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.
So you compute the joint probabilities of random events by the addition of those probabilities? What happens if the two microevolutionary events, each with a probability of occurring are 0.6? Is the joint probability 1.2?
This makes no sense. Calculating probabilities is pointless. You are now making the mistake of assuming that evolution has a goal.
Why don't you show us how you do the mathematics of macroevolution? You won't. You can't even do the mathematics of microevolution correctly. If you could, you could correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
Again, what "mathematics"? Your posts make no sense. They indicate that you do not understand what you are debating against.
So you think the improvement in fitness is not a goal? That explains why you can't do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Of course, you have to know how to compute probabilities to do that math, sadly, you don't.
No, improved fitness is a result. You are conflating goals and results. I can't "do the mathematics" because your demand is meaningless.
It's the mathematics of DNA evolution that I'm talking about. If you want to understand microevolution correctly, you have to understand probability theory. The reason is that mutations are random occurrences. In order to do the mathematics of stochastic processes (DNA evolution is a stochastic process), you must use probability theory and you must apply these principles correctly.
You are the one who introduced the word "goal"! I prefer the word "adaptation". What is the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring? Do that math correctly and you can predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I'll even give you a hint, start with the definition of the mutation rate for a single replication.
No, you are simply trying to misapply mathematics and then use the argument from large numbers fallacy. I can use that fallacy to "prove" that you do not exist.
You can model DNA evolution using Markov models but you can also do the mathematics using nested binomial probability problems. Both approaches give identical results. And both require the multiplication rule when computing joint probabilities.
OK, so you are talking about the formation of a new branch on a phylogenetic tree. By that definition, the Kishony and Lenski experiments fit that definition. Each mutant variant represents a new species and there is no interbreeding between these variants. My suggestion is to understand the clonal population experiments first before introducing recombination.The evolution of distinct species.
For arguments sake, let's assume a divergence of populations whereby they no longer naturally interbreed (e.g. gene flow no longer occurs between the populations).
My math very nicely predicts the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It also explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. This math works just fine for predicting the behavior of all empirical examples of DNA evolution.
