Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you compute the joint probabilities of random events by the addition of those probabilities? What happens if the two microevolutionary events, each with a probability of occurring are 0.6? Is the joint probability 1.2?Of course they add. Once speciation occurs, which in itself is a micro-level event that's Macroevolution.
This makes no sense. Calculating probabilities is pointless. You are now making the mistake of assuming that evolution has a goal.So you compute the joint probabilities of random events by the addition of those probabilities? What happens if the two microevolutionary events, each with a probability of occurring are 0.6? Is the joint probability 1.2?
Why don't you show us how you do the mathematics of macroevolution? You won't. You can't even do the mathematics of microevolution correctly. If you could, you could correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.Actually it has been. The problem is that creationists do not even understand what macroevolution is.
I would challenge you to support this claim, but I know that you can't. So I am going to give you a simpler challenge. Define macroevolution.
Again, what "mathematics"? Your posts make no sense. They indicate that you do not understand what you are debating against.Why don't you show us how you do the mathematics of macroevolution? You won't. You can't even do the mathematics of microevolution correctly. If you could, you could correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
So you think the improvement in fitness is not a goal? That explains why you can't do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Of course, you have to know how to compute probabilities to do that math, sadly, you don't.This makes no sense. Calculating probabilities is pointless. You are now making the mistake of assuming that evolution has a goal.
No, improved fitness is a result. You are conflating goals and results. I can't "do the mathematics" because your demand is meaningless.So you think the improvement in fitness is not a goal? That explains why you can't do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Of course, you have to know how to compute probabilities to do that math, sadly, you don't.
It's the mathematics of DNA evolution that I'm talking about. If you want to understand microevolution correctly, you have to understand probability theory. The reason is that mutations are random occurrences. In order to do the mathematics of stochastic processes (DNA evolution is a stochastic process), you must use probability theory and you must apply these principles correctly.Again, what "mathematics"? Your posts make no sense. They indicate that you do not understand what you are debating against.
Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.
Again, what "mathematics"? Your posts make no sense. They indicate that you do not understand what you are debating against.
You are the one who introduced the word "goal"! I prefer the word "adaptation". What is the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring? Do that math correctly and you can predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I'll even give you a hint, start with the definition of the mutation rate for a single replication.No, improved fitness is a result. You are conflating goals and results. I can't "do the mathematics" because your demand is meaningless.
Define speciation.Would you consider a laboratory experiment that demonstrates speciation to be "microevolution"?
Define speciation.
No, you are simply trying to misapply mathematics and then use the argument from large numbers fallacy. I can use that fallacy to "prove" that you do not exist.It's the mathematics of DNA evolution that I'm talking about. If you want to understand microevolution correctly, you have to understand probability theory. The reason is that mutations are random occurrences. In order to do the mathematics of stochastic processes (DNA evolution is a stochastic process), you must use probability theory and you must apply these principles correctly.
A good starting point is identifying the random trials in the DNA evolution process and the possible outcomes for these random trials.
You can model DNA evolution using Markov models but you can also do the mathematics using nested binomial probability problems. Both approaches give identical results. And both require the multiplication rule when computing joint probabilities.He's talking about using Markov models for modeling evolution of DNA sequences. See here: Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia
You are the one who introduced the word "goal"! I prefer the word "adaptation". What is the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring? Do that math correctly and you can predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I'll even give you a hint, start with the definition of the mutation rate for a single replication.
OK, so you are talking about the formation of a new branch on a phylogenetic tree. By that definition, the Kishony and Lenski experiments fit that definition. Each mutant variant represents a new species and there is no interbreeding between these variants. My suggestion is to understand the clonal population experiments first before introducing recombination.The evolution of distinct species.
For arguments sake, let's assume a divergence of populations whereby they no longer naturally interbreed (e.g. gene flow no longer occurs between the populations).
OK, so you are talking about the formation of a new branch on a phylogenetic tree.
My math very nicely predicts the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It also explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. This math works just fine for predicting the behavior of all empirical examples of DNA evolution.No, you are simply trying to misapply mathematics and then use the argument from large numbers fallacy. I can use that fallacy to "prove" that you do not exist.
Why don't you explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?