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.
And you do not have the population sizes necessary for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor. Only about 100 billion humans have existed in all time and 99% in the last 10,000 years. That gives a population size for adaptive evolution of a lineage to accumulate about 5 adaptive mutations, and that under ideal circumstances. So, what are the 5 magical mutations that give humans the intellect to do industrial farming, produce aircraft, make computers,... and chimps only able to gather ants and termites with a stick for food?
Thanks, I just learned a bunch more stuff between you and google. Now I have a better understanding of why he is wrong with my 8th grade biology. Will keep reading.It's basically just the "waiting time" problem. I think he even mentioned Haldane earlier in this thread.
Which IIRC hasn't been a problem for evolution and common ancestry since the 1960's?
You use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).Your question appears to be poorly formed. You have a phrase in it that indicates you do not understand what you are arguing about. What do you mean by the phrase "joint probability of adaptive mutations"? It appears by that question that you think that there is a goal to evolution.
The adaptive mutation rate is lower than the mutation rate for any possible mutation. And please identify the specific mutations which give lactase persistence.Really?
Lactase persistence has evolved several time on its own in that period, or rather the last 100,000 years (and probably much less).
I think your adaptive mutation rate is a bit low.
The adaptive mutation rate is lower than the mutation rate for any possible mutation. And please identify the specific mutations which give lactase persistence.
Did your 8th-grade biology explain to you how DNA adaptive microevolution works? If so, please explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Please show your math, 8th-grade level probability theory will suffice.Thanks, I just learned a bunch more stuff between you and google. Now I have a better understanding of why he is wrong with my 8th grade biology. Will keep reading.
Do your own work, if you can. You won't.There are several of them, arising in different populations. I'm sure if the specific mutations actually mattered to you that you could find them yourself.
Do your own work, if you can. You won't.
Yup, this is your problem, you assume that there is only one way to get from an LCA to humans, and while trivially true, it is not what evolution is about. Thus the a priori calculation of our genome from the LCA is no more relevant than a calculation of the names of five sequential winners of a lottery before running it. Your misuse of the word adaptation with all the philosophical baggage you add is your problem. LOLYou use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).
And all the experimental and empirical evidence that verifies this math. You won't find this in your so-called "on topic" journals. Where are the physical and mathematical explanations of the Kishony and Lenski adaptive microevolutionary experiments in the limited journals you read?Unfortunately your lone paper is not even evidence let alone "proof".
You use the word goal, I use the word adaptation. Lineages can accumulate all kinds of mutations over generations, some adaptive, some neutral, some detrimental. The math that I've presented shows how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations. Each adaptive step requires a large number of replications so that at least one of the members in that lineage gets the adaptive mutation. The reason why it takes a large number of replications is that the joint probability of that adaptive mutation occurring on one of the members will be low unless that variant can replicate sufficiently. For a given mutation rate, the number of replications necessary is about (1/mutation rate) replications (for a single selection pressure environment).
Don't you know what the name of the thread you started is?I'm not asking for a scientific answer necessarily.
How do you think species arose if not via evolution?
It does not verify it. All you have is cherry picking. Do you want to know why you do not appear to have any evidence at all?And all the experimental and empirical evidence that verifies this math. You won't find this in your so-called "on topic" journals. Where are the physical and mathematical explanations of the Kishony and Lenski adaptive microevolutionary experiments in the limited journals you read?
Don't you know what the name of the thread you started is?
If they are adaptive mutations, they matter.So the specific mutations matter, but *I* have to type them out or they don't count. (Or will you dismiss them after I do type them out as well?)
Only that I've failed to teach introductory probability theory to a believer in macroevolution. My suggestion is don't take up a career as a gambler.Nope, you just demonstrated why you failed.
And you do not have the population sizes necessary for humans and chimpanzees to evolve from a common ancestor. Only about 100 billion humans have existed in all time and 99% in the last 10,000 years. That gives a population size for adaptive evolution of a lineage to accumulate about 5 adaptive mutations, and that under ideal circumstances. So, what are the 5 magical mutations that give humans the intellect to do industrial farming, produce aircraft, make computers,... and chimps only able to gather ants and termites with a stick for food?
Duh, that is where I agreed with you, in the very limited case where there were only a very few mutations that would immediately provide the necessary adaptation, then your math is possibly relevant, but when you wish to extrapolate this to the scenario where you insist on some undefined number of "adaptive mutations" it quickly becomes evident that you are not actually arguing reality but your wish for something else to define human beings. We are not the goal of evolution, we are just what happened.Did your 8th-grade biology explain to you how DNA adaptive microevolution works? If so, please explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Please show your math, 8th-grade level probability theory will suffice.
Find an experimental or empirical example that contradicts this math. Make sure you can identify the adaptive mutations, population sizes, and mutation rate. You won't find these examples.It does not verify it. All you have is cherry picking. Do you want to know why you do not appear to have any evidence at all?
Tell us what reasonable test, based upon the merits of your idea, could possibly refute your idea.
If they are adaptive mutations, they matter.
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?