Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

Whatever you say Pita. Why won't you discuss Joe Felsenstein's text THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS? You keep saying I should study a modern evolutionary biology text. Here's one with lot's of mathematics. Which equation(s) pertain to the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? Where's the mathematical model of macroevolution?

What I'm proffering is a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolution. You say my math is wrong and I should study some "modern" evolutionary biology. Well, Felsenstein updated his textbook in 2019. Do we have to wait for the 2022 version of the text for the mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments?

Oops, forgot to include the disclaimer in that post:

If you're going to respond with some combination of the words "microevolution", "mathematics", "Kishony", and "Lenski", you can save yourself the bother. We've already seen that one.​

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Oops, forgot to include the disclaimer in that post:

If you're going to respond with some combination of the words "microevolution", "mathematics", "Kishony", and "Lenski", you can save yourself the bother. We've already seen that one.​

You forgot the important part of the disclaimer, that part about where macroevolutionists fail to give the correct physical and mathematical explanation of those two experiments, and why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV, and why combination herbicides and pesticides work to prevent selection of resistant variants,... Where's your modern evolutionary biology textbook that explains that? Do you think what you are doing is good for the field of biology, let alone the harm it does to society by failing to provide a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail?

 

[pitabread]

and why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV, and why combination herbicides and pesticides work to prevent selection of resistant variants,... Where's your modern evolutionary biology textbook that explains that?

Serious question: Do you not remember any of the previous discussion in this thread?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This thread has become addictive - I had no idea how much I could enjoy listening to a broken record of an amateur musician blowing his own trumpet. It's like watching a looping video of an avoidable car crash - you know what's coming but still hope, with each loop, the driver will recognise his mistake and stop.

 

[pitabread]

This thread has become addictive - I had no idea how much I could enjoy listening to a broken record of an amateur musician blowing his own trumpet. It's like watching a looping video of an avoidable car crash - you know what's coming but still hope, with each loop, the driver will recognise his mistake and stop.

It's reminding me of xianghua threads, albeit with fewer robot penguins and self-replicating cars.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not even asking you for a detailed mechanism, just name the variables in your macroevolutionary model.

I'm not a geneticist, but I'm sure you can find them in the references that are available. Thing is Alan, as I've already explained, we have a working model. If you think your mathematical model shows the proposed macroevolutionary mechanism is wrong, you'll have to find a way to reconcile them. People won't abandon a working model that's been fruitful for 150 years just because you say it's wrong.

Einstein didn't just say that Newtonian physics was wrong, he produced testable hypotheses that his model would answer questions and fill gaps that were unanswered and unfilled. Last I heard, you'd declined an invitation to produce a testable example to show where the predictions of your model differ from the predictions of the current evolutionary model.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Serious question: Do you not remember any of the previous discussion in this thread?

Oh, are you going to actually ask a serious question?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

This thread has become addictive - I had no idea how much I could enjoy listening to a broken record of an amateur musician blowing his own trumpet. It's like watching a looping video of an avoidable car crash - you know what's coming but still hope, with each loop, the driver will recognise his mistake and stop.

I thought biologists were professionals.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not a geneticist, but I'm sure you can find them in the references that are available. Thing is Alan, as I've already explained, we have a working model. If you think your mathematical model shows the proposed macroevolutionary mechanism is wrong, you'll have to find a way to reconcile them. People won't abandon a working model that's been fruitful for 150 years just because you say it's wrong.

You don't understand Frumious how much is invested in this mathematically irrational model of macroevolution.

Einstein didn't just say that Newtonian physics was wrong, he produced testable hypotheses that his model would answer questions and fill gaps that were unanswered and unfilled. Last I heard, you'd declined an invitation to produce a testable example to show where the predictions of your model differ from the predictions of the current evolutionary model.

Einstein didn't say that Newtonian physics was wrong, he demonstrated the limitations of the model as velocities approach the speed of light. I'm demonstrating the limitations of microevolution and that limitation is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.

 

[pitabread]

Oh, are you going to actually ask a serious question?

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't understand Frumious how much is invested in this mathematically irrational model of macroevolution.

Oh, I think I do.

Einstein didn't say that Newtonian physics was wrong, he demonstrated the limitations of the model as velocities approach the speed of light. I'm demonstrating the limitations of microevolution and that limitation is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Well, you say that but you need to show how your maths explains the multiple lines of evidence the macroevolutionary model is based on better than the existing model; show how it explains known gaps or puzzles in the current model or provide some testable prediction that will show a flaw in the current model.

This is how science works, like it or lump it.

 

[pitabread]

Well, you say that but you need to show how your maths explains the multiple lines of evidence the macroevolutionary model is based on better than the existing model; show how it explains known gaps or puzzles in the current model or provide some testable prediction that will show a flaw in the current model.

This is how science works, like it or lump it.

You mean ranting on random internet message boards isn't going to get it done?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You mean ranting on random internet message boards isn't going to get it done?

Apparently not, so far; but you'll have to ask Alan

 

[pitabread]

Apparently not, so far; but you'll have to ask Alan

He seems to have been at this for 6+ years now. I guess if it had been going well, he probably wouldn't have eventually wound up here.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'll take that as a "no".

If that's what you want.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Oh, I think I do.

Then it should be clear. You can't reconcile a macroevolutionary model with the multiplication rule when it is the multiplication rule that is the dominant governing mathematical principle of adaptive evolution.

Well, you say that but you need to show how your maths explains the multiple lines of evidence the macroevolutionary model is based on better than the existing model; show how it explains known gaps or puzzles in the current model or provide some testable prediction that will show a flaw in the current model.

This is how science works, like it or lump it.

You macroevolutionists say there are these multiple lines of evidence but when I ask you to give what you think is your best line of evidence, you don't give it. All your lines start with the presumption that common descent is true. So give me a rational explanation of how a reptile lineage can transform into a bird lineage. I'll even make it easy for you. Tell us what the selection pressure is that would transform a non-feather producer into a feather producer. What proteins need to evolve, what genetic control system turns those proteins on and off in the stem cell to grow the correct feather in the correct anatomic position.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You mean ranting on random internet message boards isn't going to get it done?

How about a peer-reviewed and published model of how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work? We haven't seen any papers like this from the macroevolutionist clique.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Apparently not, so far; but you'll have to ask Alan

It was Pita that asked for this, he's just getting what he asked for.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

He seems to have been at this for 6+ years now. I guess if it had been going well, he probably wouldn't have eventually wound up here.

I've been doing this for a lot more than 6 years. Unraveling this bungled mess of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution biologists have made of this subject has taken more than 6 years.

And what makes you think things are going well for you macroevolutionists? Do you think this iceberg is going to simply melt away and your ship won't hit the multiplication rule? The ship has already hit this iceberg and one by one, the compartments are filling with water. You think that just because the ship hasn't sunk instantly that it will never sink. That's just what the captain thought.

And I ended up here because you asked for it. Or have you already forgotten who started this thread?

 

[pitabread]

Do you think this iceberg is going to simply melt away and your ship won't hit the multiplication rule? The ship has already hit this iceberg and one by one, the compartments are filling with water. You think that just because the ship hasn't sunk instantly that it will never sink.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Also worth noting is claims of the "waiting time" problem (which really is what your argument boils down to) have been around for over 60 years. Yet evolutionary biology keeps trucking along.

And I ended up here because you asked for it.

I don't recall specifically asking for your participation.