Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Phred]

I'm pretty sure he has at least inferred that microevolution is the one that his model perfectly describes and macroevolution is the stuff that the same model clearly disproves.

His "model?" Since when is a high school equation considered a "model?"

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Barring new mutations, the whole genome is replicated in the next generation.

No change in order.

Again, this is at best a definition or measure of "fitness", though not expressed in a quantitative fashion.

You quantitate the number of replications of each variant.

And again, you clearly equate order with information. What attempts to make that inference I've seen before have not done so based on some measure of fitness, but rather the sequence itself, perhaps limited to coding portions of the genome, quantifying how much "information" is contained within the genome.

Information theory - Wikipedia

A key measure in information theory is entropy. Entropy quantifies the amount of uncertainty involved in the value of a random variable or the outcome of a random process.

You don't know the order (information) of a variant until you measure its ability to replicate in the given environment. A genetic sequence of all A's may seem to be ordered (non-random) but a genome of all A's cannot replicate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

His "model?" Since when is a high school equation considered a "model?"

Any mathematical expression that fits the data can be used as a model of the data.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't know the order (information) of a variant until you measure its ability to replicate in the given environment. A genetic sequence of all A's may seem to be ordered (non-random) but a genome of all A's cannot replicate.

Since you posted a link to information theory, could you show us all where information theory makes this claim?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Do you not claim that your model makes macroevolution impossible?

Yes, and I give the mathematical reason, the multiplication rule. Even for a simple single selection pressure evolutionary process, it takes about (1/mutation rate) replications for each adaptive evolutionary step. In the case of the Kishony experiment with a mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a billion replications for each adaptive microevolutionary step. If the replicator must evolve to two or more simultaneous selection pressures, the number of replications goes up exponentially for each adaptive evolutionary step. This is why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV despite the fact the virus can achieve a large population size, has a high mutation rate, and does recombination. Even HIV has difficulty winning 3 lotteries at a time despite buying lots of tickets.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Since you posted a link to information theory, could you show us all where information theory makes this claim?

Do you really think that a genome comprised solely of adenine bases can replicate? You have already said you don't know how to measure the information content in a genome. Try to imagine what a genome does and how changing the genetic sequence with mutations will affect what the genome does.

 

[Phred]

Any mathematical expression that fits the data can be used as a model of the data.

So how does his equation fit the data?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did he ever tell us the difference between microevolution and macroevolution or is he really just a creationist without a cause?

He is a creationist that thinks that bad math and strawman arguments refute evolution. In other words, nothing new.

 

[Phred]

He is a creationist that thinks that bad math and strawman arguments refute evolution. In other words, nothing new.

But... Kishenski and Lishony!!!

 

[tas8831]

Huh. Hadn't heard of him either. Sounds like a real character, though.

Towards the end of his life Davison would spend hours spamming websites and blogs about how Darwin's theory of evolution was wrong and unscientific and how the neo-Darwinists had ruined science. Davison was banned from many forums and even banned from intelligent design websites for his constant trolling. He was known for sending abusive emails to scientists who he claimed were "brainwashed" by Darwinism.​

John A. Davison - RationalWiki

That's him! He was tolerated, even encouraged on certain sites, though, that was super frustrating. On at least 2 evolutionist-run forums, he was basically given a pass on forum decorum, so as not to appear 'biased', which turned virtually every thread he took part in into a repetition/trolling/insult fest.
He used to name-drop constantly, claiming "I think X, and [name of well-known scientist] would agree with me" or "[famous scientist taken out of context] said X, and I agree with him." His usual go-tos were Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf, and Lamarckian P.P. Grasse. He also used to insult his former employer for not giving him free reign to spread his disinformation in freshman classes. Kook.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank Robert is now going to give the correct mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You know what will freeze over before that happens.

Yes, the correct argument is that Alan does not understand evolutionary theory. Will hell freeze over before anyone accepts Alan's ramblings?

 

[tas8831]

How did the allele come about in the first place to be duplicated?

What a cop out. That is about what I expected.

You're out of your depth, and you play games to prop up your fantasies.

Should have stuck to whatever sort of engineering you supposedly engaged in.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Any mathematical expression that fits the data can be used as a model of the data.

So how does his equation fit the data?

Hans, aren't you going to answer Phred's question?

 

[tas8831]

I'm not asking for a scientific answer necessarily.

How do you think species arose if not via evolution?

He seems to be a one-trick pony. Reminds me of that dopey pathologist claiming beauty proves Jesus.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, the correct argument is that Alan does not understand evolutionary theory. Will hell freeze over before anyone accepts Alan's ramblings?

The peer reviewers understood and accepted the argument because the math correlates with the data. Now, Frank is never going to give the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

 

[tas8831]

Hans, aren't you going to answer Phred's question?

You don't understand how evolution OR, apparently, information theory, works. Go back to 'evolutionfairytale' where you belong.

 

[Frank Robert]

The peer reviewers understood and accepted the argument because the math correlates with the data. Now, Frank is never going to give the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Which peer reviewers and exactly what argument of yours did they accept? For example, This thread is concerning macroevolution, did the reviewers agree that your argument refutes macroevolution?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What a cop out. That is about what I expected.

You're out of your depth, and you play games to prop up your fantasies.

Should have stuck to whatever sort of engineering you supposedly engaged in.

The allele the got duplicated must have appeared magically. And my engineering interests have always been in bioengineering. You should read my PhD thesis, I solved the inverse bioheat transfer equation. That math is way, way, way out of your depth. And it was this interest that prompted me to study medicine. I have state licences in both engineering and medicine. What kind of education is necessary to understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution? Clearly, a degree in biology doesn't cut it. Otherwise, you would find the explanation in your so-called "on topic" journals.

 

[tas8831]

The peer reviewers understood and accepted the argument because the math correlates with the data. Now, Frank is never going to give the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

This open access paper? The 6+ year old one with only 2 citations - both by you? Groundbreaking stuff....
Peer reviewed? If it was, it was not reviewed by evolutionary biologists. I enjoy the naïve extrapolation:

Abstract: Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins

Five point mutations in a particular β-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of ∼100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance β-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the β-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable.


What this empirical example demonstrates is that the sequence of mutations must occur in an order of ever increasing fitness in order for the evolutionary process to have a reasonable chance of occurring...
​

So cute how you jump from one specific example to "the" evolutionary process, as if alleles or regulatory sequences that affect developmental trajectories behave in the same manner as the genes for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do.

Also funny that you cite Haldane's 1957 paper - I'm assuming because you read about it in creationist essays? Warren Ewens found that Haldane's model was inapplicable, but I see you didn't site him. Typical.

So, it looks to me like you really do not understand evolutionary biology, information theory (or you could have addressed my question about the p450 allele), AND now population genetics.
IOW, you fit right in with internet creationists.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You don't understand how evolution OR, apparently, information theory, works. Go back to 'evolutionfairytale' where you belong.

And miss Hans' answer to Phred's question? I don't want to miss that. It's good to see that you are doing searches on me. It's those old discussions with macroevolutionists that helped me understand how microevolution actually works. One of the many things I have learned over the years debating this subject is that macroevolutionists are very slow learners and not very good at mathematics.