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 when something of exceptionally low probability occurs, do we just declare that the event did not occur because math says otherwise?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?
The problem with this kind of calculation for mutation sequences that provide a selective advantage is that it doesn't tell you anything useful.
If you know the rate at which beneficial mutations occur then couldn't you then extrapolate the rate at which speciation occurs?
Not necessarily, because speciation doesn't have to be the result of beneficial mutations.
One of the long running debates in evolutionary theory is how much biological diversity is a result of selective pressures versus neutral evolution (genetic drift).
We've been through all this with A.K before in these forums. Nothing came of it.
Best bet is he had a day off from the Urgent Care he works at.Indeed. I'm kind of wondering what prompted his return here. He seems to show up randomly on different forums.
No. Speciation requires mutations but is typically the result of environmental changes, and whether or not a particular mutation is beneficial is contingent; it depends on the environment and, potentially, other mutations; the environment can also affect the rate of mutation. So it's not a static situation - and there's genetic drift.If you know the rate at which beneficial mutations occur then couldn't you then extrapolate the rate at which speciation occurs?
No. Speciation requires mutations but is typically the result of environmental changes, and whether or not a particular mutation is beneficial is contingent; it depends on the environment and, potentially, other mutations; the environment can also affect the rate of mutation. So it's not a static situation - and there's genetic drift.
But even if there was an identifiable and constant rate of beneficial mutations, speciation is a question of the phenotypic expression of mutations, so there's no particular threshold number of beneficial mutations for speciation.
In the case of the lenski experiments, we have an unchanging environment.
Is there not some quantity of genetic changes that if they occurred in a species, they would no longer be able to interbreed with an ancestral species?
In a static environment such as in the lenski experiments, maybe we could then make predictions on rates of speciation.
Not necessarily.In the case of the lenski experiments, we have an unchanging environment.
Is there not some quantity of genetic changes that if they occurred in a species, they would no longer be able to interbreed with an ancestral species?
Why would you expect speciation in an unchanging environment? Isn't a basic equilibrium with ongoing increases in metabolic efficiency the expectation? (as has been found)In a static environment such as in the lenski experiments, maybe we could then make predictions on rates of speciation.
The peer reviewers of my papers agree with me. Now, where is the correct explanation of DNA microevolution from those who believe in macroevolution. There is no explanation, that's why believers in macroevolution can't or won't give the mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments.Explanations by whom? I've looked into your publication history and history of discourse with other scientists and nobody seems to agree with you.
Why is that?
I'm asking you what the alternative is. That you are avoiding answering the question is highly telling.
Let's try again: if you don't accept common ancestry, what is the alternative?
Generally the way this works is you start by convincing the experts in the respective field. Then after the work is evaluated and confirmed, it eventually trickles down through the educational sector starting at the grad level on down.
I'll grant that you've at least been publishing your ideas. But you've got a long way to go before getting these ideas to the primary school level.
Where is the biologist's explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment. There is a mathematical explanation for this.You are not fooling anyone here. Sanford tried the same trick when he published his book on genetic entropy. He went to a publishing house and tried to get a "peer reviewed" seal of approval. But he went more to a mathematical part of the house rather than the biology part. His math seemed sound and it was close to being published with a peer reviewed status, but at the last moment someone had the bright idea that since it was about evolution that they should ask those that understand the topic the best. At that point the book was all but out the door. It does not have a peer reviewed status.
From what I saw people that understand the biology of this were telling you what you did wrong in the link that @pitabread supplied.
If this is so easy to understand then why didn't you publish in an appropriate journal? I have not even checked yet to see if that is merely an example of the glamour press. There is a lot of so called peer review that sneaks in that way.
If you want to be set straight on the mathematics of DNA microevolution, first take a course in introductory probability theory. Once you do that, identify the random trial(s) for this stochastic process and the math is very easily derived from there.Well golly, set us all straight!! Give us your amazing 2LoT explanation. I'm sure it is totally relevant and original.
added in edit:
Never mind - just another religious fanatic with an engineering background pontificating o things he doesn't understand to prop up his failing faith...
"I read Kenneth Miller's “The Flagellum Unspun”(2) quite a few years back on the simple, elegant argument of “exaptation” and asked Professor Miller what the purpose of Helicase and Gyrase were before DNA and the DNA replicase system existed. His private response to this question was, “that's a good question.” I've never seen Miller give a public response to this question. Perhaps the authors of this review would try to explain the evolution of Helicase and Gyrase before the DNA replicase system existed? Or perhaps these authors could explain how this simple, elegant argument of “exaptation” works in a little more detail, such as how all these individual proteins evolve separately and then self assemble is some lineage. What is the requirement for each of these proteins to evolve?"
The peer reviewers of my papers agree with me.
Sure I do! You compute joint probabilities by multiplication of their individual probabilities. Adding microevolutionary probability events is a scientific and mathematical blunder.You don't.
And with your understanding of evolution/genetics, you are now going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Nope!Cool assertion. I've always found that when people try to argue against evolution with math it is because they have some blind spot about how evolution/ genetics actually work.
No! The computation of these probabilities gives the theoretical frequencies of the occurrence of these events when many trials are done. That's why when the mutation rate is 1e-9, the particular event occurs only once theoretically in a billion replications. That's why it takes a billion replication for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment (and the Lenski experiment as well).So when something of exceptionally low probability occurs, do we just declare that the event did not occur because math says otherwise?
I like to learn from your mistakes!Indeed. I'm kind of wondering what prompted his return here. He seems to show up randomly on different forums.
The unchanging (single selection pressure) environment gives the best adaptive DNA microevolutioary environment for populations to operate in. If the population (the particular variant) can replicate sufficiently, the probability of a beneficial (adaptive) mutation increasesIn the case of the lenski experiments, we have an unchanging environment.
Is there not some quantity of genetic changes that if they occurred in a species, they would no longer be able to interbreed with an ancestral species?
In a static environment such as in the lenski experiments, maybe we could then make predictions on rates of speciation.
Why don't you contact the editors of the journals I've published in and find out? Your "on topic" journals won't publish papers that correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. A correct understanding of DNA microevolution kills the concept of "common descent" and therefore the ToE goes down the tubes (where it belongs).What were they actually reviewing? And what were the scientific credentials/backgrounds of said reviewers?
You appear to be publishing your work only in stats and/or biomedical journals. Have you ever submitted to any journals that cover evolutionary biology? What do evolutionary biologists have to say about your papers?
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?