Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Astrid]

Sigh! Ok, out comes the spoon.
There are two random trials in the evolutionary adaptation process. The first random trial is the replication which has two possible outcomes, one outcome is that a mutation occurs and the other outcome is that the mutation does not occur. The other random trial in the evolutionary adaptation process is the mutation itself. When a mutation occurs, it can be a base substitution, an insertion, a deletion, any other mutation that might occur. When that makes sense to you, I'll go on to the next step in the analysis.

That was obvious before you started.
I had the impression that you were claiming
TOE is wrong and could demonstrate it.

Cut to the chase and explain it, IF, that is
you can.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That was obvious before you started.
I had the impression that you were claiming
TOE is wrong and could demonstrate it.

Cut to the chase and explain it, IF, that is
you can.

Have you always been this impatient?

Then, the probability for a beneficial mutation A occurring on a single member in a single replication is P(A) = P(BeneficialA)mu
where A is the beneficial mutation, P(BeneficialA) is the probability of all possible mutations that might occur at that site that it is the beneficial mutation, and mu is the probability that any mutation will occur at that site in a single replication.

 

[Astrid]

Have you always been this impatient?

Then, the probability for a beneficial mutation A occurring on a single member in a single replication is P(A) = P(BeneficialA)mu
where A is the beneficial mutation, P(BeneficialA) is the probability of all possible mutations that might occur at that site that it is the beneficial mutation, and mu is the probability that any mutation will occur at that site in a single replication.

Look, just never mind. You are never going to
be able explain your point, so just stop the charade.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Look, just never mind. You are never going to
be able explain your point, so just stop the charade.

No charade, just mathematical facts of life that you don't want to accept. Since you have studied probability theory, why don't you show us how to calculate the probability of mutation A occurring at least once in "n" replications?

 

[Speedwell]

No charade, just mathematical facts of life that you don't want to accept. Since you have studied probability theory, why don't you show us how to calculate the probability of mutation A occurring at least once in "n" replications?

Not much use in understanding the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Not much use in understanding the theory of evolution.

Not much of anything.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Not much use in understanding the theory of evolution.

But it does show why it takes a billion replication for each adaptive step when only a single selection pressure is acting on the population. The numbers get exponentially worse with each additional selection pressure acting on the population simultaneously. When you have 3 selection pressures acting on a population simultaneously, you have durable treatment for HIV. So you are correct! The correct mathematics of evolutionary adaptation is not much use in understanding the theory of evolution. In fact, it shows why the theory of evolution is not true. It's that pesky multiplication rule of probabilities that does in the ToE. The ToE doesn't have any practical application and actually is a harmful theory to those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

 

[Ken-1122]

Its not a conclusion and I certainly don't claim to know.
Its my opinion.
Did you read what I said about rabbits in Oz?
They are all immune to myxomitpsis( sp?) now.
now. Is that evolution in your view?

Was there a change in the gene pool? If so, then yes.

 

[Astrid]

Was there a change in the gene pool? If so, then yes.

Its a first half step. If that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why does it take a billion replication for each evolutionary adaptation step in the Kishony experiment? When you understand that, you will see the point.

IOW it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

IOW it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

It does if you want to explain correctly the physics and mathematics of evolutionary adaptation.

 

[Ken-1122]

It does if you want to explain correctly the physics and mathematics of evolutionary adaptation.

No, I have no interest in explaining any of that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Its a first half step. If that.

What's a half step? Either the gene pool changed or it did not. I will assume from your response the gene pool did not change thus evolution did not take place.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, I have no interest in explaining any of that.

You couldn't explain it if you wanted to.

 

[Ken-1122]

You couldn't explain it if you wanted to.

Why would I want to? I made my point, I supported my point; that is all I was interested in doing.

 

[Astrid]

You couldn't explain it if you wanted to.

Droll. Almost like what I said to you.
Almost.

 

[Astrid]

What's a half step? Either the gene pool changed or it did not. I will assume from your response the gene pool did not change thus evolution did not take place.

There are a number of definitions, clustered around
the same basic ideas.
To my way of thinking, flies that adapted to pesticide DDT
did not evolve, rather, there are many genetic variations
present at any given time.
The ones that chanced to be DDT resistant were very successful for a time.
As soon as DDT ceased to be used, the so called super flies varnished.

If you choose to call that evolution, go ahead. I dont agree,
but then I don't agree that sharks are fish, either.
Not worth further discussion, let alone the grim spectre of snark.

 

[Speedwell]

There are a number of definitions, clustered around
the same basic ideas.
To my way of thinking, flies that adapted to pesticide DDT
did not evolve, rather, there are many genetic variations
present at any given time.
The ones that chanced to be DDT resistant were very successful for a time.
As soon as DDT ceased to be used, the so called super flies varnished.

If you choose to call that evolution, go ahead. I dont agree,
but then I don't agree that sharks are fish, either.
Not worth further discussion, let alone the grim spectre of snark.

Yet you mention an interesting point which creationists often miss: a favorable variant must already present in the population for natural selection to offer an opportunity to it. Natural selection selects from amongst living creatures, not genomes or potential mutations. For evolution to occur, a critter must already be alive and kicking that can take advantage of changing selective criteria.

 

[Ken-1122]

There are a number of definitions, clustered around
the same basic ideas.
To my way of thinking, flies that adapted to pesticide DDT
did not evolve, rather, there are many genetic variations
present at any given time.
The ones that chanced to be DDT resistant were very successful for a time.
As soon as DDT ceased to be used, the so called super flies varnished.

I'm not familiar with the particular fly example you are referring to, but if there was a change in the gene pool, according to biology that is evolution
Biological Evolution - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The differences between adaption and evolution is even though adaption is the first step in evolution, it is a short term change, where as evolution is a long term changes that occur at the genetic level
Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution - Pediaa.Com

 

[Speedwell]

dp