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.
His "model?" Since when is a high school equation considered a "model?"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.
No change in order.Barring new mutations, the whole genome is replicated in the next generation.
You quantitate the number of replications of each variant.Again, this is at best a definition or measure of "fitness", though not expressed in a quantitative fashion.
Information theory - WikipediaAnd 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.
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.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.
His "model?" Since when is a high school equation considered a "model?"
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.
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.Do you not claim that your model makes macroevolution impossible?
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.Since you posted a link to information theory, could you show us all where information theory makes this claim?
He is a creationist that thinks that bad math and strawman arguments refute evolution. In other words, nothing new.Did he ever tell us the difference between microevolution and macroevolution or is he really just a creationist without a cause?
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.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
Yes, the correct argument is that Alan does not understand evolutionary theory. Will hell freeze over before anyone accepts Alan's ramblings?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.
What a cop out. That is about what I expected.How did the allele come about in the first place to be duplicated?
Hans, aren't you going to answer Phred's question?Hans Blaster said:Any mathematical expression that fits the data can be used as a model of the data.So how does his equation fit the data?
He seems to be a one-trick pony. Reminds me of that dopey pathologist claiming beauty proves Jesus.I'm not asking for a scientific answer necessarily.
How do you think species arose if not via evolution?
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.Yes, the correct argument is that Alan does not understand evolutionary theory. Will hell freeze over before anyone accepts Alan's ramblings?
You don't understand how evolution OR, apparently, information theory, works. Go back to 'evolutionfairytale' where you belong.Hans, aren't you going to answer Phred's question?
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?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.
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.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.
This open access paper? The 6+ year old one with only 2 citations - both by you? Groundbreaking stuff....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.
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.You don't understand how evolution OR, apparently, information theory, works. Go back to 'evolutionfairytale' where you belong.
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?