Alan Kleinman
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 796
- 127
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Where's the experiment?Misdirection will not get you where you want to be.
I told you several times that I have no reason to question your math. My point, for the 3rd time, your math along with your predictions does not disprove macroevolution.
You have yet to falsity even of the
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Your non-acceptance of evidence is not falsification of evidence.
I edited that post and show you how to post a link and give the equation that describes the evolution of HIV to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. It's that easy. Here, I"ll do it again since you missed my edit.Look up the book. You won't.
Let me show you how to do it. Here's the paper that explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Equation (9) is the correct mathematics for the evolution of HIV subject to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. A graphical representation of the equation is given in Figure (5)
It's really simple when you have the mathematics and empirical evidence which you don't have.
You believe you found a loop hole because millions of years of evolution can not be reproduced in a lab.Where's the experiment?
I've lost track of the overall point you're drawing from your toy model, however, I notice a recent study, (including an evidence based quantitative math model), which appears to make the case for how evolution proceeds under the condition of two traits restricted by a trade off, along with an environment changing over long periods, (which is a much more realistic model, IMO):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.
The phenotype evolves in the direction of breaking negative regulatory elements, because it's an easy path, statistically. This relates to the availability of useful mutations. They make the point that microevolution is dominated by changes in negative regulatory elements because it's statistically easy to find a mutation that breaks things, compared with one that builds new functions or parts.This study sheds new light on how evolution proceeds when performance depends on two traits that are restricted by a trade-off. Though a mathematical model suggests that the fastest migrating populations should be composed of cells that swim fast and reproduce quickly, what we found was that populations achieve faster migration through two divergent evolutionary paths that are mutually exclusive: in other words, these populations improved in either swimming speed or reproduction rate, but not both.
It's not a loophole, it's a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of a thermodynamics process, adaptive microevolution. If you think microevolution and the laws of physics worked differently millions of years ago explain why.You believe you found a loop hole because millions of years of evolution can not be reproduced in a lab.
I do what I can, I get my papers peer-reviewed and published. I'm posting here because Pita requested a Creationist explanation of micro and macroevolution. I've had to correct you macroevolutionists of the false notion that microevolutionary steps add up. You can't even recognize that microevolutionary steps are random events and you don't compute the joint probability of random events occurring by adding their probabilities.That you refuse to affirm the consilience of scientific evidence from numerous related fields does not disqualify it as scientific evidence. If you believe that your math is superior evidence for evolution then you should do something about it beyond bluster in a Christian forum.
Where is your toy model that explains macroevolution. At least my model explains all the experimental and empirical evidence of microevolutionary adaption including the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.I've lost track of the overall point you're drawing from your toy model, however, I notice a recent study, (including an evidence based quantitative math model), which appears to make the case for how evolution proceeds under the condition of two traits restricted by a trade off, along with an environment changing over long periods, (which is a much more realistic model, IMO):
Do you even recognize and understand how to solve their equation (1)? I do (check out my PhD dissertation, I solved a more difficult form of this equation) and it is not the correct mathematics to describe microevolutionary adaptation. Microevolutionary adaptation is a stochastic process that is described by the mathematics of probability theory, not a conservation equation.
I don't doubt that this is a microevolutionary experiment but they are not describing or measuring the rate of adaptive mutations accumulating in their lineages. What their equation (1) is modeling is the bacterial density as a function of position and time. The first term to the left of the equal sign is the change in density with respects to time, the first term to the right of the equal sign is accounts for diffusion of the bacteria, the second term to the right accounts for movement the movement of the bacteria due to a chemo-attractant, and the last term takes into account the growth of the bacteria. Equation (2) takes into account the change in concentration and diffusion of the chemo-attractant. They are not modeling mathematically microevolutionary adaptation. They are selecting for variants with different swimming speeds to a chemo-attractant from a larger population and then identifying the mutation in those variants.The phenotype evolves in the direction of breaking negative regulatory elements, because it's an easy path, statistically. This relates to the availability of useful mutations. They make the point that microevolution is dominated by changes in negative regulatory elements because it's statistically easy to find a mutation that breaks things, compared with one that builds new functions or parts.
It seems to me that what this is saying, is that the selected for beneficial mutation for any given era, can still carry other beneficial mutations forward, for use at some future time. This seems to have not been considered in your conclusions about the diminishing effects of the multiplicative probabilities?
Mutations on the regulatory elements appears to alter the simplistic assumptions you've made your model, I think(?)
(Apologies if this has already been covered, in this now huge thread).
At least my model explains all the experimental and empirical evidence of microevolutionary adaption including the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.
The mathematics may be trivial but you are failing to correlate the math to the physics. My model is not a model of competition, it is a model of adaptation. What you can predict with my model based on the number of replications of a particular variant and mutation rate, the probability of at least one adaptive mutation occurring.
Fixation is a possible outcome of competition between different variants in a limited carrying capacity environment. This is why I continually harp on people to study and understand the similarities and differences between the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
The Kishony experiment is carried out in a relatively large carrying capacity environment that allows sufficient population size for adaptation to occur without fixation of any variant. Look again at that experiment. Colonies of drug-adapted variants grow in the regions where drug is present while the drug-sensitive variants replicate along as long as resources are available in the drug-free region.
On the other hand, the Lenski experiment is carried out in a much lower carrying capacity environment that doesn't allow for the population size to be large enough to get that reasonable probability of an adaptive mutation occurring in a single-day growth cycle.
Understand this first and then we can discuss your Inuit example further.
Do you even recognize and understand how to solve their equation (1)? I do (check out my PhD dissertation, I solved a more difficult form of this equation) and it is not the correct mathematics to describe microevolutionary adaptation. Microevolutionary adaptation is a stochastic process that is described by the mathematics of probability theory, not a conservation equation.
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?
All this time touting your math around the biological community and you still don't understand how the various fields of biology and medicine work and interact? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!Why couldn't you macroevolutionist predict the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why did it take so long to figure out that the treatment of HIV requires 3 drug therapy. Why will it take so long to figure out that single drug targeted cancer therapy will only work in the very earliest stages of the cancer?
I'll think about doing that. It is no guarantee that there won't be the same extraneous noise in a new thread as on this thread. But it might be worthwhile to step back, and refresh the explanation of microevolutionary adaptation starting from the simplest cases in the simplest environments.Could you present your model in a new thread? I'm having a hard time putting what you're talking about together in this thread.
Evolutionary competition and evolutionary adaptive microevolution are distinct physical phenomena with different governing physics and mathematical behaviors.You say your model is a competition model, but all I've seen is a calculation of cumulative probability of many, many chances to get at least one rare event. Where's the competition part?
I'm familiar with the math as well but SelfSim's example isn't an experimental model of microevolutionary adaptation, as you say, it is a model of migration of bacteria model. And I have a lot of training and experience in finite-difference problems. I've got a couple of papers out there where I solved non-linear problems and that's the kind of work I did when I worked on the Space Shuttle.I know many ways to solve the diffusion equations. Crank-Nicolson has some nice characteristics for stability. Since that paper is modeling the migration of bacteria on the medium a reaction-diffusion equation is quite appropriate.
Here you are demonstrating that you haven't gotten a sense of what are the most important features of the microevolutionary adaptation problem. The mutation rate is not the primary determiner of the rate of microevolution. It is the multiplication rule of probabilities that drives this process. HIV has a mutation rate of ~1e-5, certainly much higher than the human mutation rate. However, adaptation to each additional selection pressure imposes another instance of the multiplication rule on that lineage. This means that in order for that variant to get the multiple mutations necessary to get a step improvement in fitness requires an exponentially larger population size. Even with a mutation rate of 1e-5, HIV needs a population size of about 1e15 for there to be a reasonable probability of that variant to occur for an adaptational step to 3 simultaneous selection conditions.The number I'm familiar with is 50-100 new mutations in each new human. This would put the effective rate at ~2e-8. (Which is about 20x the rate you keep quoting for bacteria and the earlier numbers you gave on how many fixable adaptive mutations in humans.)
Too bad none of those discoveries include the correct explanations of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.All this time touting your math around the biological community and you still don't understand how the various fields of biology and medicine work and interact? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
But I suppose mostly biologists in fields where macroevolution is particularly relevant have been too busy making discoveries using a model that, in practice, works very well.
It takes a long time for drugs to be tested for safety and efficacy, etc, particularly potentially cytotoxic drugs, and when combining them in multidrug treatments, such testing is considerably more difficult. Nevertheless, a variety of multidrug therapies are now available for cancer treatment and the benefits of multidrug treatments for bacterial and viral infections have been known for some time.Too bad none of those discoveries include the correct explanations of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.
Macroevolution doesn't work differently. The fact that we are unable to duplicate millions to billions of years in the lab does not negate macroevolution.It's not a loophole, it's a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of a thermodynamics process, adaptive microevolution. If you think microevolution and the laws of physics worked differently millions of years ago explain why.
You are not considering the fact that it is you who misunderstands macroevolution not the biologists. Why else would you need to deny the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution? Denial of evidence does not falsify the evidence.Why is it that biologists don't understand that evolutionary competition is a first law of thermodynamics process?
Sure medicine can be toxic. There's an old saying that every medicine is a little bit of poison. But that doesn't change the fact that cancers give rise to be rapidly evolving cell lines with lots of diversity in their cell lines. And because of this lots of resistant variants can appear very early. How early? Read this paper and get an idea of how to estimate that value:It takes a long time for drugs to be tested for safety and efficacy, etc, particularly potentially cytotoxic drugs, and when combining them in multidrug treatments, such testing is considerably more difficult. Nevertheless, a variety of multidrug therapies are now available for cancer treatment and the benefits of multidrug treatments for bacterial and viral infections have been known for some time.
Perhaps you've missed the boat...
At least it didn't take a billion years for you to figure out that I did the math correctly for Kishony and Lenski experiments. Just how many bacterial replications do you think it would take for them to evolve into a biologist?Macroevolution doesn't work differently. The fact that we are unable to duplicate millions to billions of years in the lab does not negate macroevolution.
Oh? Biologists have a misconception of how macroevolution is related to microevolution. And you should understand this misconception since you now understand my explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments and that explanation is correct. This scientifically inaccurate way of thinking has been circulating in the field of biology for at least a century, that is, that random processes can create life but also transform life from some simple form into all the complex life forms we see today. Abiogenesis and the ToE, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology, you can choose which is which.You are not considering the fact that it is you who misunderstands macroevolution not the biologists. Why else would you need to deny the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution? Denial of evidence does not falsify the evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
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?