Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[driewerf]

Is "evolution theory" the same as the ToE? If it is, use your "evolution theory" to explain the evolution of drug-resistance (for example, the Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment)

I had an entire post dedicated to the Kishony experiment earlier in this very thread.
Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I had an zntire post dedicated to the Kishony experiment earlier in this very thread.
Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

I read your post, in fact, it is the reason I started posting on this forum because you used one of my papers in your post.
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process
I don't think you understand what impact this paper has on the ToE and the use of Markov Processes to predict DNA evolution and genetic phylogeny. By the way, this is not the only way to do the mathematics for the Kishony experiment. You can also do the mathematics this way using the "at least one rule" from probability theory:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Note that this second link was published before Kishony performed his experiment and predicted the behavior of the experiment when eventually did run his experiment. Also, note the similar results obtained using the two different mathematical approaches.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sim.6307

 

[Ken-1122]

[Staff Edit]

And don't you know that drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects, and failed cancer treatments occur? That's because the ToE explains nothing about evolution,

Wait; didn’t you just say the theory of evolution is not real? The theory says things evolve. If you admit they evolve, you are admitting the theory is not myth but real. So which is it?

if the theory had any practical application, it would explain why this happens.

No, just knowing some things evolve is a practical application; as for why everything evolves, the theory does not have to explain that in order to be useful, other theories can explain why.

The ToE is just a story about reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals without explaining anything about how random mutation and natural selection works. The ToE is mythology for naive school children and it only causes them harm.

Do you not see the contradiction in your words? If it is a myth, how can it cause harm? And if it is not a myth, explain how knowing things evolve is harmful?

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionary adaptive steps are random events

No they aren't. Selective effects are the opposite of random.

you compute the joint probability of those events by multiplying the probabilities of the individual events occurring.

You would do that in the context of dependent probabilities. But why would you do that here?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

[Staff Edit]
The belief the reptile evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematical irrational nonsense. If you understood how evolution works, you would know this, but you don't.

And don't you know that drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects, and failed cancer treatments occur? That's because the ToE explains nothing about evolution,

Wait; didn’t you just say the theory of evolution is not real? The theory says things evolve. If you admit they evolve, you are admitting the theory is not myth but real. So which is it?

Evolution is real, the notion the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is science fiction. You can't even explain the simplest evolutionary experiments, you have no idea how evolution works. If you did, you would have the correct foundation for dealing with the evolution of drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects, and failed cancer treatments. You have no idea why 3-drug therapy for the treatment of HIV works when 1 and 2 drug treatment fail.

if the theory had any practical application, it would explain why this happens.

No, just knowing some things evolve is a practical application; as for why everything evolves, the theory does not have to explain that in order to be useful, other theories can explain why.

Not when you grossly over-extrapolate the theory and jump to the conclusion that just because living things can evolve therefore reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. Maybe you think that just saying that heavier things are harder to move than lighter things is adequate for Newton's second law but real science doesn't work that way. Good theories find mathematical relationships between the different variables and you can predict the behavior of a system based on these mathematical relationships. The reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment becomes obvious when you write down the correct governing equations. The ToEites have failed to do this.

The ToE is just a story about reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals without explaining anything about how random mutation and natural selection works. The ToE is mythology for naive school children and it only causes them harm.

Do you not see the contradiction in your words? If it is a myth, how can it cause harm? And if it is not a myth, explain how knowing things evolve is harmful?

Teaching naive school children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematically irrational nonsense. Teach children how to do the mathematics of evolution correctly, for example, the Kishony and Lenski experiments so they will have the correct foundation for the problems caused by evolution in medicine and agriculture.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Evolutionary adaptive steps are random events

No they aren't. Selective effects are the opposite of random.

You are confusing adaptation and selection. Adaptive steps are beneficial mutations that are random events. Selection pressures can be either random or deterministic. For example, in the Lenski experiment, they bottleneck the population daily by removing 99% of the day's growth, that selection is random. If members of a population are killed by accident, that is random. If one uses an antimicrobial agent that targets a specific gene (protein), that is not random selection.

you compute the joint probability of those events by multiplying the probabilities of the individual events occurring.

You would do that in the context of dependent probabilities. But why would you do that here?

You still multiply the probabilities when the random events are dependent (conditional probabilities). The difference is that you are dealing with a reduced sample space. A simple example of this a card drawing problem, with and without replacement. The probability of drawing 2 aces with replacement is (4/52)*(4/52) joint independent events. The probability of drawing 2 aces without replacement is (4/52)*(3/51) dependent conditional probabilities.

If you want to see how to handle the conditional probability of beneficial mutation B occurring on some member that already has beneficial mutation A, read this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

 

[pitabread]

You are confusing adaptation and selection. Adaptive steps are beneficial mutations that are random events.

Why are you specifically calling this an "adaptive step"?

You still multiply the probabilities when the random events are dependent (conditional probabilities).

Yes, I said the same thing (I know what conditional probabilities are).

I'm just wondering why you apply that in this case?

If you want to see how to handle the conditional probability of beneficial mutation B occurring on some member that already has beneficial mutation A, read this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

I'll take a look later, but can you summarize why you would necessarily treat these as conditional probabilities?

 

[Ken-1122]

Evolution is real, the notion the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is science fiction.

Okay it seems you understand TOE is real, you just don’t believe everything that is put under the umbrella of Evolution; is this correct? If so, I can understand that. I know people who know Planes can fly 30,000 above the ground, but don’t believe we have the ability to travel 250,000 above the ground and go to the moon.

Teaching naive school children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematically irrational nonsense.

Our best scientists an biologist disagree with you. If you have a problem with science and biology being taught in school, perhaps you can take that up with the school administration. If you feel the world’s best scientists and biologist just don’t know what they are talking about when they make claims about Evolution that you disagree with, perhaps you should publish something for peer review.

Also, you made the claim that the Theory of Evolution was harmful. How do you see it as harmful? Please explain.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You are confusing adaptation and selection. Adaptive steps are beneficial mutations that are random events.

Why are you specifically calling this an "adaptive step"?

Particular mutations give improved fitness to reproduce in those members of the population which get those particular mutations giving them improved fecundity in that environment. For example, certain mutations will give improved resistance to antibiotic selection pressures as demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. In other words, these variants are adapting to the antibiotic selection pressure.

You still multiply the probabilities when the random events are dependent (conditional probabilities).

Yes, I said the same thing (I know what conditional probabilities are).

I'm just wondering why you apply that in this case?

In some cases, beneficial mutations are independent events, and in other cases, they are dependent events. In the case of a single selection pressure acting on a population (for example, the Kishony experiment), beneficial mutation B occurring on some member that already has beneficial mutation A will be an independent event. If two or more selection pressures are acting on a population simultaneously, then, beneficial B occurring on some member of the population that already has beneficial A will be a dependent event. Draw the Venn diagrams of the situation and it should become clear to you. I did that in the paper I gave you a link to. Beneficial mutation B has to occur in a subset of the population that already has beneficial mutation A (a reduced sample space).

If you want to see how to handle the conditional probability of beneficial mutation B occurring on some member that already has beneficial mutation A, read this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

I'll take a look later, but can you summarize why you would necessarily treat these as conditional probabilities?

Like I said above, draw the Venn diagrams of the problem. Consider the case of 3 drug therapy for the treatment of HIV. Let's say the virus needs to get mutations A, B, and C to do a step improvement in fitness. In that case, the reduced subsets for mutation A would have to occur on some member that already has mutations B and C, or mutation B must occur on some member that already has mutations A and C or mutation C must occur on some member that already has mutations A and B. Each additional selection pressure is reducing the sample space for the next beneficial mutation. That is why vastly larger populations are required if there is going to be a reasonable probability that an adaptive evolutionary step will occur.

There is a completely different approach to doing this mathematics using Markov chains. I have a paper in review which demonstrates how to do this math. You can view the preprint here:
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process
Compare the two papers and see that they give similar results. By the way, I appreciate your questions and comments.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Evolution is real, the notion the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is science fiction.

Okay it seems you understand TOE is real, you just don’t believe everything that is put under the umbrella of Evolution; is this correct? If so, I can understand that. I know people who know Planes can fly 30,000 above the ground, but don’t believe we have the ability to travel 250,000 above the ground and go to the moon.

You are being sloppy with your terminology. "Evolution" does not equal "ToE". The ToE is a theory of the origin of species of plants and animals where life started as some simple replicator billions of years ago and through a process of reproduction, mutation and adaptation gives all the life forms we see today. There may be some variations on this concept but that's the gist of it. Evolution on the other hand is the actual physical phenomenon. There is no quantification in the ToE just as Darwin didn't quantify his concept of Darwinian evolution. Darwin was qualitatively correct, evolution consists of two components, competition, and adaptation. What I've done is quantified his theory.

Teaching naive school children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematically irrational nonsense.

Our best scientists an biologist disagree with you. If you have a problem with science and biology being taught in school, perhaps you can take that up with the school administration. If you feel the world’s best scientists and biologist just don’t know what they are talking about when they make claims about Evolution that you disagree with, perhaps you should publish something for peer review.

Are you talking about the scientists and biologists who have failed to correctly describe the evolution of drug resistance? I've published numerous papers on the subject and used the principles in my medical practice to treat drug-resistant infections. My latest paper in review reveals a huge mathematical blunder on the part of genetic phylogeneticists while at the same time correctly doing the mathematics for the Kishony experiment. They use a class of equations to generate phylogenetic trees that are fundamentally wrong. They have been using these equations for almost 50 years and the way they do their studies, if they choose the right stretch of DNA, they would show you are a direct descendent of a banana.

Also, you made the claim that the Theory of Evolution was harmful. How do you see it as harmful? Please explain.

When you don't describe and teach the correct physical and mathematical principles of evolution, you won't be preparing students to deal with drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and targeted cancer treatment failure. If people had been properly prepared with an understanding of how evolution works, it would have been obvious that 1 and 2 drug therapy would not give a durable treatment for HIV. Researchers had to be kicked by the mule of drug resistance before they stumbled into 3 drug therapy. The same problem is going to occur with targeted cancer therapy. There are far too many cells in cancer tumors and mutations are very common for single-drug therapy to work. There is no education in the second kick of a mule but that's exactly what biologists are setting today's students to get.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are being sloppy with your terminology. "Evolution" does not equal "ToE". The ToE is a theory of the origin of species of plants and animals where life started as some simple replicator billions of years ago and through a process of reproduction, mutation and adaptation gives all the life forms we see today.

Actually the Theory of Evolution is not about the origin of anything, even Darwin's book “the origin of species” starts with an already existing cell. The theory of evolution is about evolution.

There may be some variations on this concept but that's the gist of it. Evolution on the other hand is the actual physical phenomenon. There is no quantification in the ToE just as Darwin didn't quantify his concept of Darwinian evolution.

So if I understand you correctly, you seem to have a problem with how the theory was written, not whether or not evolution is an actual occurrence. My point was that evolution is a real thing, which you seem to agree with.

Are you talking about the scientists and biologists who have failed to correctly describe the evolution of drug resistance? I've published numerous papers on the subject and used the principles in my medical practice to treat drug-resistant infections. My latest paper in review reveals a huge mathematical blunder on the part of genetic phylogeneticists while at the same time correctly doing the mathematics for the Kishony experiment. They use a class of equations to generate phylogenetic trees that are fundamentally wrong. They have been using these equations for almost 50 years and the way they do their studies, if they choose the right stretch of DNA, they would show you are a direct descendent of a banana.

When you don't describe and teach the correct physical and mathematical principles of evolution, you won't be preparing students to deal with drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and targeted cancer treatment failure. If people had been properly prepared with an understanding of how evolution works, it would have been obvious that 1 and 2 drug therapy would not give a durable treatment for HIV. Researchers had to be kicked by the mule of drug resistance before they stumbled into 3 drug therapy. The same problem is going to occur with targeted cancer therapy. There are far too many cells in cancer tumors and mutations are very common for single-drug therapy to work. There is no education in the second kick of a mule but that's exactly what biologists are setting today's students to get.

So if you’ve got it right, and all the other scientists worldwide have got it wrong, what’s preventing your theory from replacing the TOE?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aren't you one of those who think the ToE is true and has practical application? So the only point you have is the ToE is useless mythology that can't even explain the simplest evolutionary experiments. The only practical application of the ToE is to give drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects, and failed cancer treatments. The ToE is not only useless, but it is also harmful!

You keep bringing up these examples of resistance to various man-made medicines, herbicides and pesticides.
I imaging that you've taken the time to look them up, so why is it hard for you to not look up the benefits of the theory of evolution in medicine and science?
Also, you keep bringing up physics as a sort of 'gotcha!' for the theory of evolution, but I've never seen you explain why.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

hat's because the ToE explains nothing about evolution, if the theory had any practical application, it would explain why this happens. The ToE is just a story about reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals without explaining anything about how random mutation and natural selection works. The ToE is mythology for naive school children and it only causes them harm.

Comments like this, really say to me that for all your supposed investigation and reading, you haven't actually done any reading on the theory of evolution itself.

 

[Astrid]

Actually the Theory of Evolution is not about the origin of anything, even Darwin's book “the origin of species” starts with an already existing cell. The theory of evolution is about evolution.

So if I understand you correctly, you seem to have a problem with how the theory was written, not whether or not evolution is an actual occurrence. My point was that evolution is a real thing, which you seem to agree with.

So if you’ve got it right, and all the other scientists worldwide have got it wrong, what’s preventing your theory from replacing the TOE?

Usually the excuse is bias and money. Keep them
big grants coming. You ever see "Expelled", a
scientist will be ridiculed, a amateur ignored.

On the other hand, disproving the ToE would be a sure
Nobel, quite possibly the greatest scientific discovery
to date, with enormous implications for physics, chemistry,
geology, biology- depending on just how it was disproved.

If our hero is correct, he'll have proved God,
an achievement so huge that the science
implications would be insignificant.

Strange and tragic it is that of the many
many people who with all their disproofs from
palixy man tracks to statistics and Logic,
not a one has had the courage or
credibility to get the word out.

 

[Astrid]

Comments like this, really say to me that for all your supposed investigation and reading, you haven't actually done any reading on the theory of evolution itself.

So often our creationists say they studied
for years but then betray themselves as not
knowing the simple basics.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You keep bringing up these examples of resistance to various man-made medicines, herbicides and pesticides.
I imaging that you've taken the time to look them up, so why is it hard for you to not look up the benefits of the theory of evolution in medicine and science?
Also, you keep bringing up physics as a sort of 'gotcha!' for the theory of evolution, but I've never seen you explain why.

Do you think starvation is a man-made selection pressure? Because that's the selection pressure Lenki uses in his experiment. And evolutionary adaptation works the same way for that selection pressure as it does for medicines, herbicides, and pesticides. Evolutionary processes are governed by the laws of physics. If you want to do a scientific analysis of evolution, try using the laws of physics (if you can).

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Actually the Theory of Evolution is not about the origin of anything, even Darwin's book “the origin of species” starts with an already existing cell. The theory of evolution is about evolution.

So if I understand you correctly, you seem to have a problem with how the theory was written, not whether or not evolution is an actual occurrence. My point was that evolution is a real thing, which you seem to agree with.

So if you’ve got it right, and all the other scientists worldwide have got it wrong, what’s preventing your theory from replacing the TOE?

What is the ToEite explanation for why competition slows evolutionary adaptation?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Comments like this, really say to me that for all your supposed investigation and reading, you haven't actually done any reading on the theory of evolution itself.

Perhaps you want to explain to us how the Kishony and Lenski experiment works and why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment and 100x or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step in the Lenski experiment? Feel free to post any links to ToEite research that give that explanation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So often our creationists say they studied
for years but then betray themselves as not
knowing the simple basics.

The reason you can't explain the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments is that you don't know the simple basics.

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionary processes are governed by the laws of physics. If you want to do a scientific analysis of evolution, try using the laws of physics (if you can).

What a curiously odd statement.