- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,373
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Does this also apply to artificial selection re: breeding programs?
Upvote
0
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.
The math I've presented applies to any evolutionary trajectory of microevolutionary adaptation.
You are seeing what you want to see. From the paper:It sure looks like that is what you have been doing. Your own posts and language have indicated that in the past.
What basic assumptions do you make in your model? And once again, what reasonable test based upon your model's merits could possibly refute it?
There are multiple possible trajectories to drug resistance with different sets of mutations. What they all share in common are the same governing mathematical principles. The evolution of the A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 variant will have the same mathematical behavior of the A2, B2, C2, D2, E2 variant... as the An, Bn, Cn, Dn, En variant. The peer reviewers understood this but you seem to be having trouble with this idea.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. In addition, this example demonstrates that there is more than a single sequential order, which can occur. In other words, not every member of the population must have the same sequence of mutations in order to evolve resistance to the antibiotic selection pressure. The population of bacteria has subdivided into subpopulations, each taking their own trajectory to achieve resistance to this particular selection pressure.
If we label one subpopulation ‘1’, that subpopulation must get mutation A1 followed by mutation B1, in turn followed by mutation C1, then D1 and finally E1 in order to evolve resistance to the antibiotic selection pressure. If we label another subpopulation ‘2’, that subpopulation must get a different set of mutations, which we can label A2 followed by mutation B2, in turn followed by mutation C2, then D2 and finally E2 in order to evolve resistance to the antibiotic selection pressure. Each of the subpopulations that Weinreich and his co-authors describe has their own set of mutations, which lead to the evolution of a high-resistance-lactamase allele. Each of the subpopulations are evolving independently of the other subpopulations. Once a particular subpopulation starts on an evolutionary trajectory, the replication of members from that subpopulation to not contribute to trials for the next beneficial mutation in a different subpopulation on a different evolutionary trajectory.
In order to evolve a high-resistance-lactamase allele, a bacterial subpopulation must accumulate five mutations in a particular sequence. We will now address how a subpopulation can accumulate these five mutations. We will drop the numeric and call these five mutations A, B, C, D and E, and the five mutations must occur in that order. The first mathematical question is to identify the trial and possible outcomes for that trial in this stochastic process. We describe this mathematics in the following section.
It does if you are considering the creation of new adaptive alleles. Unless the adaptive alleles already exist in the gene pool, breeding and recombination won't create those alleles.Does this also apply to artificial selection re: breeding programs?
Sorry, I am not wasting time with something from the vanity press.You are seeing what you want to see. From the paper:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
There are multiple possible trajectories to drug resistance with different sets of mutations. What they all share in common are the same governing mathematical principles. The evolution of the A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 variant will have the same mathematical behavior of the A2, B2, C2, D2, E2 variant... as the An, Bn, Cn, Dn, En variant. The peer reviewers understood this but you seem to be having trouble with this idea.
Let's see if you understand this analogy. You go to the store every week and buy the same 5 items. You want to know the cost of the items so you add up the price of each to get the total cost. You go back to the store next week to buy the same 5 items and the price hasn't changed. Do you have to add up the cost again or can you use the math from you first week's shopping?
But I think I know what you are trying to get at. If one parent has an adaptive allele for one selection condition and the other parent has a different adaptive allele for a different selection condition, then you can possibly get an offspring with both adaptive alleles. You can get a situation like this in a breeding program or when the environment selects for those variants such as with Darwin's finches. However, if the recombination process is random such as with HIV or pollination of weeds, you have a trinomial distribution problem and the probability of that recombination event depends on the frequency of the adaptive alleles in the population.
Ultimately, you can't breed dogs from a cat population because you don't have the correct alleles and you would need DNA microevolution to operate for there to be any possibility of that happening.
Seriously, this is your concept of evolution?Ultimately, you can't breed dogs from a cat population because you don't have the correct alleles and you would need DNA microevolution to operate for there to be any possibility of that happening.
Statistics in Medicine is vanity press? How about the fact that these papers are in the National Library of Medicine!Sorry, I am not wasting time with something from the vanity press.
Go ahead and see if you can breed dogs from a population of cats. That will be a good demonstration of macroevolution.Seriously, this is your concept of evolution?
Go ahead and see if you can breed dogs from a population of cats. That will be a good demonstration of macroevolution.
Statistics in Medicine is vanity press? How about the fact that these papers are in the National Library of Medicine!
Oh my!! No wonder you failed. You do not even have a high school level of understanding of what you are debating against.Go ahead and see if you can breed dogs from a population of cats. That will be a good demonstration of macroevolution.
Try doing some homework.I don't know. Odds are that they take articles from all journals that appear to be on topic. Since it is open source it would not cost them a penny so why not?
And that t is a big "so what?" Do you really think that with the incredible number of papers they take in a year that the "peer review" there is very deep at all? One thing that is useful about that site is that it shows how many times your article was cited. For example this one:Try doing some homework.
NIHMS Overview - NIHMS
I did not submit the papers and had no part in the review process by the NIH. I know of at least 3 of my papers are in the National Library of Medicine. If we had to depend on your so-called "on topic" journals to explain the evolution of drug resistance and how microevolutionary adaptation works, we will never see the papers.
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.
Was only cited once, and that was by you. It is effectively a paper that everyone has ignored. And that is even after massive self promotion by you.
Thanks for the link. You can see how little Allen understands by this quote:
" My math has been examined by experts in probability theory. "
His "math" may be correct, but he went to the wrong experts. If the mathematical formula is based upon improper assumptions, and the experts have repeated told him that, it does not matter how the "correct" the math is. And that is the problem when one goes to an off topic journal. The so called experts chosen are apt to not understand the underlying errors that make his work useless.
I would like to check the general reputation of the journal that he used more than once. It appears to be just another example of the vanity press. In other words it is merely a pay to publish site.
If you understood why this is wrong you would stop spamming nonsense.But I think I know what you are trying to get at. If one parent has an adaptive allele for one selection condition and the other parent has a different adaptive allele for a different selection condition, then you can possibly get an offspring with both adaptive alleles. You can get a situation like this in a breeding program or when the environment selects for those variants such as with Darwin's finches. However, if the recombination process is random such as with HIV or pollination of weeds, you have a trinomial distribution problem and the probability of that recombination event depends on the frequency of the adaptive alleles in the population.
Yes; Dawkins has since said he regrets using it for a book title as it has been so misunderstood.That is generally associated with Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" which is a simplistic popular piece to introduce a general audience to the subject. That said, add the hammer nail idiom and here we are.
Oh, I see, the NIH does sloppy peer review. Only your so-called "on topic" journals do good peer review. You think my basic assumption appears to be faulty because there is only one citation to this paper (there are more, you just don't know where to look). But then you don't have the mathematical and scientific skills to say what they are. You won't even look because of your biases.And that t is a big "so what?" Do you really think that with the incredible number of papers they take in a year that the "peer review" there is very deep at all? One thing that is useful about that site is that it shows how many times your article was cited. For example this one:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
Was only cited once, and that was by you. It is effectively a paper that everyone has ignored. And that is even after massive self promotion by you. That should tell you that it is of no value. Your "math" may be correct, but your basic assumptions appear to be faulty.
The physics is simple, almost trivially simple. All I have done is applied these simple principles and used introductory probability theory to mathematically describe DNA microevolutionary adaptation. And aren't you going to answer Phred's question that he addressed to you?Given the breakthroughs he's making in the physics of evolution, perhaps he should try a physics journal like Progress in Physics
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?