Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Alan Kleinman]

It's a bit more complicated.
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

The NYT as a scientific reference, and you complain about Statistics in Medicine.

So if explaining the evolution of bacteria into humans is a bit too complicated, why don't you explain the K & L experiments. Oh, I forgot, you already accept my explanation.

Hey Frank, when I first saw this post, I thought to myself, how does Luca Brasi have anything to do with biological evolution?

 

[Yttrium]

That's not it at all. It's all about computing the joint probability of one or more adaptive mutations accumulating in a lineage. If you have minimal skills in probability theory, this paper explains how you do that calculation:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection

This paper gives the fundamental mathematics of the evolution of a lineage of replicators to a single selection pressure. Read it and see if it makes sense to you.

I have a MS in math. And yes, that's exactly it. The paper starts off noting what I said, that a population can be affected by a variety of selection pressures. Then it explores a single continuous selection pressure, an antibiotic, and the probability of developing the mutations necessary to overcome it. That's not macroevolution. That's one small step on the way to macroevolution.

And since the selection pressures eventually resulting in macroevolution can vary wildly, the probabilities are not multiplicative. It's not a matter of advantages stacking on top of advantages.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is any of that evidence experimental, and I mean repeatable, not this silly idea that an observation is an experiment. If so, now is the time to post that experimental evidence. And while you are at it, why don't you give the correct mathematical explanation of microevolutionary adaptation. Start with the mathematical explanation of how drug resistance evolves in the Kishony experiment.

I've already described the relation between evolutionary theory, its successful predictions, and the multiple independent lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, that support it. If you feel your lab-based calculation is enough to invalidate a working model based on the accumulated evidence of 150 years of continuous research in multiple fields, it's quite literally your problem.

Don't expect to be taken seriously until you come up with a plausible alternative mechanism.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

See, that's why I'd like you to start a new thread. You need to step back and explain what you mean by all this. No doubt it's scattered over a number of pages, but I don't know where to put it all together.

My apologies Yttrium, as I said previously, there is no guarantee that a new thread would be swamped with all kinds of posts. Try reading the paper on the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection because that is the core of this discussion. If you still feel that a new thread will help, I'll reconsider, but I don't really want to start posting on multiple threads.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have already said that you are not a biologist but does that mean you can't understand anything about biology? Actually, I think the fundamental principles of biological evolution are pretty simple, it's the biochemistry of a cell that is difficult. It's pretty incredible that a strand of DNA constructs and controls all of that.

Actually, I don't assume anything about the academic training of anyone I debate with. I just find it curious that anyone that is not a biologist would complain when I say that biologists are not doing the physics and mathematics of biological evolution correctly.

I said that because you were addressing the readers of this thread as if we were all biologist:

But you biologists still don't get it

That's why I said that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Explain to me why Big Pharma would want their drug treatments to be more durable? They make their money when their drugs are under patent. If you can treat infections with combinations of generic antibiotics that only cost 5 bucks, why would you spend hundreds for drugs that are under patent protection?

Meh, it was just a suggestion, considering you've been given the bum's rush everywhere else.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I've already described the relation between evolutionary theory, its successful predictions, and the multiple independent lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, that support it. If you feel your lab-based calculation is enough to invalidate a working model based on the accumulated evidence of 150 years of continuous research in multiple fields, it's quite literally your problem.

So you don't have experimental evidence of macroevolution and you can't explain the evolution of drug resistance and the Kishony experiment. So what exactly is it that biologists do? Tell naive school children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?

Don't expect to be taken seriously until you come up with a plausible alternative mechanism.

And macroevolution is your plausible explanation?

 

[Frank Robert]

What makes someone a biologist?

A bachelor's degree
A specialty
An internship
A graduate degree.

Do they have to believe that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?

Belief isn't necessary when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur and that today birds are living dinosaurs.
Birds: Living Dinosaurs
When you deny the science the only thing left is fairy-tales'

What makes a person an engineer is that they can explain the physics and mathematics of engineering systems. Biologists should be able to explain the physics and mathematics of biological systems.

Which they do. Some more than others.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is any of that evidence experimental, and I mean repeatable, not this silly idea that an observation is an experiment. If so, now is the time to post that experimental evidence. And while you are at it, why don't you give the correct mathematical explanation of microevolutionary adaptation. Start with the mathematical explanation of how drug resistance evolves in the Kishony experiment.

There are whole fields of science outside of evolutionary biology that work exclusively or primarily on observation starting with geology, astronomy, archeology. Do you deny the scientific nature of those fields?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I said that because you were addressing the readers of this thread as if we were all biologist:



That's why I said that.

What are you worried about if your training in science doesn't consist of a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What are you worried about if your training in science doesn't consist of a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics?

You're projecting, engineer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... macroevolution is your plausible explanation?

Macroevolution is a model that works; as already mentioned, it has been tested, makes fruitful predictions, has deep explanatory power, provides insight into and understanding of what we've observed, has unifying scope, is elegant and simple, is consistent with our existing knowledgebase, etc. This is pretty much all one can expect from a scientific theory. A plausible explanation needs to satisfy as many of these criteria as possible.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

A bachelor's degree
A specialty
An internship
A graduate degree.

I've got a master's degree in advanced biological sciences. You have no idea how many years I spent in school.

Belief isn't necessary when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur and that today birds are living dinosaurs.
Birds: Living Dinosaurs
When you deny the science the only thing left is fairy-tales'

Is this one of your "observations" are "experiments"?

Which they do. Some more than others.

Where's that biologist's explanation of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiment. Saying that you know that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolving into mammals and not being able to explain these K&L experiments is like an engineer claiming they can explain physics and mathematics of the motion of a bridge to wind loading and a building to an earthquake but unable to explain the motion of a pendulum or mass and spring.

 

[Frank Robert]

So you don't have experimental evidence of macroevolution.

You continue to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevoltion.
Denial will not get you what you want to be.

Tell naive school children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?

No need to tell school children fairy tales, most knowledgeable people know that reptiles did not evolve into birds and that Amniotes called synapsids were the ancestors of mammals.

And macroevolution is your plausible explanation?

We are still waiting for your evidence that debunks the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevolution. The elephant in the room:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There are whole fields of science outside of evolutionary biology that work exclusively or primarily on observation starting with geology, astronomy, archeology. Do you deny the scientific nature of those fields?

Look what happened happens when the Kishony and Lenski experiments are introduced into the field of biology. How many more adaptive evolutionary experiments are going to be funded once the results of these experiments sink into the psyche of biologists? There are already some adaptational experiments with sexual reproducers (yeast) that exhibit the same mathematical behavior as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. At some point, people need to reconsider the interpretation of their observations when experimental evidence contradicts these observations.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You're projecting, engineer.

Call it a differential diagnosis.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Macroevolution is a model that works; as already mentioned, it has been tested, makes fruitful predictions, has deep explanatory power, provides insight into and understanding of what we've observed, has unifying scope, is elegant and simple, is consistent with our existing knowledgebase, etc. This is pretty much all one can expect from a scientific theory. A plausible explanation needs to satisfy as many of these criteria as possible.

Frum, the mathematical models I use have well-defined variables with specific mathematical relationships between these variables. If you can't define that mathematical relationship specifically, you should try to at least specify your variables, and then you can write out your equation as a functional equation.

So what are the variables for your macroevolution model? Does it include population size or mutation rate?

 

[Frank Robert]

I've got a master's degree in advanced biological sciences. You have no idea how many years I spent in school.

You could've fooled me and most other knowledgeable people here.

Is this one of your "observations" are "experiments"?

With all your education you still don't know what scientific evidence is.

Where's that biologist's explanation of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiment.

You obviously are not looking in the right places.

Saying that you know that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolving into mammals

It appears you failed comprehend what I wrote in at least four of my previous comments.

and not being able to explain these K&L experiments is like an engineer claiming they can explain physics and mathematics of the motion of a bridge to wind loading and a building to an earthquake but unable to explain the motion of a pendulum or mass and spring.

Where did you get the idea that I am an engineer? My field is addictions.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You continue to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevoltion.
Denial will not get you what you want to be.

No need to tell school children fairy tales, most knowledgeable people know that reptiles did not evolve into birds and that Amniotes called synapsids were the ancestors of mammals.

We are still waiting for your evidence that debunks the overwhelming scientific evidence for macroevolution. The elephant in the room:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Any time you want to present an experimental example that contradicts the math that I've presented, go for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look what happened happens when the Kishony and Lenski experiments are introduced into the field of biology. How many more adaptive evolutionary experiments are going to be funded once the results of these experiments sink into the psyche of biologists? There are already some adaptational experiments with sexual reproducers (yeast) that exhibit the same mathematical behavior as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. At some point, people need to reconsider the interpretation of their observations when experimental evidence contradicts these observations.

You are a master at avoiding the question. So I repeat:

There are whole fields of science outside of evolutionary biology that work exclusively or primarily on observation starting with geology, astronomy, archeology. Do you deny the scientific nature of those fields?