Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Alan Kleinman]

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


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!

If you want to understand something about evolution, you won't do it with the fossil record. And I've already published numerous papers on the physics and mathematics of evolution. Here's a couple of papers on random mutation and natural selection, the first to a single selection pressure and the second to multiple simultaneous selection pressures:

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
And the following paper which presently is in peer-review shows the correct mathematics for DNA evolution and shows where biologists and geneticists make their fundamental error in their mathematics of evolution:
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process
If you read and understand these papers, you will understand why it takes a billion or more replications for each transitional adaptive evolutionary step and that's just a single mutation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you want to understand something about evolution, you won't do it with the fossil record. And I've already published numerous papers on the physics and mathematics of evolution. Here's a couple of papers on random mutation and natural selection, the first to a single selection pressure and the second to multiple simultaneous selection pressures:

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
And the following paper which presently is in peer-review shows the correct mathematics for DNA evolution and shows where biologists and geneticists make their fundamental error in their mathematics of evolution:
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process
If you read and understand these papers, you will understand why it takes a billion or more replications for each transitional adaptive evolutionary step and that's just a single mutation.

Meh, nothing about the ToE there. What I meant was that if you think you've proved the genetic mechanisms used in the ToE are wrong, you should publish a paper about that in a relevant peer-reviewed journal. If those dunderhead evolutionary biologists have been getting it wrong for so long, they obviously need it to be spelt out to them.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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.

The probability of dealing out a particular set of cards doesn't change whether the cards have or haven't been dealt out yet. Are you claiming that evolutionary adaptation doesn't depend on a particular set of mutations? Will any mutations on any member of a population cause those members to adapt to the selection conditions?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Meh, nothing about the ToE there. What I meant was that if you think you've proved the genetic mechanisms used in the ToE are wrong, you should publish a paper about that in a relevant peer-reviewed journal. If those dunderhead evolutionary biologists have been getting it wrong for so long, they obviously need it to be spelt out to them.

Clearly, you don't recognize that those papers give the correct mathematics for the evolutionary adaptation component of Darwinian evolution. Do you understand the difference between competition and adaptation in the evolutionary process? If you think you do understand that difference, tell us whether competition speeds up adaptation or slows adaptation and give us the reason for your answer.

 

[Speedwell]

The probability of dealing out a particular set of cards doesn't change whether the cards have or haven't been dealt out yet. Are you claiming that evolutionary adaptation doesn't depend on a particular set of mutations? Will any mutations on any member of a population cause those members to adapt to the selection conditions?

Not any mutation, but more than just one.

 

[pitabread]

The probability of dealing out a particular set of cards doesn't change whether the cards have or haven't been dealt out yet.

But as I said, from a post-hoc perspective, who really cares?

Any given outcome from dealing 52 cards is highly unlikely, but if I deal those 52 cards I'm still going to get one of those outcomes.

Are you claiming that evolutionary adaptation doesn't depend on a particular set of mutations? Will any mutations on any member of a population cause those members to adapt to the selection conditions?

What I am claiming is that the particular evolutionary history we observe on Earth (e.g. the outcome) is just what happened to occur. Trying to calculate post-hoc probabilities thereof is an exercise in irrelevance especially given you have no way of knowing what the total possible probability space is.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Not any mutation, but more than just one.

That's correct but it only changes the probabilities slightly. Once you figure out how to do the math for one mutation, I'll show you how to do the math for more than one possible beneficial mutation. Empirical examples of these kinds of cases are seen with the evolution of drug-resistance. where different variants take different trajectories to drug-resistance. Here's a link to a paper that demonstrates this:
Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But as I said, from a post-hoc perspective, who really cares?

Any given outcome from dealing 52 cards is highly unlikely, but if I deal those 52 cards I'm still going to get one of those outcomes.



What I am claiming is that the particular evolutionary history we observe on Earth (e.g. the outcome) is just what happened to occur. Trying to calculate post-hoc probabilities thereof is an exercise in irrelevance especially given you have no way of knowing what the total possible probability space is.

Ok, if in your observations you claim that you are seeing some non-feather producing replicator evolve into a feather producing replicator, tell us how that non-feather producer accumulated the mutations to make it a feather producer.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok, if in your observations you claim that you are seeing some non-feather producing replicator evolve into a feather producing replicator, tell us how that non-feather producer accumulated the mutations to make it a feather producer.

Due to a highly improbable series of mutations. I think we all agree to that, but we don't understand why you see it as problem for evolution in general.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Due to a highly improbable series of mutations. I think we all agree to that, but we don't understand why you see it as problem for evolution in general.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Ok, if in your observations you claim that you are seeing some non-feather producing replicator evolve into a feather producing replicator, tell us how that non-feather producer accumulated the mutations to make it a feather producer.

If you're curious how feathers could have evolved, there's ample scientific literature on that subject. Scientists have even conducted experiments on altering gene expression in modern alligators to see how feathers could have evolved: Multiple Regulatory Modules Are Required for Scale-to-Feather Conversion

 

[pitabread]

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.

What we're seeing here seems to be more like a mathematically irrational misinterpretation of probabilities, not evolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

If you're curious how feathers could have evolved, there's ample scientific literature on that subject. Scientists have even conducted experiments on altering gene expression in modern alligators to see how feathers could have evolved: Multiple Regulatory Modules Are Required for Scale-to-Feather Conversion

Ok, what is the mechanism for some non-feather producing replicator to accumulate the mutations to produce the regulatory modules necessary to produce feathers?

 

[pitabread]

Ok, what is the mechanism for some non-feather producing replicator to accumulate the mutations to produce the regulatory modules necessary to produce feathers?

Are you asking me how sexual reproduction, DNA replication, and population genetics works? I thought you had a biology degree?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

What we're seeing here seems to be more like a mathematically irrational misinterpretation of probabilities, not evolution.

Any time you think you can write out the correct probabilities, feel free to do it. Why don't you start out by doing the probability equations that describe the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why don't you show us that practical application of the ToE?

 

[pitabread]

Any time you think you can write out the correct probabilities, feel free to do it.

It's not about the "correct probabilities". It's that any such probabilities are irrelevant to begin with.

Just like calculating the post-hoc probability of dealing out a particular 52 cards doesn't really matter when it comes to the 52 cards I have already dealt.

Why don't you start out by doing the probability equations that describe the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Once again, I'm not talking about those experiments. I'm talking about your comments re: historical evolution of life on Earth.

Trying to constantly change the subject isn't going to work here.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Are you asking me how sexual reproduction and DNA replication works? Don't you have a biology degree?

You haven't figured out the mathematics for DNA evolution yet and now you want to toss in recombination? If you want to understand how recombination affects DNA evolution, you can read this paper:
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance

 

[pitabread]

You haven't figured out the mathematics for DNA evolution yet and now you want to toss in recombination?

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

If you want to understand how recombination

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

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It's not about the "correct probabilities". It's that any such probabilities are irrelevant to begin with.

Just like calculating the post-hoc probability of dealing out a particular 52 cards doesn't really matter when it comes to the 52 cards I have already dealt.



Once again, I'm not talking about those experiments. I'm talking about your comments re: historical evolution of life on Earth.

Trying to constantly change the subject isn't going to work here.

Of course, you don't want to talk about the Kishony and Lenski experiments, they don't fit your incorrect understanding of evolution. Remember the good old days when ToEists (the Warden is offended by ToEites) claimed that drug resistance was proof of the ToE?

 

[pitabread]

Of course, you don't want to talk about the Kishony and Lenski experiments

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.