Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Frank Robert]

Evolution does happen, I've said this many times, I've published numerous papers on this subject explaining the physics and mathematics of evolutionary processes. It's the gross over-extrapolation of the evolutionary processes to claim the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is a mathematically irrational misinterpretation of evolution. And to teach this to naive school children rather than the correct physic and mathematics of evolution only obscures the correct science.

And to transform a non-feather producing replicator into a feather producing replicator requires the accumulation of a highly improbable series of mutations. And then these new feather-producing replicators need to accumulate sets of highly improbable series of mutations to give the correct respiratory systems, circulatory systems, excretory systems, musculoskeletal systems,... The ToE has a huge mathematical problem that you are having a hard time seeing and accepting.

It appears you are claiming that your math proves that common descent is not possible. If this is so then either you math is wrong or the consilience of multiple lines of evidence in favor of common descent is wrong.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What do you mean "toss in recombination"? If you're talking about sexually reproducing diploid organisms, that's just part of the process.



To be perfectly honest, your try-hard pimping of your own papers here is making me less interested in reading them.

Somebody has to do the mathematics correctly. The biologists just don't seem to be able to handle the job. You should read that paper, then you would understand why recombination doesn't defeat 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Because I'm addressing specific claims re: the historical evolution of species. You keep making sweeping claims about that and then immediately try to change the subject whenever I respond.

At this point, I'd say we're done on that subject.

When did you start? You have never explained how a non-feather-producing replicator can accumulate the mutations to become a feather producer. Are you claiming it happened by drift and there was no natural selection?

 

[pitabread]

You should read that paper, then you would understand why recombination doesn't defeat 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV.

And what specifically does this have to do with the evolution of feathers?

 

[pitabread]

When did you start? You have never explained how a non-feather-producing replicator can accumulate the mutations to become a feather producer. Are you claiming it happened by drift and there was no natural selection?

Like I said, you can comb the literature for an understanding of the evolution of feathers. There is ample written on the subject.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It appears you are claiming that your math proves that common descent is not possible. If this is so then either you math is wrong or the consilience of multiple lines of evidence in favor of common descent is wrong.

No, I'm showing how DNA evolution works by common descent. I'm doing the mathematics of lineages accumulating particular sets of mutations. And in order to do that, it takes a billion replications for every adaptive evolutionary step.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

And what specifically does this have to do with the evolution of feathers?

Random recombination has a very low probability of helping in the DNA evolution of feathers. I use the example of recombination with HIV to derive the equations that describe random recombination but the principle works in general. You should read the paper, the mathematics is analogous to a random card drawing problem and we know how much you like card drawing problems.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, I'm showing how DNA evolution works by common descent. I'm doing the mathematics of lineages accumulating particular sets of mutations. And in order to do that, it takes a billion replications for every adaptive evolutionary step.

Perhaps I did not understand. Were you not attributing your math to conclude "It's the gross over-extrapolation of the evolutionary processes to claim the reptiles evolve into birds?"

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Like I said, you can comb the literature for an understanding of the evolution of feathers. There is ample written on the subject.

I have combed the literature and I've never found a paper that explains how a non-feather producer can accumulate the mutations to become a feather producer. If you know of a paper, post a link to it. I'd really like to read a ToEist paper that correctly does the mathematics of feather evolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Perhaps I did not understand. Were you not attributing your math to conclude "It's the gross over-extrapolation of the evolutionary processes to claim the reptiles evolve into birds?"

That's right. DNA evolution by common descent requires a billion replications for each evolutionary mutational step. If you want to see an experimental example of this, watch this video:
EXTRA MINUTES - SUPERBBUGS (Harvard Experiment explained)

 

[pitabread]

I'd really like to read a ToEist paper that correctly does the mathematics of feather evolution.

Exactly what 'mathematics' do you think need explaining here?

 

[Frank Robert]

That's right. DNA evolution by common descent requires a billion replications for each evolutionary mutational step. If you want to see an experimental example of this, watch this video:
EXTRA MINUTES - SUPERBBUGS (Harvard Experiment explained)

I don't doubt that your math leads to such a conclusion but neither do I doubt the evidence for dinosaurs to birds.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Exactly what 'mathematics' do you think need explaining here?

The mathematics that explains how a non-feather producing replicator can accumulate the mutations to become a feather producing replicator. If you can't do the mathematics for all the mutations necessary, just do the mathematics for the first 2 mutations.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't doubt that your math leads to such a conclusion but neither do I doubt the evidence for dinosaurs to birds.

I did the mathematic for the Kishony experiment before Kishony performed his experiment, you can read that paper here:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Tell us what the best evidence you have to show for dinosaurs to birds. And what does the math say about transitional forms for such an evolutionary process?

 

[pitabread]

The mathematics that explains how a non-feather producing replicator can accumulate the mutations to become a feather producing replicator.

But again, what 'mathematics' is that exactly? What are you actually expecting here?

You're claiming biologists haven't done this, but I'm not clear what you think biologists should actually be doing re: feather evolution and the mathematics thereof.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But again, what 'mathematics' is that exactly? What are you actually expecting here?

You're claiming biologists haven't done this, but I'm not clear what you think biologists should actually be doing re: feather evolution and the mathematics thereof.

Biologists should explain the mechanism for some event they claim has occurred. It's not enough just to "natural selection did it". Scientists quantify their claims. Biologists need to run the numbers and explain how a non-feather producer can become a feather producer through the accumulation of mutations. ToEists don't do this. In fact, the math they do is filled with errors and incorrect assumptions. That's why biologists can't and don't give the correct mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

 

[pitabread]

Biologists should explain the mechanism for some event they claim has occurred. It's not enough just to "natural selection did it".

Oh, I absolutely agree. And this is why biologists get into trying to determine the specific molecular pathways for different evolutionary adaptations and how those adaptations could have occurred (such as in the paper I previously linked).

Scientists quantify their claims. Biologists need to run the numbers and explain how a non-feather producer can become a feather producer through the accumulation of mutations. ToEists don't do this.

What you do mean "run the numbers"? You're being entirely too vague here.

What do you think "running the numbers" on feather evolution should look like?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Oh, I absolutely agree. And this is why biologists get into trying to determine the specific molecular pathways for different evolutionary adaptations and how those adaptations could have occurred (such as in the paper I previously linked).



What you do mean "run the numbers"? You're being entirely too vague here.

What do you think "running the numbers" on feather evolution should look like?

What you are not getting is the mathematics for all DNA evolutionary pathways work the same way. It doesn't matter whether you are considering a lineage of bacteria accumulating the mutations to adapt to an antibiotic selection pressure, a lineage of bacteria accumulating the mutations to adapt to a starvation selection pressure, a lineage of rodents accumulating the mutations to adapt to a rodenticide, or weeds to herbicides,... Why should a non-feather producing replicator accumulating the mutations to be a feather producer be any different?

Running the numbers means formulating the correct governing mathematical model and seeing what evaluating these equations predicts. And the way you evaluate the veracity of the model is that you test it against measured experimental and empirical evidence (such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments). Biologists should study some engineering if they want to dabble in this kind of science.

 

[pitabread]

Running the numbers means formulating the correct governing mathematical model and seeing what evaluating these equations predicts. And the way you evaluate the veracity of the model is that you test it against measured experimental and empirical evidence (such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments).

Why would biologists care about this though? What do you think such an exercise is supposed to demonstrate re: the historical evolution of feathers?

What is your point?

 

[Frank Robert]

I did the mathematic for the Kishony experiment before Kishony performed his experiment, you can read that paper here:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Tell us what the best evidence you have to show for dinosaurs to birds. And what does the math say about transitional forms for such an evolutionary process?

From my perspective as neither a mathematician or biologist.

You have a mathematical model of evolution which may provide valuable information about how the world works but it is not evidence of the real world.

I think you agree that the best evidence for dinosaurs to birds are transitional fossils. I would wager that your math says they are improbable.

Have you had any comments from biologists and mathematicians on the articles you have written?