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.
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.
"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.
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.
You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.The parallel nature of evolution and recombination are part of what do make the "waiting time" problem a non-issue for evolution.
"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.
Really?What's the difference between "do the job" and "required"?
Lenski already did.You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.
I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk without a problem.
I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.But I was talking about adaptive mutations that:
* Didn't occur in the same population,
* Don't depend on each other or any other novel genetic form to be beneficial.
If you want to claim that joint probability is necessary they you need to demonstrate that two or more mutations need to be:
* present simultaneously to be useful, and that
* one of them couldn't have spread in a neutral fashion in the population before the second appeared.
Do you think this example explains how macroevolution works? If so, show us.You could try a literature search:
Whole-genome sequencing reveals lactase persistence adaptation in European dogs
Show us the math and how this explains macroevolution.Lenski already did.
I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.
The common argument is that microevolutionary changes add up to produce a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically and empirically incorrect. Adaptive mutations are random events and the joint probability of these events doesn't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule.
I'm pretty sure I understand the physics of evolution better than you. My major field for my PhD in mechanical engineering was thermodynamics. Do you think you are ready to learn the physics of evolution? Actually, the physics is not all that much more complicated than the math.
Why do you think math is needed?Show us the math and how this explains macroevolution.
You are the self proclaimed master at probabilities. What is the probability of after winning $100,000 buying 100,000 in tickets for the next lottery and winning $60,000, investing the the $60,000 in the next lottery and winning $1,000,000?From the Wikipedia page:
You seem to be having some trouble with the English language, here's the definition for the word "all".
Definition of ALL
If you believe he won multiple back-to-back lotteries I have bridge to sell you.If you have trouble remembering this definition, you might try taking memory lessons from a chimpanzee.
Why, it if all he is saying is when you win invest the entire winnings in the next lottery?And by all means, buy his book and get rich.
He and you appear to be saying similar things and I am not buying either, nor is anyone else on here. Think about it.I wouldn't expect someone who buys Lustig's strategy for winning lotteries to buy my explanation.
You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.
I'm pretty sure I understand the physics of evolution better than you. My major field for my PhD in mechanical engineering was thermodynamics.
I said there was evidence and I pointed you to Dan Cardinale's discussion that provided the evidence. You do not need to view the whole video, just search the pertinent parts with key words, i.e definition for microevolution.Sure you did, you said pertaining to a single cell alga growing into a colony which Frank said is an example of macroevolution:
Thanks are premature, no one claimed that there were not mutations.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.
You forgot over time.I understand what you are talking about but this thread is about explaining microevolution which exists and macroevolution which the best argument is that macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary changes.
The common argument is that microevolutionary changes add up to produce a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically and empirically incorrect.
Here is one for you a whole bunch of different ways to mutate in one very selective environment.You should tell this to Kishony and Lenski so they can perform an experimental example of "parallel" evolution. Of course, if you can present an empirical example, go for it.
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?