We are not talking about any mutation occurring but particular mutations. Adaptive mutations are particular mutations. We are not talking about Mendelian Genetics so Punnett square does not apply even though the multiplication rule applies in that situation as well.
But sickle cell mutations are definitely positively adaptive in the area that they have become frequent.
But what you have not demonstrated is whether this is relevant to evolution. This is what we are waiting for. Again, your ability to write a mathematical equation says nothing about whether it is actually applicable to a situation.
Too bad that you admitted to not having any scientific evidence for your beliefs by dodging a reasonable question.
This is a only one of your clear errors. You are making the error of assuming that there was only one possible pathway to specific events. In many cases the same or even better results can occur with different mutations. There is no reason to base your odds on one particular mutation occurring.
Because he can't as that is his basic assumption. He has modelled sequential probabilities as how evolution must have happened, but he won't give up.
If one wants to understand DNA adaptive microevolution, one must consider the multiplication rule for the accumulation of adaptive mutations on a lineage. This is why it takes such large numbers of replications for each adaptive step in experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
Yup, that is simple, but it just demonstrates that you do not understand evolution. Evolution is not about winning lotteries, it is about what works.
Each evolutionary trajectory is subject to the same mathematical principles. Different lineage on different evolutionary trajectories doesn't change the mathematics for each other. Weinreich demonstrated this with his work:
That's how DNA evolutionary adaptation works, it leads to variants with improved reproductive fitness to the selection conditions of the particular environment. That's what the Kishony and Lenski experiments are demonstrating whether it is the antibiotic selection pressure as used in the Kishony experiment or the starvation selection conditions as used in the Lenski experiment. The probability of accumulation of adaptive mutations on the respective lineages must be computed using the multiplication rule because these adaptive mutations are joint random events.
Yup, that is what I have been trying to tell you, your calculation might even be valid for humans as we exist, but it is largely irrelevant in terms of the theory of evolution. We are just one of the possibilities that might have arisen from our LCA with Chimps as are they.
Adaptive mutations and winning lotteries are random events. If you have more than one of either, you have to compute the joint probability using the multiplication rule. That's why Kishony's bacteria need to buy a billion tickets for each adaptive mutation. Edward Tatum understood this more than 50 years ago. Too bad his Nobel Laureate Lecture was not on your reading list.
Unfortunately you forgot the acronym GIGO. You have used incorrect assumptions and misapplied math. You are not fooling anyone.
So you think we might have evolved as Wookiees? The multiplication rule for adaptive mutations still applies to that lineage.
I like to use experimental evidence to correlate with my math. You know, like the Kishony and Lenski experiments. What experimental evidence do you have for macroevolution?
Do you mean one of you so-called "on topic" journals where they can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiment?
Yes we might have and your calculations of the probability of Wookies would probably be similar to your calculations of humans, But that is not evolution.
how many times do you have to be told that extrapolating from only two or three points is problematic at best. And don't tell me sigmoidal since that is as good as any for pointing out the fallacy of tangent approximation to the general curve.
Wookiees only exist in movies, fiction just like macroevolution. If you only understood the physics and mathematics of microevolution, we might be able to bring you back to reality.
