Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

You seem to think that something needs to be explained beyond what was already done. Your failed attempt is not an explanation either. They seem to have explained it well enough for the scientific world, and that is in the existing journals already.;

Oh, so your "on topic" journals have given a correct explanation of the DNA microevolution of drug resistance? Perhaps simpletons think that telling primary care physicians to use fewer antibiotics is the solution but those patients in the hospital with pneumonia and sepsis might think otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps simpletons think that telling primary care physicians to use fewer antibiotics is the solution but those patients in the hospital with pneumonia and sepsis might think otherwise.

Has anyone here actually suggested that? Is anyone here going into hospitals and telling physicians how to do their jobs?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Ah, so they agreed the papers should be published, not necessarily that they agreed with the contents of the papers themselves.

Which goes back to my previous question: who actually agrees with the contents of the papers themselves? Because based on the lack of relevant citations and your previous discourse with professional scientists, there doesn't seem to be anyone.



Have you actually submitted to any such journals?

I submitted my first paper "The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection" originally to the journal Science. I thought that was the natural place to submit this paper since it described the Weinreich study that had been previously published in that journal. The editors reviewed the paper and didn't say it was wrong. They said I needed to submit it to a more specialized journal so I submitted it to Statistics in Medicine. The only complaint I got from one of the peer-reviewers was that it was a probabilistic model, not a statistical model. None disagreed with the mathematics or the correlation of the mathematics to the physical/biological system.

 

[pitabread]

They said I needed to submit it to a more specialized journal so I submitted it to Statistics in Medicine. The only complaint I got from one of the peer-reviewers was that it was a probabilistic model, not a statistical model.

Why Statistics in Medicine specifically? Why not a journal related to evolutionary biology?

None disagreed with the mathematics or the correlation of the mathematics to the physical/biological system.

But what were their backgrounds and what were they specifically reviewing? Did any of them have a background in evolutionary biology?

I've seen your discourse with actual evolutionary biologists (esp. population genetics specialists) and they don't seem to agree with your broad claims. Yet you keep insisting you are "correctly" describing evolutionary processes via a probabilistic model. So I'm just wondering where all the evolutionary biologists are you agree with your work and your alleged implications thereof?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Has anyone here actually suggested that? Is anyone here going into hospitals and telling physicians how to do their jobs?

Clearly, you haven't spent much time around the medical system. Do an internet search on the terms "antibiotic overuse drug resistance". But you should also do a search on the most common medical causes for hospital admission. You will find an organization called HCUP (Health Care Utilization Project) and you will find some interesting data there. I think that drug resistance is not an overuse problem, it is a misuse problem. So, the question becomes, how do you use antibiotics correctly. A good starting point for this is understanding how drug resistance evolves and you won't find that answer in your "on topic" journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, so your "on topic" journals have given a correct explanation of the DNA microevolution of drug resistance? Perhaps simpletons think that telling primary care physicians to use fewer antibiotics is the solution but those patients in the hospital with pneumonia and sepsis might think otherwise.

Yes, I am sure that they have. You only have what is essentially the same paper published twice in what is beginning to look like an off topic vanity press journal.

When you have some actual evidence please notify me. And now it looks like you do not even understand the cause of antibiotic resistance. Name calling others is not a good sign.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why Statistics in Medicine specifically? Why not a journal related to evolutionary biology?

I looked for a journal where they had expertise in the mathematics and familiarity with the problem of evolution of drug resistance.

But what were their backgrounds and what were they specifically reviewing? Did any of them have a background in evolutionary biology?

As I said above, the reasons I chose this journal. Where is the evolutionary biologist mathematical explanation of the evolution of drug resistance?

I've seen your discourse with actual evolutionary biologists (esp. population genetics specialists) and they don't seem to agree with your broad claims. Yet you keep insisting you are "correctly" describing evolutionary processes via a probabilistic model. So I'm just wondering where all the evolutionary biologists are you agree with your work and your alleged implications thereof?

The math I've presented only applies to DNA microevolutionary adaptation which is a stochastic process. Evolutionary competition is a deterministic process which in my view is best formulated by the Haldane model. His model can be easily modified to address different situations such as competition and bottlenecking as seen with the Lenski experiment. This paper shows how you model DNA microevolutionary adaptation when superimposed in the competitive Lenski environment.
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment

The differences should be apparent between the Kishony and Lenski experiments. The former has a much higher carrying capacity with minimal competition so fixation is not required for DNA microevolutionary adaptation while the later experiment is carried out in a highly competitive environment where fixation is required for DNA microevolutionary adaptation to occur. This competion slows the adaptation process. Do you understand why?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, I am sure that they have.

Why don't you post a link from your "on topic" journals that give the mathematical explanation for the evolution of drug resistance? You won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you post a link from your "on topic" journals that give the mathematical explanation for the evolution of drug resistance? You won't.

Because I have no need to. Why do you think that a "mathematical explanation" is needed in the first place? The concepts are well understood. And it is better to have no explanation than a failed one.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Because I have no need to. Why do you think that a "mathematical explanation" is needed in the first place? The concepts are well understood. And it is better to have no explanation than a failed one.

It is people like you who think that pressuring primary care physicians to reduce using antibiotics is the solution to the drug resistance problem. Your kind of thinking is the reason there are so many people hospitalized with sepsis and pneumonia. Now, can any of you believers in macroevolution post a link from an "on topic" journal that explains the mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. Obviously, SD can't do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is people like you who think that pressuring primary care physicians to reduce using antibiotics is the solution to the drug resistance problem. Your kind of thinking is the reason there are so many people hospitalized with sepsis and pneumonia. Now, can any of you believers in macroevolution post a link from an "on topic" journal that explains the mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. Obviously, SD can't do it.

Right. Don't assume that other people have your flaws.

 

[Phred]

And now it looks like you do not even understand the cause of antibiotic resistance. Name calling others is not a good sign.

Which is exactly what I said a couple of days ago. Just saying this for historical perspective.

Oh, and Kishony and Lenski.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are many factors that affect phenotype that has nothing to do with genotype. For example, two identical genotypes may appear completely different if fed different diets but this has nothing to do with DNA adaptive microevolution.

This part isn't relevant to my post... maybe it was intended for someone else's?

 

[tas8831]

If you know the rate at which beneficial mutations occur then couldn't you then extrapolate the rate at which speciation occurs?

Not really, since there is not necessarily a direct association between beneficial mutations and speciation. Speciation itself is more about the development of reproductive isolation than an accumulation of beneficial change.

 

[tas8831]

Indeed. I'm kind of wondering what prompted his return here. He seems to show up randomly on different forums.

Ah, one of those types. Not going to waste my time then.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Sounds like navel contemplation.

 

[tas8831]

Sure I do! You compute joint probabilities by multiplication of their individual probabilities. Adding microevolutionary probability events is a scientific and mathematical blunder.

Wow, amazing! What is the probability that an ACCORD transposon inserted into the p450 allele in drosophila that provided them with DDT resistance?

 

[tas8831]

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!

Exactly. I don't really care about the physics and mathematics of Lenski's work because that has no real impact on my understanding of the relevance of the experiments.
So you keep puffing yourself up. I note that your questions about gyrase and helicase are about what I expect from people like you.
And I will leave it at that.

Good day to you.

 

[tas8831]

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).

And yet when that is not the case?
Years ago, I had another engineer trying to cause problems with evolution by claiming that the math (probability) shows that a breeding pair would have to give birth to 40 offspring in order to produce 1 with no bad mutations, and that this somehow negated evolution. I asked what happens when that is the first born. He said no, they would have to have 40, with the 40th being the one, and since that is almost impossible, so was evolution.

So, you'll forgive me for not giving a flying turd what some creationistic engineer thinks about such things.

I see that you post a bit at the 'evolutionfairytale' forum, where the engineer owner and his minions ban people that disagree with their idiosyncratic and largely strawmannish definitions of evolutionary biology concepts. I have no use for you or your fringe irrelevance.

 

[tas8831]

How is it that you extrapolate?

In an unwarranted fashion.