Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

If you understood why this is wrong you would stop spamming nonsense.

What should I be doing? Should I be telling everyone that algae growing in colonies and transposons are the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? I leave that bit of macroevolutionary wisdom to your crew.

I'll stick with explaining the physics and mathematics of DNA microevolutionary adaptation. It might help someone interested in understanding how drug-resistant evolves and improving the use of targeted cancer therapies.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Nope, but it would have very low "entropy". Don't you guys like that?

The author of my introductory thermodynamics text made the following statement in the preface of the book: "Entropy like beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Can you point me to the information theorem that information must be useful?

What do you mean that information must be useful?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

He even used as a reference in his own update to the Wikipedia article on Natural selection - Wikipedia:

The mathematics of "improvement in fitness was described by Kleinman. [63]
14:00, 29 September 2018‎ Alan Kleinman talk contribs‎ m 106,258 bytes +2,536‎ →‎Fitness

I wrote that because there is a lot of confusion about the concept of natural selection and fitness. Natural selection in the competitive environment is dependent on the relative fitness of each variant with the most fit variant possibly going to fixation in the given environment. On the other hand, natural selection for DNA microevolutionary adaptation depends on the absolute fitness (the ability to replicate), of the particular variant. If the particular variant can replicate sufficiently, the probability of an adaption mutation occurring on one of the members of that variant will be high regardless of what is happening with other variants in the population, fixation is not required. That is what happens in the Kishony experiment. The colony becomes large enough and an adaptation mutation occurs which allows that variant to grow in the next higher drug concentration region. The other variants happily grow in the lower drug concentration region with no fixation occurring as long as the resources are available.

Of course, this is essentially what I wrote on the Wikipedia page and it is correct both mathematically and empirically.

Biologists have a very difficult time distinguishing between evolutionary competition and evolutionary adaptation. I'm not sure why, the concepts are easily distinguished.

 

[Frank Robert]

They never presented empirical evidence of their claims. You can have different lineages evolving to the same selection conditions on different evolutionary trajectories but each of these trajectories work according to the math that I've presented.

Let's look at how that works. You were the one making claims and they offered you a way to test them.

I made my point to Swamidass that he shouldn't be claiming that humans and chimpanzees are related based on the concept of neutral evolution. Swamidass was never willing to discuss my papers or the Kishony or Lenski experiments, just like the macroevolutionists on this forum.

Yes you made your point, but but it was as unconvincing there as it is here..

In fact, it irritates macroevolutionists to discuss these experiments. I understand mathematics is not your strong point.

Why do you think you get the same identical response on all the forums that you try to discuss your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I didn't say sloppy. They simply do not have time to do thorough peer review. Your paper was vague so they checked your math since it was in a statistics paper. They did not check the incorrect basal assumptions.

And no, we know that your paper is garbage because experts in the field that understand why your basal assumptions were wrong explained it to you.

 

[Frank Robert]

What should I be doing? Should I be telling everyone that algae growing in colonies and transposons are the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? I leave that bit of macroevolutionary wisdom to your crew.

Before you tell anyone anything about evolution you need to understand it first.

I'll stick with explaining the physics and mathematics of DNA microevolutionary adaptation. It might help someone interested in understanding how drug-resistant evolves and improving the use of targeted cancer therapies.

It might or not. Based on the numerous attempts you have made so far, the laws of probability appear to be heavily in favor of NOT.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Let's look at how that works. You were the one making claims and they offered you a way to test them.

My claims are tested by the Kishony and Lenski experiments and every real, measurable, and repeatable example of empirical microevolutionary adaptation. Feel free to contradict this by presenting an empirical example that contradicts this math and algae growing in colonies isn't an example. Identify the selection condition and mutations needed for adaptation.

Yes you made your point, but but it was as unconvincing there as it is here..

You can't be convinced with mathematical and empirical evidence. Instead, you refuse to give your explanation of why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Why don't you explain to us how algae growing in colonies is the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?

Why do you think you get the same identical response on all the forums that you try to discuss your claims?

It is a failure of the educational system, specifically the biology departments to correctly teach naive school children the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. An elementary school student can understand what Edward Tatum said about mutation and selection in his Nobel Laureate Lecture but who teaches that? These naive school children grow up to be poorly trained adults in the physics and mathematics of evolution. They think that algae growing in colonies is some form of macroevolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I didn't say sloppy. They simply do not have time to do thorough peer review. Your paper was vague so they checked your math since it was in a statistics paper. They did not check the incorrect basal assumptions.

Oh, so the NIH is not thorough? That's a glowing endorsement of the NIH.

And no, we know that your paper is garbage because experts in the field that understand why your basal assumptions were wrong explained it to you.

Feel free to post your thorough peer review that says this math is garbage. You won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, so the NIH is not thorough? That's a glowing endorsement of the NIH.

Feel free to post your thorough peer review that says this math is garbage. You won't.

Please, you have to be a realist. They cannot fully investigate every crank paper.

And no, I did not say that your math is garbage. You keep trying to change the arguments. Relying on strawman arguments is an indicator that one knows that one is wrong. If you cannot deal with the arguments presented it is best to admit it. Did that quote say that your math was garbage? It pointed out that your paper was garbage because of your poor basal assumptions.

Try again.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Before you tell anyone anything about evolution you need to understand it first.

And your belief that algae growing in colonies is an example of macroevolution? Explain to us how this causes reptiles to evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.

It might or not. Based on the numerous attempts you have made so far, the laws of probability appear to be heavily in favor of NOT.

Write out the correct probability equations that describe DNA microevolutionary adaptation. I'll even give you a hint. Start by identifying the random trial(s) and the possible outcomes for the random trial(s).

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your belief that algae growing in colonies is an example of macroevolution? Explain to us how this causes reptiles to evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.

Write out the correct probability equations that describe DNA microevolutionary adaptation. I'll even give you a hint. Start by identifying the random trial(s) and the possible outcomes for the random trial(s).

Oh my! More strawman arguments. When will it end?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Please, you have to be a realist. They cannot fully investigate every crank paper.

Oh, so the NIH puts crank papers in their library?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Oh my! More strawman arguments. When will it end?

It will end when you learn some introductory probability theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, so the NIH puts crank papers in their library?

Not on purpose, but yes. You have cited examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It will end when you learn some introductory probability theory.

LOL! Why is that an excuse for improper arguing?

I do have a firm grasp on probability theory. My theory is that you will never deal with the corrections given to you. Prove me wrong!

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Not on purpose, but yes. You have cited examples.

How often? At least 3 of my papers are in the National Library of Medicine. And if you think any of my papers are crank papers, it is your responsibility to notify the library. You won't do that, that's not your job, your job is to be a troll on a Christian forum.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

LOL! Why is that an excuse for improper arguing?

I do have a firm grasp on probability theory. My theory is that you will never deal with the corrections given to you. Prove me wrong!

Go ahead and notify the National Library of Medicine that my papers are based on incorrect assumptions and an incorrect application of the rules of probability theory. You won't do that and that's enough proof for anyone except perhaps a macroevolutionist.

 

[Frank Robert]

My claims are tested by the Kishony and Lenski experiments and every real, measurable, and repeatable example of empirical microevolutionary adaptation. Feel free to contradict this by presenting an empirical example that contradicts this math and algae growing in colonies isn't an example. Identify the selection condition and mutations needed for adaptation..

That you do not accept the errors as, pointed out by experts, in several forums, why would you expect a non-expert to accept your word over the experts.?

You can't be convinced with mathematical and empirical evidence. Instead, you refuse to give your explanation of why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. Why don't you explain to us how algae growing in colonies is the way reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?.

Why are you wasting your time with trivia about mammals and birds with non-experts. I have a college understanding of evolution plus a little more from my interactions on evolution forums. Use a modicum of logic. If you an earth shattering solution for bacteria resistance I am not the one you need to convince.

It is a failure of the educational system, specifically the biology departments to correctly teach naive school children the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. An elementary school student can understand what Edward Tatum said about mutation and selection in his Nobel Laureate Lecture but who teaches that? These naive school children grow up to be poorly trained adults in the physics and mathematics of evolution. They think that algae growing in colonies is some form of macroevolution.

You have displayed your ignorance of macroevoluiton numerous times not only on this forum but on numerous other forums. Your idea of macroevoluiton appears to be a washed over rehash of creationists talking points.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That you do not accept the errors as, pointed out by experts, in several forums, why would you expect a non-expert to accept your word over the experts.?

Why are you wasting your time with trivia about mammals and birds with non-experts. I have a college understanding of evolution plus a little more from my interactions on evolution forums. Use a modicum of logic. If you an earth shattering solution for bacteria resistance I am not the one you need to convince.

You have displayed your ignorance of macroevoluiton numerous times not only on this forum but on numerous other forums. Your idea of macroevoluiton appears to be a washed over rehash of creationists talking points.

Whatever

 

[Phred]

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?

You still haven't answered the basic question of what the difference is between micro and macro evolution which was asked long before that Oh' keeper of the flame... look to your own house before you start whining about what other people do or don't do.