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.
There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which you have a need to deny.Guy was talking about the evolution of bacteria into humans. Isn't that your concept of common descent? And I'm saying you don't even have the genetic evidence to show that humans and chimpanzees came from a common ancestor let alone this ludicrous idea that somehow we are descended from bacteria.
My comment was similar to Miller's. Unfortunately, I didn't get the result that he got.It is! Do you see that fixation doesn't have to occur for each adaptation step to occur? Competition is minimal in this experiment because it has a large enough carrying capacity for the colony sizes to reach a population size where there is a reasonable probability of the next adaptive mutation occurring without driving the other variants to extinction.
Frank, macroevolutionists haven't posted any EXPERIMENTAL evidence of macroevolution. There have been claims that algae growing in colonies from a single alga is macroevolution (was that your claim?), that transposons are evidence of macroevolution and a couple of others that I can't recall at this moment. This is not experimental evidence. This is like saying, "look, there are reptiles" and: look, there are birds" there's your proof of macroevolution.There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which you have a need to deny.
Frank, anything I say publicly, you are free to discuss publicly. If we ever have a private conversation, unless I request otherwise, you are free to discuss publicly. Let's see if the PS crew can give an experimental example of macroevolution of the adaptive evolution of a lineage to 3 simultaneous selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. Good luck with that! If HIV can't do it with its huge population, high mutation rate, recombination, and that it isn't driven to extinction, it's hard to imagine any replicator that could adapt to those conditions.BTW, you never answered if it is ok to discuss your answer to the Miller challenge at PS.
I missed that. Did Ken Miller make some comment about the Kishony experiment or my claims about that experiment? Or are you just saying that my question, "Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment?" is a good question? If that's your comment, there is a good answer to why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment.Alan Kleinman said:It is! Do you see that fixation doesn't have to occur for each adaptation step to occur? Competition is minimal in this experiment because it has a large enough carrying capacity for the colony sizes to reach a population size where there is a reasonable probability of the next adaptive mutation occurring without driving the other variants to extinction.My comment was similar to Miller's. Unfortunately, I didn't get the result that he got.
That we can not re-run millions of years of evolution experimentally does not preclude a consiliance of supportive evidence from multiple scientific fields.Frank, macroevolutionists haven't posted any EXPERIMENTAL evidence of macroevolution. There have been claims that algae growing in colonies from a single alga is macroevolution (was that your claim?), that transposons are evidence of macroevolution and a couple of others that I can't recall at this moment. This is not experimental evidence. This is like saying, "look, there are reptiles" and: look, there are birds" there's your proof of macroevolution.
K and L do not refute macroevolution. Once, again you don't need to convince me to be taken seriously. Let me put it another way, you will not enhance your credibility within evolutionary science by convincing me.What I'm asking for are experiments that demonstrate that large-scale genetic transformation can occur. I gave you a number for that, the adaptive evolution to 3 simultaneous selection pressures targeting only 2 genetic loci.
Now that you are starting to get the idea from the Kishony experiment what it takes for adaptive evolution to work in a single selection pressure environment, you should read his papers on what his researchers had to do to get the experiment to work. Do you know that in the single drug experiment, the experiment won't work if the step increase in drug concentration is too large (that is that it takes more than a single mutation to adapt)? Why do you think that happens?
Thank you. I should have a post up by tomorrow, if it is approved.Frank, anything I say publicly, you are free to discuss publicly. If we ever have a private conversation, unless I request otherwise, you are free to discuss publicly. Let's see if the PS crew can give an experimental example of macroevolution of the adaptive evolution of a lineage to 3 simultaneous selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. Good luck with that! If HIV can't do it with its huge population, high mutation rate, recombination, and that it isn't driven to extinction, it's hard to imagine any replicator that could adapt to those conditions.
Miller likely had more important things to do than play games and was kind enough to give you a non-offensive answer. I tried, but unfortunately didn't get the result Miller got.I missed that. Did Ken Miller make some comment about the Kishony experiment or my claims about that experiment? Or are you just saying that my question, "Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment?" is a good question? If that's your comment, there is a good answer to why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment.
No it is doubtful if he understands much of anything here. Now you pretend to understand but you have demonstrated at least four times that you do not have any evidence or even understand the concept. When you demonstrate that you have evidence for your beliefs then you may be able to make demands. Until then you are only going to be corrected.You know SZ, I won't use the broken clock analogy, but you are right here that it is the relationship between variation and natural selection that makes evolution work. And I am sure Guy understands this. Now, why don't you try to compute the rate at which that process occurs? Not just the rate of any evolution, but the rate of adaptive evolution. How many replications of a particular variant before there will be a reasonable probability of an adaptive mutation occurring. Why don't you start with a simple experimental example, explain why the rate of adaptive evolution in the single selection pressure environment in the Kishony experiment is 1 adaptive mutation per 1 billion replications.
And you do?
They do. You on the other hand should have taken some courses that explained to you what the scientific method is and what scientific evidence is.This is why biologists should take more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics.
What scientific evidence is that which has been tested experimentally? Making up some story about an observation is not scientific evidence until you test it experimentally. Perhaps you are naive enough to believe those stories without testing them but that kind of faith is blind. It certainly isn't science.That we can not re-run millions of years of evolution experimentally does not preclude a consiliance of supportive evidence from multiple scientific fields.
These experiments demonstrate how adaptive microevolution works. Those who believe that macroevolution is simply the addition of a series of microevolutionary steps need to learn that you don't compute the joint probability of a series of random events occurring by addition, you use the multiplication rule to compute that joint probability.K and L do not refute macroevolution. Once, again you don't need to convince me to be taken seriously. Let me put it another way, you will not enhance your credibility within evolutionary science by convincing me.
Let me know if it is and give me a link to it here. If there is anything interesting going on in that discussion, I might chime in.Thank you. I should have a post up by tomorrow, if it is approved.
Miller couldn't give a straight answer and say "I don't know". And are all you macroevolutionists such thin skin crybabies?Miller likely had more important things to do than play games and was kind enough to give you a non-offensive answer. I tried, but unfortunately didn't get the result Miller got.
They do? Why don't you post the curricula from a few university biology departments that show that biologists take the same math, chemistry, and physics courses as do engineering and physics majors? With my first two years of undergraduate studies, I could have chosen math, chemistry, physics, or engineering as my major field. This is why biologists have failed to correctly describe the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution. Biologists just don't have the correct training and preparation to analyze and solve these kinds of scientific problems.They do. You on the other hand should have taken some courses that explained to you what the scientific method is and what scientific evidence is.
Maybe so. And I do appreciate your reads. Now, why can't you see how this trivial mathematics correlates with the data from the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why can't you recognize that these simple probability equations derived from a well-defined sample space correctly describe the random process that is DNA adaptive evolution? Did I define the random trials improperly? Did I define the possible outcomes from the random trials incorrectly? Did I apply the "at least one rule" incorrectly for computing the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring as the population grows (increasing the size of the sample space)?
You seem like a smart guy. Why can't you see that when you set the beneficial mutation rate in this probability equation to 1e-9 that it gives a probability of about 0.6 that an adaptive mutation will occur when the population size reaches about 1e9, the number Kishony uses in his video?
ResearchGate also lists citations. And you are right, my papers don't have many citations at this time. But on those rare occasions when I do get a citation, I read those papers to see whether they get it right or not. And some do, especially those who are trying to deal with the evolution of drug resistance.
I wonder how long it will take oncologists to figure out that single drug targeted therapy will rarely work. They certainly won't get the correct answer from biologists whose scientific training consists of a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey course in physics. It takes a little more than that to understand the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution.
Do you think a sociologist is going to explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution? You need someone trained in the hard mathematical sciences. You won't find them in the biology department.A minor course in the Sociology Department, on courtesy, wouldn't have gone amiss either.
The antibiotics he used were Ciprofloxacin and Trimethoprim (not simultaneously). That first paper is just the start of the analysis. Why doesn't Kishony's experiment work if he uses 2 antibiotics or if the increase in the concentration of the drug is so large that an improvement in fitness does not occur with a single adaptive mutation?The video you posted was informative. It also stated the relevant probability issues very clearly: For a specific, required mutation needed to overcome the "drug" (it wasn't clear what the drug was, but it was probably some sort of antibiotic -- to us, a drug) had a 1 in 1 billion probability for each genome duplication and it takes (not surprised) about a billion bacteria for it to occur. Your paper seems completely unnecessary to derive this.
You believe his verbal explanation is better than a mathematical explanation? Why hasn't Kishony given a verbal explanation of how his experiment would work if he uses two drugs simultaneously or if the increase in drug concentration in a single drug experiment is so large that it takes more than a single mutation for adaptation. Here's the mathematical explanation for that situation:Like I just said, Kishony explained it much better than you have and without excess baggage.
Once you understand the thermodynamics, the application of the solution equation is actually quite simple. You don't need the physicians to become thermodynamicists, you just need to show them how to apply the principles in the clinical circumstances, like this:Even if I thought your thermodynamic analogies were appropriate, I don't think having physicians take thermo will have any impact. There are other, better, ways to communicate the same effect.
You are once again attempting misdirection from what I wrote by calling them stories. It wont' get you to where you want to go, i.e. refute the consilience of evidence from multiple related scientific fields. Neither have not shown to anyone's satisfaction that your math refutes macroevolution.What scientific evidence is that which has been tested experimentally? Making up some story about an observation is not scientific evidence until you test it experimentally. Perhaps you are naive enough to believe those stories without testing them but that kind of faith is blind. It certainly isn't science.
Your conclusions have been debunked by experts in the field.These experiments demonstrate how adaptive microevolution works. Those who believe that macroevolution is simply the addition of a series of microevolutionary steps need to learn that you don't compute the joint probability of a series of random events occurring by addition, you use the multiplication rule to compute that joint probability.
You keep trying but get the same result over and over.Let me know if it is and give me a link to it here. If there is anything interesting going on in that discussion, I might chime in.
Use some logic, it wasn't necessary for him to say he doesn't know to accomplish his purpose of making you go away.Miller couldn't give a straight answer and say "I don't know".
Thank you for prime example of why people like you to go away.And are all you macroevolutionists such thin skin crybabies?
You are making a foolish assumption. Just because people are not required to take majors level courses does not mean that they did not do so. I took majors level chemistry, math, and physics courses. I did not want the watered down stuff. You unfortunately should have taken a course that explains to you what science is. When are you going to learn what scientific evidence is? As pointed out when you did interact with real scientists they tried to get across the idea that you did not have any evidence. They even offered to help you and you just ran away.They do? Why don't you post the curricula from a few university biology departments that show that biologists take the same math, chemistry, and physics courses as do engineering and physics majors? With my first two years of undergraduate studies, I could have chosen math, chemistry, physics, or engineering as my major field. This is why biologists have failed to correctly describe the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution. Biologists just don't have the correct training and preparation to analyze and solve these kinds of scientific problems.
And your idea of the scientific method is observation without experimental testing. That's not the scientific method, that is pseudo-scientific storytelling by people whose scientific training consists of a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey course in physics. This is why biologists have failed to correctly describe DNA adaptive evolution. That can't even explain their own adaptive evolutionary experiments.
You believe his verbal explanation is better than a mathematical explanation? Why hasn't Kishony given a verbal explanation of how his experiment would work if he uses two drugs simultaneously or if the increase in drug concentration in a single drug experiment is so large that it takes more than a single mutation for adaptation. Here's the mathematical explanation for that situation:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
The verbal explanation for the more complex selection conditions might be "it takes larger populations" but doing the math shows you how much larger the colony has to be to give those variants.
Kleinman knows the scientific method but needs to disbelieve and deny it because otherwise his peculiar argument against macroevolution falls apart.You are making a foolish assumption. Just because people are not required to take majors level courses does not mean that they did not do so. I took majors level chemistry, math, and physics courses. I did not want the watered down stuff. You unfortunately should have taken a course that explains to you what science is. When are you going to learn what scientific evidence is? As pointed out when you did interact with real scientists they tried to get across the idea that you did not have any evidence. They even offered to help you and you just ran away.
Isn't it shocking that this self-proclaimed super math and physics creationist genius is wasting his expertise popping boils....And back then this was owned and operated by DeVry.
Why would they? It is funny how often you unwittingly admit that you do not know much about these things.Frank, macroevolutionists haven't posted any EXPERIMENTAL evidence of macroevolution.
I don't expect a macroevolutionist zealot to be convinced by anything. If you want to be convinced by stories written about observations rather than verifying stories by experimental testing, no be it. Good luck with your discussion over at PS about finding experimental evidence of a replicator that can adapt to 3 selection conditions at only two genetic loci.You are once again attempting misdirection from what I wrote by calling them stories. It wont' get you to where you want to go, i.e. refute the consilience of evidence from multiple related scientific fields. Neither have not shown to anyone's satisfaction that your math refutes macroevolution.
Experiments are not limited to the laboratory. Those observations technically are "experiments". Again, an understanding of the scientific method would help immensely here.I don't expect a macroevolutionist zealot to be convinced by anything. If you want to be convinced by stories written about observations rather than verifying stories by experimental testing, no be it. Good luck with your discussion over at PS about finding experimental evidence of a replicator that can adapt to 3 selection conditions at only two genetic loci.
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?