not be party to taking this thread any more off-topic than it already is.

Take all your ToE evidence and explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. Why does it take a billion replications for each beneficial mutation (adaptive mutation) in the Kishony experiment?

Estrid · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Here's a paper that shows that evolutionary competition is a 1st law of thermodynamics conservative process. An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept . Perhaps you think these researchers are ludicrous. Perhaps you are not aware that Kimura's diffusion model of fixation is nothing more than a heat transfer equation that is obtained using the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You have a lot of homework to do to come up to speed on this subject.

I deleted the things about LOT before you
posted a response, as you had not said how
LOT was relevant. The usual creationist stuff
is garbage, my apology for assuming.

That there is cost of selection is
inherently obvious, tho details may
interest some.

What it might have to do with disproving
evolution remains a mystery.
How you might apply 2LOT, who knows,
but judging by past refusal to explain
anything and blaming the audience, I
won't expect any explanation.

Bottom line. If you knew what you
are talking about you could explain it.

Ken-1122 · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Your link gives many examples of evolution but the ToE does not explain how these examples work. If you want a good theory to explain evolution, try using the laws of thermodynamics.

I wasn't really trying to explain evolution, I was just making the point that much of modern medicine is based on the idea that biological evolution is a real thing.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Estrid said:
I deleted the things about LOT before you
posted a response, as you had not said how
LOT was relevant. The usual creationist stuff
is garbage, my apology for assuming.

That there is cost of selection is
inherently obvious, tho details may
interest some.

What it might have to do with disproving
evolution remains a mystery.
How you might apply 2LOT, who knows,
but judging by past refusal to explain
anything and blaming the audience, I
won't expect any explanation.

Bottom line. If you knew what you
are talking about you could explain it.

I am explaining this subject to you but you have not been well trained to understand this subject. Since you claim that you have some understanding of probability theory, try reading this paper:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Start from the beginning and read until you find something you disagree with or you think is wrong. This paper is in the National Library of Medicine. Once you understand this paper, I'll give you further explanation of why this is a 2nd law of thermodynamics process.

Ken-1122 · Feb 15, 2021

Estrid said:
Of course. I hold though that it has next
to nothing to do with the theory of evolution,
just a bit of unnatural selection from among
existing varieties.

How did you come to this conclusion? The example they gave of bacterial antibiotic resistance is an example of biological evolution; how do you know it was not? What are you basing this on?

Estrid · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
I am explaining this subject to you but you have not been well trained to understand this subject. Since you claim that you have some understanding of probability theory, try reading this paper:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Start from the beginning and read until you find something you disagree with or you think is wrong. This paper is in the National Library of Medicine. Once you understand this paper, I'll give you further explanation of why this is a 2nd law of thermodynamics process.

If you knew what you are talking about you could explain it.
Simple.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
I wasn't really trying to explain evolution, I was just making the point that much of modern medicine is based on the idea that biological evolution is a real thing.

Biological evolution is a real thing, it is drug-resistance, herbicide-resistance, pesticide-resistance, it is failed cancer treatments. The ToE does not explain these processes. The ToE confuses and grossly over-extrapolates evolutionary processes.

Speedwell · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Evolutionary adaptation is a random process, evolutionary competition is deterministic. Where is your experimental evidence which supports the ToE? Why do you deny that the multiplication rule of probabilities is the primary mathematics which governs evolutionary adaptation?

Why don't you show us? Start with the basics of stochastic processes and show us how the multiplication rule of probabilities applies to them.

Ken-1122 · Feb 15, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Biological evolution is a real thing, it is drug-resistance, herbicide-resistance, pesticide-resistance, it is failed cancer treatments. The ToE does not explain these processes. The ToE confuses and grossly over-extrapolates evolutionary processes.

Okaaaay! What's your point?

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Estrid said:
If you knew what you are talking about you could explain it.
Simple.

Sigh! Ok, out comes the spoon.
There are two random trials in the evolutionary adaptation process. The first random trial is the replication which has two possible outcomes, one outcome is that a mutation occurs and the other outcome is that the mutation does not occur. The other random trial in the evolutionary adaptation process is the mutation itself. When a mutation occurs, it can be a base substitution, an insertion, a deletion, any other mutation that might occur. When that makes sense to you, I'll go on to the next step in the analysis.

Estrid · Feb 15, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
How did you come to this conclusion? The example they gave of bacterial antibiotic resistance is an example of biological evolution; how do you know it was not? What are you basing this on?

Its not a conclusion and I certainly don't claim to know.
Its my opinion.
Did you read what I said about rabbits in Oz?
They are all immune to myxomitpsis( sp?) now.
now. Is that evolution in your view?
To me it looks like selection of existing genotype.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Speedwell said:
Why don't you show us? Start with the basics of stochastic processes and show us how the multiplication rule of probabilities applies to them.

Check out post #197 in response to Estrid where I start the explanation.

Alan Kleinman · Feb 15, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
Okaaaay! What's your point?

Why does it take a billion replication for each evolutionary adaptation step in the Kishony experiment? When you understand that, you will see the point.

Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

I'm a creationist: YES, the Theory of Evolution has practical applications.

I'm a creationist: NO, the Theory of Evolution does NOT have practical applications.

I'm an evolutionist: YES, the Theory of Evolution has practical applications.

I'm an evolutionist: NO, the Theory of Evolution does NOT have practical applications.

I'm a creationist: I am unsure if the Theory of Evolution has practical applications.

I'm an evolutionist: I am unsure if the Theory of Evolution has practical applications.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads