- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,373
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
So how many billion replications did it take for the 20+ identified mutations under selection in contemporary Inuit populations?
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.
Oh no, it can happen genetically at the rate of about 1 adaptation mutation/billion replications.
Nope, the correct physics, and mathematics of DNA microevolution and DNA microevolutionary experiments with bacteria tell the scientific story well enough. Perhaps you think microevolutionary adaptation works differently with bacteria than other replicators?I have a feeling he'd first want us to lock a population of humans in fridge for a few million generations to see if they adapt to cold climates before he'd accept it.
Every site in the genome is under selection. And with every genome replication and a mutation rate of 1e-8, you should expect 30 new mutations in the genome. Care to tell us which of those mutations made your mother tell you to put your coat on when you went out in the cold?So how many billion replications did it take for the 20+ identified mutations under selection in contemporary Inuit populations?
This discussion would be much more interesting if you could present some mathematical or experimental arguments.
Oh well, why don't you try to post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern biology texts that explain the evolution of drug resistance?
You give me much too much credit. I have no reason to question your K & L math but assuming it is factual does not falsify macroevolution.Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?
Every site in the genome is under selection.
And with every genome replication and a mutation rate of 1e-8, you should expect 30 new mutations in the genome. Care to tell us which of those mutations made your mother tell you to put your coat on when you went out in the cold?
So far, no contradictory experimental evidence. Even all the empirical evidence supports this math, combination herbicides, combination pesticides, combination antivirals,... Of course, experience can be a hard teacher, especially when biologists teach mathematically irrational theories.Not how the burden of proof works. You're the one claiming your model somehow applies universally to evolution or that it somehow prohibits macroevolution.
Tell us which mutation made your mother tell you to put on your coat when you went out in the cold.I suggested you could take you model and try applying it human evolution and how it fares relative to what we observe in human population genetics. Of course you don't seem particularly interested in testing your model, instead preferring the bluff and bluster approach of the same tired posts over and over.
You know everybody?If you're wondering why nobody is taking you seriously, this is why.
Pretty please, post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern evolutionary biology textbooks. How about the equation that explains how microevolutionary adaptation works to a single selection pressure? Put some sugar on top of that.There is a fare bit of math found in modern evolutionary biology textbooks. Probably better you just pick up a copy yourself. That is if you have a genuine interest in any of this as opposed to trying to score imaginary Internet points in an online debate.
Absolutely, sometimes mutations are beneficial, sometimes the mutations are neutral, and sometimes the mutations are detrimental. The environment determines which.Wait, what? Every single site in a human genome is under selection?
What deflection? You are just confused to think that only 20 sites in a genome or under selection.You're trying to deflect again. It really is not a good look for you.
I pointed you to the paper earlier in the thread. You can have a look. Or you can keep ignoring it. Your call.
So far, no contradictory experimental evidence.
You know everybody?
Pretty please, post an itsy bitsy equation from one of your modern evolutionary biology textbooks. How about the equation that explains how microevolutionary adaptation works to a single selection pressure? Put some sugar on top of that.
Absolutely, sometimes mutations are beneficial, sometimes the mutations are neutral, and sometimes the mutations are detrimental. The environment determines which.
If you understood the Kishony experiment, you would understand this. When his colony reaches a population of a billion, there will be a variant in that population with an adaptation mutation for ciprofloxacin and another variant with an adaptation mutation for trimethoprim. The environment determines which are beneficial.
What deflection? You are just confused to think that only 20 sites in a genome or under selection.
Do you understand that I published the math that predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before he performed the experiment? And this math explains how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations? These adaptational mutations don't add up, they are joint random events. And they are events where the probability of success in a single trial (replication) is very small. That's why it takes so many replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one success. But when that lucky member does get that adaptational mutation, the probability of one of its descendants getting another adaptational mutation is very small unless that new variant replicates many times. If it takes two or more mutations to give an improvement in fitness, it takes exponentially more replications to have any probability of adaptation success for that circumstance. That's why my answer to your question about macroevolution is 3 selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. That's all it takes to blunt the microevolutionary process of HIV and have successful treatment. It takes vast populations to evolve and adapt to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, much larger populations than have ever existed on earth.You give me much too much credit. I have no reason to question your K & L math but assuming it is factual does not falsify macroevolution.
You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.So far, no contradictory experimental evidence. Even all the empirical evidence supports this math, combination herbicides, combination pesticides, combination antivirals,... Of course, experience can be a hard teacher, especially when biologists teach mathematically irrational theories.
You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.
What's your proof for macroevolution? Zero, nada, zilch. Yet you teach this nonsense to biology students as if it is fact.Again, not how the burden of proof works.
I've never expected macroevolutionist zealots to respond positively to this math. Be patient, this math will sink into the scientific community, especially those dealing with drug resistance and failed cancer treatments.I'm speaking of the lack of citations of your published works and the lack of positive reception to your postings on various forums.
I've taken courses in genetics and biology and have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of papers on evolutionary biology. None of these books or papers have ever explained correctly the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution. So, now you say there is some magical book that explains all this. Give us the name of the book and post an equation from the book that explains DNA evolution. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke. No, for sure you are blowing smoke. If you had any explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation, you could produce the papers that explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.Hit up Amazon and grab a book yourself. C'mon, you're claiming to be publishing works relevant to the field of evolutionary biology. How is it you *don't* have any textbooks on the subject?
And every site in a genome is under selection.This isn't answering what I posted. What I was posting was my incredulity to your claim that "Every site in the genome is under selection."
Perhaps you didn't actually mean that the way it was written?
Tell us what the selection pressure is.For clarification, the paper listed 20+ mutations under strong selection in its study of Inuit populations.
Feel free to test away against any experimental or empirical evidence you can find. It already correctly models the Kishony and Lenski experiments, it fits all the empirical examples of mutational adaptation. If Swamidass wants to use SLIM 3 to try and verify this model, he should do it independently from my work. He doesn't need me to hold his hand to do this. But he does have a responsibility as a medical school professor to explain correct the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. That is an issue his students will have to face.You were given an opportunity to test your math beyond K & L, with the help of experts, you didn't take it. Rejecting the opportunity to teach the experts your mathematically "rational theories" doesn't appear rational.
What's your proof for macroevolution?
I've taken courses in genetics and biology and have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of papers on evolutionary biology.
Give us the name of the book and post an equation from the book that explains DNA evolution.
And every site in a genome is under selection.
Tell us what the selection pressure is.
You are the one that claims there is some magical evolutionary biology book out there that explains microevolutionary adaptation. I present the math and the experimental evidence. You don't even have smoke.It's all bluff and bluster, no substance.
Show the math. You won't.I gave you the name of the textbook repeatedly. Evolutionary Analysis, 5th Edition. Chapter 1 all about HIV and it specifically covers the subject of HIV drug resistance and the use of drug cocktails to combat anti-viral resistance. There are also numerous references in said chapter to the published literature.
Misdirection will not get you where you want to be.Do you understand that I published the math that predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before he performed the experiment? And this math explains how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations? These adaptational mutations don't add up, they are joint random events. And they are events where the probability of success in a single trial (replication) is very small. That's why it takes so many replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one success. But when that lucky member does get that adaptational mutation, the probability of one of its descendants getting another adaptational mutation is very small unless that new variant replicates many times. If it takes two or more mutations to give an improvement in fitness, it takes exponentially more replications to have any probability of adaptation success for that circumstance. That's why my answer to your question about macroevolution is 3 selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. That's all it takes to blunt the microevolutionary process of HIV and have successful treatment. It takes vast populations to evolve and adapt to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, much larger populations than have ever existed on earth.
You are the one that claims there is some magical evolutionary biology book out there that explains microevolutionary adaptation.
I present the math and the experimental evidence.
Show the math. You won't.
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?