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.
Mutations are random events. You compute the joint probability of random events occurring by multiplying their individual probabilities, you don't add these probabilities. Probability theory may seem bizarre to you but if you put a little effort into the subject, it might make sense to you.Since this reflects a total misunderstanding of what evolutionary change is, the onus is on you to state why you think that it is so. Otherwise it is above my pay grade to figure out the nature of your bizarre understanding of evolution. No version I can think of would fit your assertion. (And I have a fertile imagination.)
What I mean by evolution-friendly is the most ideal environment for an evolutionary process to occur. There are many ways to slow adaptive evolution.
That would depend on the environment.I'm curious about this, so if hundreds of adaptive mutations have been occurred in the lenski experiments in the course of billions of total mutations observed, could our probability of an adaptive mutations be something like 100/50,000,000,000? Or 1/500,000,000 for the populations of ecoli in the experiments?
This would make sense to me.
You don't need the concept of species to do the mathematics of DNA microevolution.You need to first define species otherwise you will continue to move the goal posts.
I don't.Here's how you do the math for a single selection pressure adaptive evolutionary process:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics used here is a straightforward application of the "at least one rule" from probability theory. Each adaptive evolutionary step is a binomial probability problem, does the adaptive (beneficial) mutation occur or does it not occur. And each binomial probability problem is linked to the other binomial probability problems by the multiplication rule.
Your right, I was thinking about macro.You don't need the concept of species to do the mathematics of DNA microevolution.
You don't need the concept of species to do the mathematics of DNA microevolution.
Not at all. You can have neutral and detrimental mutations as well. Adaptive evolution is important because it pertains to the evolution of drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and failed cancer treatments. Having a good understanding of adaptive evolution gives the scientific framework for addressing these problems. The Kishony and Lenski experiments are good examples of the adaptive evolutionary process. And of course, these are microevolutionary processes.What do you mean by "an evolutionary process"? Do you believe that evolutionary processes need to be strictly adaptive?
Not at all. You can have neutral and detrimental mutations as well. Adaptive evolution is important because it pertains to the evolution of drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and failed cancer treatments. Having a good understanding of adaptive evolution gives the scientific framework for addressing these problems. The Kishony and Lenski experiments are good examples of the adaptive evolutionary process. And of course, these are microevolutionary processes.
I would say that you are not framing the question correctly. The way you should frame the question is what is the barrier that prevents a lineage from accumulating a set of adaptive mutations? That barrier is the multiplication rule of probabilities. This principle is demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. In the drug-free region, he gets a colony of a billion bacteria and one of those members gets an adaptive mutation. That new variant can grow in the next higher drug concentration region but until its colony must grow to a billion members to get a member with the next adaptive mutation. That variant with two adaptive mutations grows in the next higher drug concentration region but its colony must get a billion members for the third adaptive mutation and so on.Your right, I was thinking about macro.
Perhaps you can answer a question. When mutations built up what is the barrier that prevents them from developing into a new species?
I would say that you are not framing the question correctly. The way you should frame the question is what is the barrier that prevents a lineage from accumulating a set of adaptive mutations? That barrier is the multiplication rule of probabilities. This principle is demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. In the drug-free region, he gets a colony of a billion bacteria and one of those members gets an adaptive mutation. That new variant can grow in the next higher drug concentration region but until its colony must grow to a billion members to get a member with the next adaptive mutation. That variant with two adaptive mutations grows in the next higher drug concentration region but its colony must get a billion members for the third adaptive mutation and so on.
There are conditions where adaptive evolution works more efficiently. Factors that slow adaptive evolution is competition and multiple simultaneous selection pressures. The chance of an adaptive mutation occurring occurs on replication of a particular variant.I just don't understand the characterization of such experiments being "evolution friendly" though. It seems to imply there is some theoretical "ideal" version of how evolution is supposed to work. But the theory of evolution isn't prescriptive in that sense.
There are conditions where adaptive evolution works more efficiently. Factors that slow adaptive evolution is competition and multiple simultaneous selection pressures. The chance of an adaptive mutation occurring occurs on replication of a particular variant.
You seem to have misread the comment - it is the microevolutionary events that add, not their probabilities. IOW lots of microevolutionary events accumulate into a macroevolutionary event.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?
Real-world ecosystems are subject to many more selection conditions than the Kishony experiment. For example, dehydration, starvation, thermal stress, disease, competition, predation,... Consider the use of antibiotics in the real situation rather than what is described by the Kishony experiment. A 10-day course of antibiotics would select for drug resistance in every case if evolution operated in patients the same way as it does in the Kishony experiment. But most patients have a functioning immune system, so if most of the bacterial population is killed by the antibiotic, the small number of remaining drug-resistant variants are removed by the immune system and you have treatment success.Do real world ecosystems mirror the Kishony experiment?
Real-world ecosystems are subject to many more selection conditions than the Kishony experiment. For example, dehydration, starvation, thermal stress, disease, competition, predation,...
I'll try posting the paper again:And... still no equations
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?