Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Strathos]

Information (order) is the converse of entropy (disorder). Mutations cause disorder.

That's a Kindergarten - level understanding of the concept. Thermodynamic entropy is specifically defined as the amount of unusable heat energy in a system. More complex objects and organisms have more entropy, not less.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It's not that the problem is the large numbers, it's that you seem unable to accept that evolution can occur the way the theory of evolution describes with the number of animals in the world.

The reason why I don't accept the ToE is that the carrying capacity of the earth will not support the population sizes necessary for DNA evolution to operate. Here's a list of populations for different species:
Lists of organisms by population
In particular, look at the values for Great Apes (primates). In that list, other than humans, only the Macaque has a population in the millions. That is far too small a number for DNA evolution to work with any adaptive efficacy. Even the human population of over 7 billion gives only minimal adaptive potential, only a possibility of 1 or 2 adaptive mutations scattered throughout the population. And if you consider other mammalian populations, very few species achieve the population sizes for DNA evolution to work. You have to consider rodent population sizes in order to get lineages that can adapt to rodenticides. But if two different rodenticides are used simultaneously, the ability to adapt is highly unlikely because of the much larger populations needed for that DNA evolution process to operate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The reason why I don't accept the ToE is that the carrying capacity of the earth will not support the population sizes necessary for DNA evolution to operate. Here's a list of populations for different species:
Lists of organisms by population
In particular, look at the values for Great Apes (primates). In that list, other than humans, only the Macaque has a population in the millions. That is far too small a number for DNA evolution to work with any adaptive efficacy. Even the human population of over 7 billion gives only minimal adaptive potential, only a possibility of 1 or 2 adaptive mutations scattered throughout the population. And if you consider other mammalian populations, very few species achieve the population sizes for DNA evolution to work. You have to consider rodent population sizes in order to get lineages that can adapt to rodenticides. But if two different rodenticides are used simultaneously, the ability to adapt is highly unlikely because of the much larger populations needed for that DNA evolution process to operate.

Yeah, this whole thing really does just read as an argument from incredulity on your part. I will not lie about that.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Okay, you've answered my questions.

Now, here's a question for you, and I do want to answer this fully and wholly: why do you think that all of your stuff is correct, and the work of all the other scientists in the world is wrong?

First of all, not all scientists reject my work. And the reason I think my stuff is correct is that I have experience working on and solving difficult scientific problems which have been published and accepted by the scientific community. But it's more than that. When you work on a scientific problem and get the correct solution, all the empirical data falls into place. It becomes clear why the Kishony and Lenski experiments work the way they do, it becomes clear why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, why combination herbicides, pesticides, and cancer treatments suppress the evolutionary process. Try and find a real, measurable, and repeatable empirical example of DNA evolution that doesn't operate in the mathematical pattern I've presented. There are no empirical examples that work otherwise, only the belief that somehow it worked differently in the past. Why some scientists reject my work, you will have to ask them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First of all, not all scientists reject my work. And the reason I think my stuff is correct is that I have experience working on and solving difficult scientific problems which have been published and accepted by the scientific community. But it's more than that. When you work on a scientific problem and get the correct solution, all the empirical data falls into place. It becomes clear why the Kishony and Lenski experiments work the way they do, it becomes clear why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, why combination herbicides, pesticides, and cancer treatments suppress the evolutionary process. Try and find a real, measurable, and repeatable empirical example of DNA evolution that doesn't operate in the mathematical pattern I've presented. There are no empirical examples that work otherwise, only the belief that somehow it worked differently in the past. Why some scientists reject my work, you will have to ask them.

I'll be honest, this sounds like the sort of thing that could get a Noble prize... until we get to the part where it says that "combination herbicides, pesticides and cancer treatments suppress the evolutionary process". The evolutionary process cannot be suppressed. As there is something living, a living organism, evolution acts on it. The correct phrasing would be "kills organisms", because that those do. Herbicides, pesticides and cancer treatments kill organisms, that is what they are designed to do.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yeah, this whole thing really does just read as an argument from incredulity on your part. I will not lie about that.

But the Kishony and Lenski experiments are credible evidence and these experiments show that it takes a billion or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step. If a particular population doesn't have sufficient numbers and then is subject to selection pressure, those populations often go extinct. In fact, most people accept that 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the Kishony and Lenski experiments are credible evidence and these experiments show that it takes a billion or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step. If a particular population doesn't have sufficient numbers and then is subject to selection pressure, those populations often go extinct. In fact, most people accept that 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct.

Yes, species go extinct when their population drops to zero. That's basic biology. But as long as a speicies is alive and has a sufficiently sized breeding population, then it will continue to propagate and breed and thrive. Different animals have different gestation periods so that skews numbers, yes, but that does not mean that the odds are against it. As long as there is life, there will be life.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'll be honest, this sounds like the sort of thing that could get a Noble prize... until we get to the part where it says that "combination herbicides, pesticides and cancer treatments suppress the evolutionary process". The evolutionary process cannot be suppressed. As there is something living, a living organism, evolution acts on it. The correct phrasing would be "kills organisms", because that those do. Herbicides, pesticides and cancer treatments kill organisms, that is what they are designed to do.

Evolution usually doesn't work, the population usually goes extinct. That's what selection pressures do to populations, they kill or impair the replication of some or all members of a population. It doesn't matter whether the selection pressure is an antibiotic, or starvation, or thermal stress, or dehydration, or disease, or predation,... If you want to increase population size, you remove selection pressures. That's what farmers do. They feed and water their crops, give them appropriate nutrients, try to remove competition (weeds, insects, birds, rodents). The ability of a population to adapt to selection conditions depends on the ability of that population to replicate. If the population doesn't replicate, there is no chance for improvement in fitness.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, species go extinct when their population drops to zero. That's basic biology. But as long as a speicies is alive and has a sufficiently sized breeding population, then it will continue to propagate and breed and thrive. Different animals have different gestation periods so that skews numbers, yes, but that does not mean that the odds are against it. As long as there is life, there will be life.

You are making my point. When Kishony's populations reach 1 billion, there's a reasonable probability that he will have a variant resistant to one drug. But that number goes to over a trillion if he uses 2 drugs. Those are the sufficiently sized breeding populations needed to adapt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution usually doesn't work, the population usually goes extinct. That's what selection pressures do to populations, they kill or impair the replication of some or all members of a population. It doesn't matter whether the selection pressure is an antibiotic, or starvation, or thermal stress, or dehydration, or disease, or predation,... If you want to increase population size, you remove selection pressures. That's what farmers do. They feed and water their crops, give them appropriate nutrients, try to remove competition (weeds, insects, birds, rodents). The ability of a population to adapt to selection conditions depends on the ability of that population to replicate. If the population doesn't replicate, there is no chance for improvement in fitness.

That's the most basic rundown of evolution anyone could give.
But selection pressures will always exist. You cannot remove a selection pressure, be that the environment, a predation species or even a man-made creation.
You talk about suppressing the evolutionary change. Suppression means to stop something from happening. To stop evolutionary change, it's not just about removing a selection pressure, it's about outright stopping an organism from living. That's what herbicides, pesticides et al do: they kill.

And no, the ability for a population to adapt does not depend on the ability to reproduce. The ability to reproduce depends on the ability to adapt. A species can adapt that has the ability to reproduce, but a species cannot reproduce if it does not have the ability to adapt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are making my point. When Kishony's populations reach 1 billion, there's a reasonable probability that he will have a variant resistant to one drug. But that number goes to over a trillion if he uses 2 drugs. Those are the sufficiently sized breeding populations needed to adapt.

But you're not making your point. You just say that your point is and leave it. That's it. A population does not need to reach 1 billion to become resistant to a drug. It becomes more likely for it become resistant, but there is always the chance that resistance will become at the 1000th adaptation.

 

[pitabread]

You do when you claim that reptiles evolve into birds or fish evolve into mammals. Sequence the DNA, count the total number of genetic differences and from the genetic differences, determine how many replications necessary to make that genetic transformation.

But again, calculating a post-hoc probability isn't particularly useful. The outcome of evolutionary processes over time (historically) is just what happened to have occurred; it's not necessarily what must have occurred. And given that we don't know the probability space of potential outcomes and have no way to calculate that, it makes such probabilities irrelevant.

It would be like dealing out an order of cards from 52 card deck and then calculating the post-hoc probability of that particular sequence. Even though the probability of that particular sequence is vanishingly small, it still happened because it's simply one possible outcome.

 

[sesquiterpene]

But the Kishony and Lenski experiments are credible evidence and these experiments show that it takes a billion or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step.

Well, you are starting with clonal isolates. Most populations already start with significant diversity. Wouldn't replications = population x #number of generations more accurately reflect a general case? Yet you refer only to a list of population sizes in a different post above.

If a particular population doesn't have sufficient numbers and then is subject to selection pressure, those populations often go extinct.

Your examples also use rather extreme selective agents. it might take many generations for a population to go extinct for more typical pressures, say "it's a bit colder than usual this winter". And indeed, most populations do go extinct.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That's the most basic rundown of evolution anyone could give.
But selection pressures will always exist. You cannot remove a selection pressure, be that the environment, a predation species or even a man-made creation.
You talk about suppressing the evolutionary change. Suppression means to stop something from happening. To stop evolutionary change, it's not just about removing a selection pressure, it's about outright stopping an organism from living. That's what herbicides, pesticides et al do: they kill.

And no, the ability for a population to adapt does not depend on the ability to reproduce. The ability to reproduce depends on the ability to adapt. A species can adapt that has the ability to reproduce, but a species cannot reproduce if it does not have the ability to adapt.

Sure you can remove a selection pressure, if a population is starving, feed it. A big difference between the Kishony and Lenski experiments is the carrying capacity. Lenski limits his population size to 5e8 before he has to replenish the glucose, Kishony's experiment has many colonies each with 1e9 members or more and because of the large carrying capacity in that experiment, his populations can achieve the variants necessary to adapt to the antibiotic selection pressure.

Suppression can be stopping, containing, or inhibiting. For example, HIV treatment doesn't kill the virus, it inhibits the reverse transcriptase and protease enzymes from working correctly, this suppresses or inhibits the virus from replication driving the viral population down. By reducing the population, you reduce the number of variants possible (variant can only occur when there is replication). So it doesn't require killing the population in order to reduce the ability of that population to adapt. Simply keep the selection pressure on the population sufficiently high such that some variant accumulate more than one mutation in order to improve fitness (in the case of HIV, 3 particular mutations must occur on some member for there to be that improvement in fitness.

In order for any variant to have a chance to improve fitness, it must have sufficient fitness to reproduce in the given environment. For example, in the Kishony experiment, the first drug-resistant mutation and allele occur in the drug-free region. That variant can then migrate into the lowest drug concentration region, form a new colony where one of its descendants gets the next beneficial mutation. In other words, the carrying capacity of the environment determines whether those variants occur. Lenski published a paper a couple of years ago where he tested his bacteria for drug resistance. He found that drug resistance to numerous antibiotics existed in his populations even though they had never been exposed to the antibiotics. The reason this happened is that his founders' populations were grown in much larger carrying capacity environments than used in his experiment. This allowed the populations to become very large and diversified including variants that had drug resistance mutations. Likewise, in the Kishony experiment, he has used two different drugs (Ciprofloxacin and Trimethoprim, not simultaneously) and the experiment worked identically for either drug. In his colony of a billion members, he has a variant with a beneficial mutation for Ciprofloxacin but there is also a variant in the population with a beneficial mutation for the Trimethoprim. Only one of those variants will be the correct beneficial mutation depending on the drug used in the experiment. In fact, when you get that population of a billion, you will have on average one mutation at every site in the genome somewhere in that population.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<snipping for brevities' sake>

Okay. And?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But again, calculating a post-hoc probability isn't particularly useful. The outcome of evolutionary processes over time (historically) is just what happened to have occurred; it's not necessarily what must have occurred. And given that we don't know the probability space of potential outcomes and have no way to calculate that, it makes such probabilities irrelevant.

It would be like dealing out an order of cards from 52 card deck and then calculating the post-hoc probability of that particular sequence. Even though the probability of that particular sequence is vanishingly small, it still happened because it's simply one possible outcome.

I published the paper which explains the Kishony experiment before he ran the experiment. What a billion replications do when the mutation rate is 1E-9 means there is going to on average 1 mutation at every site in the genome in some member of the population. Most of the mutations for those variants will be neutral or detrimental. Only a small of variants will get a mutation that is beneficial for the given environment. What the population must do is be able to replicate sufficiently for the particular mutation to occur that gives improved fitness for the given environmental conditions.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Okay. And?

And those how evolution works and why the ToE is not true.

 

[pitabread]

I published the paper which explains the Kishony experiment before he ran the experiment.

You weren't talking about the Kishony experiment though. You were referring to "reptiles evolve into birds or fish evolve into mammals."

There is no way to claim historical evolution is improbable by way of post-hoc probabilities.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And those how evolution works and why the ToE is not true.

But if evolution works, then the theory of evolution must be true because the theory of evolution describes the fact of evolution.
You've never said how the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[sesquiterpene]

But it's more than that. When you work on a scientific problem and get the correct solution, all the empirical data falls into place. It becomes clear why the Kishony and Lenski experiments work the way they do, it becomes clear why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, why combination herbicides, pesticides, and cancer treatments suppress the evolutionary process.

Yet these therapies were in place before you published your papers. I suspect that any evolutionary biologist would agree that it's much harder for a population to achieve three concurrent mutations rather than two. Is there any previous evolutionary model that predicts otherwise?
Edit to add: also, the selection pressures here are rather extreme; most of these agents will kill/inhibit 99.9% of their targets. Do you find anything in nature that extreme outside of asteroid impacts?