Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Alan Kleinman]

Did you even read what I or Speedwell wrote?

Yes, and I think you are very confused because you think that probabilities change depending on when you do the calculation. If you actually understood what you were saying, you would show us how to do the math.

 

[pitabread]

You are confusing an outcome and a probability.

I was suggesting that is what you appear to be doing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, and I think you are very confused because you think that probabilities change depending on when you do the calculation. If you actually understood what you were saying, you would show us how to do the math.

No, the probabilities do not change, that is a fact of maths, and I won't dispute that. But an event, be it a mutation, a birth, a rock falling from space, even if the odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1 for that event to happen, only has to happen ONCE for it to become the 1. That is also a fact of maths.

 

[Speedwell]

So you think that probabilities change whether the calculation is done before or after the random experiment occurs? Why don't you show us how that math works?

No, but the calculations are different. Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes. Before the evolutionary "event" the numerator of that fraction is quite large, because there are a number of favorable possibilities. After the "event" the numerator becomes 1 and the calculation becomes useless for predicting the likelihood of future evolutionary "events."

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I was suggesting that is what you appear to be doing.

An "outcome" is the result of a random experiment, just because you have that outcome does not change the probability of that event occurring.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, the probabilities do not change, that is a fact of maths, and I won't dispute that. But an event, be it a mutation, a birth, a rock falling from space, even if the odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1 for that event to happen, only has to happen ONCE for it to become the 1. That is also a fact of maths.

My suggestion for you is to stay away from Las Vegas and gambling casinos.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My suggestion for you is to stay away from Las Vegas and gambling casinos.

I don't gamble, so that won't happen either way.
But I'm not wrong.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, but the calculations are different. Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes. Before the evolutionary "event" the numerator of that fraction is quite large, because there are a number of favorable possibilities. After the "event" the numerator becomes 1 and the calculation becomes useless for predicting the likelihood of future evolutionary "events."

That's not correct. You have to divide the number of successes by the total number of trials.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't gamble, so that won't happen either way.
But I'm not wrong.

Suit yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not correct. You have to divide the number of successes by the total number of trials.

Which is exactly what I said.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That's not correct. You have to divide the number of successes by the total number of trials.

Which is exactly what I said.

No, you said:

Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes.

You are confusing an outcome with a trial. Read this if you want to understand the difference:
Outcome (probability)

 

[Speedwell]

No, you said:

You are confusing an outcome with a trial. Read this if you want to understand the difference:
Outcome (probability)

An outcome is the result of a trial. But OK, dodge the real issue of you want. I notice that you have not responded to any of my recent posts in this vein except to make criticism of my terminology.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

An outcome is the result of a trial. But OK, dodge the real issue of you want. I notice that you have not responded to any of my recent posts in this vein except to make criticism of my terminology.

What you call a criticism, I call a correction. And I doubt you will take my instruction on introductory probability theory, so why don't you try watching the YouTube videos on probability theory by the Kahn Academy or Professor Leonard first.

 

[Speedwell]

What you call a criticism, I call a correction. And I doubt you will take my instruction on introductory probability theory, so why don't you try watching the YouTube videos on probability theory by the Kahn Academy or Professor Leonard first.

Why should I not at least listen to your instruction on probability theory? I might learn something. I have always supposed, for example, that if I flip a true coin it can land one of two ways and if I desire it to land "heads" I can calculate the probability by dividing the number of ways I want the coin to land (1) by the number of ways it can possibly land (2) and get a result of 50%. Now you tell me this is entirely wrong and I would really like to know why you think so.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why should I not at least listen to your instruction on probability theory? I might learn something. I have always supposed, for example, that if I flip a true coin it can land one of two ways and if I desire it to land "heads" I can calculate the probability by dividing the number of ways I want the coin to land (1) by the number of ways it can possibly land (2) and get a result of 50%. Now you tell me this is entirely wrong and I would really like to know why you think so.

The statement "E has the probability P(E)" means that if we perform the random experiment very often, it is practically certain that the relative frequency f(E) is approximately equal to P(E). P(E) is the theoretical value, f(E) is the empirical value. So, let's say you perform your coin toss experiment and you toss the coin 4,040 times and you count the outcomes and you get 2,048 heads. Then the relative frequency of heads f(Heads) is (Number of Heads)/(Total Number of Tosses) = 2,048/4,040 = 0.5069.

DNA evolution has two random trials (experiments) associated with that process. One is replication and the other is the mutation itself. Tell me what the possible outcomes are for those two random trials (experiments).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, therapods have the same respiratory, circulatory, excretory, metabolism, musculoskeletal system,... as birds. That's a thought. Did it ever enter your mind that therapods might be an extinct species of bird?

Not exactly; Therapods are quite a diverse clade, with varying degrees of bird-like features. But it's another of those arbitrary categorisation & definition problems thrown up by trying to draw demarcation lines across an evolutionary continuum. It did occur to me that Maniraptorans might fit the label.

Birds, i.e. modern birds, are one of around 10 clades descending from Maniraptorans, a clade of Therapod dinosaurs with consistently bird-like traits. The point at which they are commonly called 'birds' is at the level of the clade Avialae. But I suppose you could call several of the sibling clades 'birds', or even the Maniraptorans as a whole, although some of them aren't really much like the birds we're familiar with. The question is, how far up the evolutionary tree do you go before the general category, 'birds', loses utility? I'm inclined to let the taxonomists sort it out - the taxonomy isn't necessarily fixed yet, but it doesn't keep me awake at night.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The ToE doesn't work to explain these experiments that do work. Now, when Kishony tries to run his experiment with two drugs simultaneously, it doesn't work and you don't understand why and the ToE doesn't give that explanation either.

I've only skim-read the thread, but as I understand it, you're suggesting that the genomic differences we see between species are too great to be explained by the accepted mechanism of mutation and natural selection, given the proposed rates of mutation and timescales - is that the idea?

If so, this doesn't invalidate the ToE - the ToE is supported by evidence from many other fields of biology that preceded molecular genetics - it suggests that either the proposed rates of mutation and/or timescales are incorrect, or that there is more going on than the current genetic model describes. The ToE explains the diversity of species in terms of common descent through heritable variation and natural selection; the precise mechanisms involved are still being discovered, refined and extended.

Perhaps it would be worth trying to establish how this discrepancy between the current genetic model and real-world results arose and how it has persisted for so long, undiscovered...

If I have misunderstood what you are suggesting, please explain, or point me to a post where you explained the problem as you see it.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I've only skim-read the thread, but as I understand it, you're suggesting that the genomic differences we see between species are too great to be explained by the accepted mechanism of mutation and natural selection, given the proposed rates of mutation and timescales - is that the idea?

If so, this doesn't invalidate the ToE - the ToE is supported by evidence from many other fields of biology that preceded molecular genetics - it suggests that either the proposed rates of mutation and/or timescales are incorrect, or that there is more going on than the current genetic model describes. The ToE explains the diversity of species in terms of common descent through heritable variation and natural selection; the precise mechanisms involved are still being discovered, refined and extended.

Perhaps it would be worth trying to establish how this discrepancy between the current genetic model and real-world results arose and how it has persisted for so long, undiscovered...

If I have misunderstood what you are suggesting, please explain, or point me to a post where you explained the problem as you see it.

That's the idea. If you think there is evidence from other fields that substantiates the ToE, provide your best evidence. The genetic models used by biologists are incorrect and don't correlate with the experimental evidence. The models I've presented do correlate and predict the behavior of evolutionary experiments and I know where the biologists have made their errors.

There are two basic problems for the ToE, the first is that the mutation rate requires that large numbers of replications must occur before an adaptive mutation will occur. A simplified mathematical explanation is that it requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications for an adaptive mutation to occur. The other problem for the ToE concerns the accumulation of the beneficial mutations on a lineage. The common claim is that a series of microevolutionary steps add up to a macroevolutionary change. That is mathematically, experimentally, and empirically incorrect. Microevolutionary steps do not add, they are linked by the multiplication rule of probabilities. The reason for this is that microevolutionary steps are random events and you compute the joint probability of these events occurring by multiplying the individual probabilities. This is why it takes billions of replications or more for every adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiment. Every empirical example of DNA (RNA) evolution demonstrates this mathematical fact. This is why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, this is why combination herbicides work, this is why combination pesticides work, and this is why combination therapy is required for targeted cancer therapy to work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's the idea. If you think there is evidence from other fields that substantiates the ToE, provide your best evidence.

There are masses of evidence - I count 9 major fields in that link with numerous subfields.

The genetic models used by biologists are incorrect and don't correlate with the experimental evidence. The models I've presented do correlate and predict the behavior of evolutionary experiments and I know where the biologists have made their errors.

I'm no longer competent to judge that myself, but as I said, that doesn't invalidate the ToE, it just suggests that the genetic mechanisms, as currently understood, are inadequate. I suggest submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed molecular biology publication, informing the statistical geneticists they're doing it wrong.

Should liven things up a bit!

 

[pitabread]

An "outcome" is the result of a random experiment, just because you have that outcome does not change the probability of that event occurring.

In the context of post-hoc analysis, is it particularly relevant though?

If I deal out 52 cards and then retroactivity calculate the probability of that exact order, so what? It doesn't change the fact that particular order was the one that I dealt.

Just like trying to apply probability to things like mammal or bird evolution just doesn't matter. The event has already happened.