Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You claim the ToE is true but you can't show how it works. Why do you think it is true? You can't even explain how natural selection works. Is that an unfair question?
Of course, a functional protein cannot be built up one AA at a time except perhaps by a good biochemist in a laboratory. Are you arguing for intelligent design?
I am still puzzled as to exactly what you are calculating here. What transformation?
I don't claim it's true. I accept it as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I accept the current consensus of such experts, and I'm not entirely ignorant of the multiple lines of evidence that support and are consistent with that model. If your criticism of the current model is shown to be correct, the consensus will eventually change. I wish you luck.
An adaptive mutation gives an improvement in fitness to that new variant. It is called natural selection.
Really, you know that? How do you know that birds descended from dinosaurs? And where are your computational biologists that explain the mathematics of evolutionary adaptation? Has Dr. Swamidass explained the Kishony evolutionary experiment? Post a link to that paper.
Well, that explanation has a huge mathematical problem. It's called the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Go and find the post where I question Dr. Swamidass about whether doubling population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. He answered wrong. Things weren't very peaceful after that. Actually, you did that with your link, thank you. Perhaps you ToEists want to try and answer those questions and see if you do any better.
This model had already predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before the experiment had been performed and I was in the process of working out the math for the Lenski experiment which is essentially the same except that experiment is performed in a highly competitive environment. As I said, they wouldn't listen.
You are being evasive. Did you forget exactly what you were trying to calculate?
Sorry, I don't recall them asking for anything like that. The way you validate a mathematical model is to test it against measured results. The way engineers do that is first study the physical model and then from first principles (the physical and mathematical laws of physics) derive the mathematical model. Then from values from the experiment, you see if those results correlate with the mathematical model. If they don't, you go back and reconsider your model and why the results deviate. Haldane's work does something like this but until you get the results from the Lenski experiment, you really don't have the experimental data to verify his model of competition. Jukes-Cantor did this with their Markov model of DNA evolution but until the Kishony experiment came along, you didn't have the empirical data to test that model. That's what prompted me to go back and look at their derivation and why it doesn't fit the data. That's when it became apparent to me that they weren't doing the physics correctly because they didn't take into account population size. When you do take population size into account in the Jukes-Cantor model, it then correlates correctly with the Kishony (and Lenski experiments). Felsenstein who wrote a derivative model of the Jukes-Cantor also missed this part of the physics. I challenged him to apply his model to the Lenski experiment but he said it would take too long. I tried to explain to him that his model was wrong but he wouldn't listen either. So, I publish my work where people will listen and want to understand the evolution of drug-resistance and why cancer treatments fail and just wait and hope that the mainline biologists can learn something and come to their senses.
Not only did I not forget, but I also presented the calculation of the number of replications necessary to give a reasonable probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. That's the math that explains how natural selection works for DNA evolution. It's really not that complicated, if a variant cannot achieve sufficient replications (fitness to reproduce), the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on a member of this variant will be small.
Who says proteins are 'used' by anything?
