Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Alan Kleinman]

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?

It's all about getting the correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolution. Biologists don't provide that explanation and that lack of explanation is harming society.

 

[pitabread]

It's all about getting the correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolution.

But what does that "correct explanation" look like?

Again, what do you think they should be specifically doing regarding feather evolution? You keep suggesting that biologists are doing things wrong, but you're not exactly suggesting what doing things right should look like here.

What does the correct mathematics of feather evolution look like?

Biologists don't provide that explanation and that lack of explanation is harming society.

How does a lack of "physics and mathematics of evolution" re: feathers (per your claim) harm society?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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?

When it takes a billion replications or more for each evolutionary transitional mutation, you should have vast numbers of transitional fossils. There are about 50 T Rex fossils and I don't think anyone would claim there were a billion T Rex sometime in the past. You can't explain evolution which occurs on a molecular scale using gross anatomy. That's like trying to explain particle physics using classical physics. You have to explain evolution on a molecular level. Misinterpretation of fossils does not explain evolution.

Biologists generally don't like this math. Mathematicians and those interested in understanding the evolution of drug resistance and why targeted cancer treatments fail publish this math.

 

[pitabread]

When it takes a billion replications or more for each evolutionary transitional mutation, you should have vast numbers of transitional fossils.

Why would you assume it would take "a billion replications or more for each evolutionary transitional mutation"?

(And yes, I watched that Kishony clip you posted earlier and no, it doesn't support your claim here re: transitional fossils. Just in case you were planning to refer back to it.)

You have to explain evolution on a molecular level.

But that is exactly what scientists do when it comes to tracing specific molecular changes and how those impact phenotypes. This even includes ancestral genome reconstruction to try to recreate molecular evolutionary pathways.

All of this stuff is being studied, so I'm not sure what you think it is biologists are missing here.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But what does that "correct explanation" look like?

Again, what do you think they should be specifically doing regarding feather evolution? You keep suggesting that biologists are doing things wrong, but you're not exactly suggesting what doing things right should look like here.

What does the correct mathematics of feather evolution look like?



How does a lack of "physics and mathematics of evolution" re: feathers (per your claim) harm society?

Here are three papers that explain how DNA evolution works:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process

If one doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, you are going to have a more difficult time understanding the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail. That causes tremendous harm to people suffering from these diseases and to agriculture.

 

[pitabread]

Here are three papers that explain how DNA evolution works:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process

None of this has to do with feather evolution.

I'm asking what the "correct explanation" (your words) for feather evolution should look like.

If one doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, you are going to have a more difficult time understanding the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail. That causes tremendous harm to people suffering from these diseases and to agriculture.

Again, what does this have to do with the evolution of feathers?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why would you assume it would take "a billion replications or more for each evolutionary transitional mutation"?

That's what it takes in the Kishony experiment. Look at the phylogenetic trees at the end of this video from the Kishony experiment:
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)

In the Lenski experiment, it is closer to 50 billion replications for each evolutionary transitional (beneficial) mutation but the majority of those replications are for variants that ultimately go extinct.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

None of this has to do with feather evolution.

I'm asking what the "correct explanation" (your words) for feather evolution should look like.



Again, what does this have to do with the evolution of feathers?

You don't think feather evolution is a DNA evolutionary process? What kind of evolutionary process is feather evolution?

 

[pitabread]

You don't think feather evolution is a DNA evolutionary process? What kind of evolutionary process is feather evolution?

Certainly feathers evolved.

I'm just trying to understand what you think the correct "physics and mathematics" of feather evolution should look like.

After all, you're the one who brought up feather evolution and started complaining that biologists aren't doing the correct math in your view.

So why don't you just show us what that correct math should look like re: feather evolution? Show us what you think those biologists are missing.

 

[pitabread]

That's what it takes in the Kishony experiment. Look at the phylogenetic trees at the end of this video from the Kishony experiment:
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)

What does that have to do with T-Rex evolution?

Do you think that T-Rex's were under the same sort of extreme selective pressures as the bacteria in the Kishony experiment?

In the Lenski experiment, it is closer to 50 billion replications for each evolutionary transitional (beneficial) mutation but the majority of those replications are for variants that ultimately go extinct.

The vast majority of organisms in general (i.e. species/lineages) go extinct. What is your point?

I'm starting to wonder if there is some survivorship bias happening when you start trying to apply all this to historical evolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Certainly feathers evolved.

I'm just trying to understand what you think the correct "physics and mathematics" of feather evolution should look like.

After all, you're the one who brought up feather evolution and started complaining that biologists aren't doing the correct math in your view.

So why don't you just show us what that correct math should look like re: feather evolution? Show us what you think those biologists are missing.

I've already shown you how all DNA evolutionary processes work. Your problem is that you think that evolutionary processes worked differently in the past.

And what biologists have missed is the multiplication rule of probabilities and how it applies to biological evolution. That's why biologists have failed to correctly describe the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

 

[pitabread]

Your problem is that you think that evolutionary processes worked differently in the past.

I have never suggested such a thing and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

And what biologists have missed is the multiplication rule of probabilities and how it applies to biological evolution.

How is that relevant to the evolution of feathers?

What is the point of calculating a bunch of post-hoc probabilities (assuming one could even develop a relevant probability space, which is doubtful) for past evolutionary development of specific biological forms like feathers?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What does that have to do with T-Rex evolution?

Do you think that T-Rex's were under the same sort of extreme selective pressures as the bacteria in the Kishony experiment?



The vast majority of organisms in general (i.e. species/lineages) go extinct. What is your point?

I'm starting to wonder if there is some survivorship bias happening when you start trying to apply all this to historical evolution.

You have 50 T Rex specimen when there has to be very few of this apex predator. Perhaps the T Rex ate all those reptile to bird transitional forms and that's why they don't show up in the fossil record.

And the point is that competition slows DNA evolution.

 

[pitabread]

You have 50 T Rex specimen when there has to be very few of this apex predator. Perhaps the T Rex ate all those reptile to bird transitional forms and that's why they don't show up in the fossil record.

If you're just going to be sarcastic, then I'll assume you recognize the irrelevance of your claims re: T-Rex evolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I have never suggested such a thing and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.



How is that relevant to the evolution of feathers?

Really? Then what did you mean about post hoc probabilities? You still haven't shown how you do that math.

 

[pitabread]

Really? Then what did you mean about post hoc probabilities? You still haven't shown how you do that math.

As I've said repeatedly, the math is irrelevant.

Even if you could calculate the probably of feather evolution, who cares?

Feathers already evolved. Why is the probability thereof relevant to biologists?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

If you're just going to be sarcastic, then I'll assume you recognize the irrelevance of your claims re: T-Rex evolution.

And you missed the edit of that post where I addressed the importance of the 50 billion replications has to DNA evolution. Competition slows DNA evolution and you don't understand why.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

As I've said repeatedly, the math is irrelevant.

Even if you could calculate the probably of feather evolution, who cares?

I'm still not sure what your point is here and why you think biologists should be wasting their time calculating meaningless probabilities?

Biologists can ignore hard mathematical science all they want. They shouldn't mislead naive school children with their mathematically irrational mythology.

 

[pitabread]

Biologists can ignore hard mathematical science all they want.

I don't think this is so much a case of ignoring it, so much as recognizing what is actually important re: the study of evolution in Earth's history.

I fail to see the value of post hoc probability calculations in that respect and you haven't otherwise explained why biologists should care.

They shouldn't mislead naive school children with their mathematically irrational mythology.

And there it is: you don't want evolution taught in schools because reasons.

You could have just said so in the first place.

Oh, and referring to science as "mythology" is against the forum rules here. Just an FYI.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't think this is so much a case of ignoring it, so much as recognizing what is actually important re: the study of evolution in Earth's history.

I fail to see the value of post hoc probability calculations in that respect and you haven't otherwise explained why biologists should care.



And there it is: you don't want evolution taught in schools because reasons.

You could have just said so in the first place.

Oh, and referring to science as "mythology" is against the forum rules here. Just an FYI.

Biologists should care that they get the physics and mathematics of evolution correct. And when did I say evolution should not be taught in schools. I highly support the teaching of evolution in schools. School children need to understand the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail. Instead, they get stories about reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals. All these do is obscure the correct science and truth.