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.
It doesn't matter that if it explain K or L. What matters is no one is buying your explanation of K & L.You think that a colony is bigger than a cell so that's macroevolution. Just another example of a macroevolutionist that can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
From the Wikipedia page:You are reading it incorrectly. If he had invested all his wins into the next game then he would not have had any money after he won the non-money holidays rather than cash prizes. It is also unlikely that he would win eight straight lotteries.
In an interview with ABC News, Lustig explained that his method is to re-invest all of his winnings back into the lottery.[2] He also recommends using hand-picked sequential numbers and using the same numbers repeatedly.
and
[Lustig] never actually comes out and says that he’s a net winner.
I wouldn't expect someone who buys Lustig's strategy for winning lotteries to buy my explanation.It doesn't matter that if it explain K or L. What matters is no one is buying your explanation of K & L.
Yes, they did. Far better than you did. You see they did not make your errors.Oh really, you mean Swamidass explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You can't explain these experiments either. You just have this confused idea that if a single cell replicator grows into a colony that it is macroevolution. Why don't you identify the genetic differences between the single cell and the members of the colony? How many mutations are required for that to happen? You won't because your example doesn't demonstrate macroevolution. Do you have any idea how microevolution operates? Obviously not.
Nope. I never claimed that or even implied that.I get it. You think every mutation is an adaptive mutation. No wonder you macroevolutionists can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
You seem to be having trouble convincing anyone to take your argument seriously. It is probably to late for this milieu, but the next time you invade a forum why not try being respectful of other members, patient with their disagreement, direct, but polite in your explanations and generally less like a rabid rotweiller with brain damage and more like an informed, thoughtful, open-minded individual.You seem to be having some trouble with the English language, here's the definition for the word "all".
Macroevolution isn't the only figment of your imagination. Why don't you post the link where Swamidass explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You won't.Yes, they did. Far better than you did. You see they did not make your errors.
And please, quit trying to tell others what they believe. You have no clue. I merely pointed out your errors.
You still have not realized what errors you made and why that makes your "math" worthless.
Sorry, but you appear to have been trolling lately. Until you acknowledge your errors there is no point in posting such links for you. You would simply deny them. You certainly could not refute them.Macroevolution isn't the only figment of your imagination. Why don't you post the link where Swamidass explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You won't.
The sickle cell mutation is just an example of an adaptive mutation against malaria. It can be any adaptive mutation for any particular selection pressure. It makes just as much sense as you using a lactase persistence mutation for your example. All adaptive mutations are particular mutations and the joint probability of any two particular adaptive mutations must be computed using the multiplication rule.
Why not the parents have lactase persister alleles and the child is born with a mutation that stops lactase persistence?
The point you are missing is that you are considering only a single adaptive mutation in a lineage. For that lineage to improve reproductive fitness against the selection conditions of that environment, more adaptive mutations must occur on some member of that variant. If the population size of that variant is small, the probability of another adaptive mutation occurring on some member of that variant population will be small. But as the population grows, that probability improves. The joint probability of additional adaptive mutations is computed by multiplying their individual probabilities. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are, it is a simple binomial probability problem, does the adaptive mutation occur or does it not occur on replication.
Sure you did, you said pertaining to a single cell alga growing into a colony which Frank said is an example of macroevolution:Nope. I never claimed that or even implied that.
You simply have a strawman version of evolution. It is wrong on so many levels that your model based on it also fails. This is why you would not be able to get your article published at a site where the peers understand how evolution works. You published on a site that was more mathematically oriented.
GIGO. You should remember that.
SD said:There are no "required mutations".
This explains why you can't formulate the correct mathematics of evolution.
You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.Sure you did, you said pertaining to a single cell alga growing into a colony which Frank said is an example of macroevolution:
If no mutations are required for a single cell alga to grow into a colony then it isn't an example of macroevolution. Thank you for supporting my argument.
I'm not trying to formulate a mathematical theory of evolution. I'm just unconvinced that you have beyond a very narrow application.
That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.
That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?
That's the point, two or more adaptive mutation imposes one or more instances of the multiplication rule. The point I'm trying to make here is that when more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in a lineage, you have to use the multiplication rule to calculate the probability of those events occurring. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are or the genetic loci affected.In both of these examples only one mutation is needed to gain the benefit. There is no need for a second lactase persistence mutation or any other mutation to make the one lactase persistence mutation useful and for it to promote reproductive advantage.
"Pretty clear"? So lactase persister parents can't have an offspring that is not a lactase persister? I'm not so sure how rare lactase persistence is in other animals. I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk without a problem. I raise goats and the kids will drink their mothers' milk as long as the mother allows.It's pretty clear that is *not* what happened, that's why. There are multiple lactase persistence mutations each centered in a particular location. Not every human has a lactase persistence mutation and to my understanding they are either rare or non-existent other mammals.
A single adaptive mutation is not a joint event, therefore the multiplication rule does not apply. However, a microevolutionary process involving more than a single adaptive mutation does bring into play the multiplication rule because you are now dealing with joint events. These joint events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule where each additional adaptive mutation brings in another instance of the multiplication rule.Again, the examples I've been working with in this convo are mutations that provide benefit *BY THEMSELVES*. They do not need any other added genetic feature otherwise missing to provide benefit. They will propagate based on their own benefits and drawbacks without any other mutations needed.
What's the difference between "do the job" and "required"?You reading comprehension is off. Let me use bolding for you to explain your error. I said there we no required mutations. That does not mean that I said or implied that mutations were not the cause. When you use the phase "required mutations" you are implying that specific genes had to mutate in a specific manner. This is incorrect. This is where you repeatedly fail. Yes, mutations are required. There almost always is more than one mutation that will do the job. If you understood the Kishony experiment that would have been obvious to you.
Try and find an empirical example that doesn't demonstrate this mathematical behavior.I'm not trying to formulate a mathematical theory of evolution. I'm just unconvinced that you have beyond a very narrow application.
That's one thing he gets wrong. Have I misread him, or does he also seem to ignore that an individual in a species that reproduces sexually can acquire one mutation from one parent, a second from the other?
That's the point, two or more adaptive mutation imposes one or more instances of the multiplication rule. The point I'm trying to make here is that when more than a single adaptive mutation occurs in a lineage, you have to use the multiplication rule to calculate the probability of those events occurring. It doesn't matter what the selection conditions are or the genetic loci affected.
[SNIPPED to address later]
A single adaptive mutation is not a joint event, therefore the multiplication rule does not apply. However, a microevolutionary process involving more than a single adaptive mutation does bring into play the multiplication rule because you are now dealing with joint events. These joint events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule where each additional adaptive mutation brings in another instance of the multiplication rule.
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?