Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explaining the pro-Evolution position
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 181 of 393 (792596)
10-11-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by AZPaul3
10-11-2016 9:04 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
AZPaul3 writes:
Any pigeon will give you that.
As well as scales and feathers too.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by AZPaul3, posted 10-11-2016 9:04 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 393 (792597)
10-11-2016 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Concurrent versus Consecutive Pressures
Ok, any mutation that is detrimental causes the loss or reduced fitness of that member.
Right, why do you mention it?
Ok, but you must also assume the mice have adequate food, adequate water, no disease, no thermal stress...
No, just that before the introduction of the predators they maintained their population at the level that it was in fact at in the face of these pressures.
I don't agree with your terminology or concept. Increasing food sources reduces selection pressures on populations ...
Not if (as I explicitly said) "each [...] requires a different adaptation to exploit effectively". Then they impose selection pressures.
There is no such thing as pressures of opportunity.
Wrong. See my example.
The phenotypes of populations can be altered markedly by recombination. Consider the variants seen in the canine family in just a few thousand years of selective breeding. However, the creation of new alleles by rmns is an extremely slow process, even under ideal circumstances with the correct selection pressures. And if you have multiple directional selection pressures acting simultaneously, the process only slows further.
Wrong (in general). See my math.
Take a closer look at the Lenski starvtion selection pressure experiment, he maintains his populations at e7-e8. Yet is still takes over a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do you think that rmns will work more quickly if he subjects his populations to thermal stress as well as starvation stress concurrently?
Yes if this involves soft selection, no if the selection is too hard, i.e. if the additional stress reduces the population to such a level that this outweighs the effect of concurrent evolution.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 8:55 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 11:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 183 of 393 (792600)
10-11-2016 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2016 6:39 PM


Re: Birds and HIV
quote:
Are you arguing that conservative selection pressures are what transformed dinosaurs into birds.
No, of course not. You can tell I'm not arguing that by the way in which instead of saying "Conservative selection pressures are what transformed dinosaurs into birds" I said "But to even start applying this to dinosaurs we'd need to know how many beneficial mutations get your from dinosaurs to birds and how long it took."
I had a link to a paper which is now dead given to me by Edward Max. In that link, they studied the genomes of reptiles and the genomes of birds and looked at which genes would have to be transformed to transform scales to feathers. They identified at least 8 genes which would have to be transformed. They didn't say how many mutations in each gene.
quote:
I have empirical examples of rmns for microbes, plants, insects, rodents, cancers, some of these examples are for clonal replicators, some for sexually reproducing replicators.
How nice for you. Do you also have the data relevant to dinosaur-bird evolution I mentioned in my post?
Last I checked, nobody has sequenced the dinosaur genome except in Jurrasic Park.
quote:
Even if birds could evolve as quickly as HIV does, the theory of evolution does not have a chance. Are you going to argue that combination therapy doesn't work for the treatment of HIV?
No, I'm not going to argue that combination therapy doesn't work for the treatment of HIV. I'm going to argue that you have done no calculations relevant to the evolution of birds.
The equations I derived are general equations applicable to any example of rmns. They are applicable to all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns. If you use combination selection pressures on birds, they will not be able to evolve by rmns any differently than any other replicator.
quote:
Of course, you don't know what the selection pressures are which would transform a reptile into a bird because they don't exist.
Well, don't you think that being able to fly is kinda useful to birds?
Certainly, but if you are going to take a life form that can not fly and try to give that life form the alleles necessary to fly by rmns, those life forms are already the honored guests at dinner.
quote:
And targeted selection pressures are those pressures which target a single genetic loci.
Locus. I'm still not sure what that would have to do with, for example, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
Thanks, you are correct. My point is, most real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns are cases where there are targeted selection pressures. For example, antimicrobial resistance, herbicide resistance and so on. Have you ever seen a case where a microbe evolves resistance to iodine? It doesn't happen because iodine reacts with too many biological molecules, too many genetic loci targeted. Starvation and thermal stress target too many genetic loci simultaneously for replicators to evolve efficiently to these kinds of selection pressures. The Lenski experiments are examples of this. And when these pressures are combined, the ability to evolve to these pressures becomes multiplicatively more difficult to evolve to by rmns.
quote:
Don't hide your empirical examples, but make sure they are real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns.
As I said, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. If you are going to count the conservative selection pressures on dinosaurs, and claim that these would impede their evolution into birds, then I am going to count the conservative selection pressures on bacteria and point out that these don't impede them at all in evolving resistance to ampicillin.
Fair enough, it's the directional selection pressures which I am talking about which drive rmns.
quote:
So three drug combination therapy does not work for the treatment of HIV? You'd better notify the WHO, CDC, FDA, and NBA
As the paper I cited shows, it doesn't completely stop evolution in HIV. Obviously it works in terms of conferring benefits on the patient, but it works rather less well in bolstering your claims about the way evolution works.
Again, fair enough, but I think you now recognize that single drug treatment is useless, two drug therapy works better, three drug therapy handles the vast majority of cases, four drug therapy... My paper on the evolution of drug resistance to multiple simultaneous selection pressures addresses this. There's a pattern which emerges as you add selection pressures. You are forcing lineages to do several orders of magnitude more replications for each additional selection pressure for each beneficial mutation required for adaptation. This is easy for the lineages to accomplish the amplification required when the selection pressures are applied sequentially. However, when done simultaneously, the amplification process is suppressed by the various selection pressures.
quote:
I'm going to stop you right there because you are making the same error in physics which Haldane and Kimura make in their models of substitution and fixation. Fixation is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work. Do you understand why?
Well, I wouldn't like to be like those dunces Haldane and Kimura.
Your meaning is rather obscure, since fixation is one not uncommon product of evolution, so writing "fixation is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work" is rather like writing "Traveling to another country is not necessary for airplanes to work".
Fixation is a common notion taught in evolutionary biology but it is based on an incorrect understanding of the physics. Fixation is based on the notion that natural selection is a conservative phenomenon. Haldane in his substitution model is based on the assumption that the increase in one variant must be accompanied by a decrease in another variant (hence substitution). Kimura in his diffusion fixation model uses the same basic concept. In order for a variant to be fixed, the other variants must disappear. But that is not what happens with rmns. First, the probabilities of a beneficial mutation occurring are not dependent on the relative frequency of the variant but the actual number of members replicating who would benefit from the particular mutation. Second, rmns can occur with multiple different variants, each taking their own particular evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness and it doesn't matter what the other lineages are doing as long as they are not competing for the resources of the environment. None of the variants need to be fixed in order for this process to happen. Here's a video demonstrating this:
Scientists create video of bacteria evolving drug resistance.
I've sent an email to the people doing this experiment to try the experiment with 2 and then 3 drugs instead of the single drug experiment. Fixation is not the key variable for evolution by rmns, it is amplification to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 6:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 10:23 PM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 199 by Pressie, posted 10-12-2016 8:14 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 184 of 393 (792602)
10-11-2016 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Theodoric
10-11-2016 7:21 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
quote:
Do you think the TOE states birds descended from modern reptiles?
Doesn't matter, if the alleles don't exist in the lineage, they have to come from someplace. Modern reptiles don't have the alleles to produce feathers, where did "ancient" reptiles get the alleles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 10-11-2016 7:21 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 393 (792603)
10-11-2016 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 9:56 PM


Re: Birds and HIV
Last I checked, nobody has sequenced the dinosaur genome except in Jurrasic Park.
I didn't say doing the calculation would would be easy or indeed possible. I merely say that you have not in fact done it.
The equations I derived are general equations applicable to any example of rmns.
And what do they say? Because if all they say is that simultaneous beneficial mutations are unlikely, then this is true but does not do what you want it to, i.e. cast doubt on bird evolution.
Certainly, but if you are going to take a life form that can not fly and try to give that life form the alleles necessary to fly by rmns, those life forms are already the honored guests at dinner.
Well, you know, non-flying dinosaurs also managed to survive for about 160 million years.
Starvation and thermal stress target too many genetic loci simultaneously for replicators to evolve efficiently to these kinds of selection pressures. The Lenski experiments are examples of this.
Except that the bacteria in that experiment did evolve effectively; they are demonstrably fitter than their ancestors. According to WP: "By 20,000 generations the populations grew approximately 70% faster than the ancestral strain."
Again, fair enough, but I think you now recognize that single drug treatment is useless, two drug therapy works better, three drug therapy handles the vast majority of cases, four drug therapy... My paper on the evolution of drug resistance to multiple simultaneous selection pressures addresses this. There's a pattern which emerges as you add selection pressures.
I know, I did the math. And the pattern is different depending on how hard the selection pressures are.
Fixation is based on the notion that natural selection is a conservative phenomenon.
No.
Second, rmns can occur with multiple different variants, each taking their own particular evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness and it doesn't matter what the other lineages are doing as long as they are not competing for the resources of the environment.
But eventually they certainly will be.
---
Again, I would point out that the traits that make birds birds and not dinosaurs are fixed in birds, so it would be perfectly reasonable to measure the speed of dinosaur-to-bird evolution in terms of the rate at which the genes were fixed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 9:56 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 186 of 393 (792604)
10-11-2016 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2016 7:55 PM


Re: paths
quote:
My mathematical model predicts the behavior of every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. If you think I'm cherry picking the data, post a real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns that doesn't obey my mathematics.
You're not doing mathematics. You're saying that the evolution of birds from dinosaurs must have been like the evolution of HIV to adapt to combination therapy ... only slower, 'cos that's actually quite fast ... and therefore would have taken so long that it can't have happened.
No Doc, what I am saying is that rmns works the same for all replicators. rmns works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on that lineage.
quote:
And all this without doing any math, or having any data about birds or dinosaurs. It's an example of a classic creationist trope that I call the Non-Quantitative Quantitative Argument. "This number (which I haven't calculated) is too big/too small to agree with the theory of evolution!" At this juncture I usually point out that they haven't calculated the number, and they get all grumpy.And all this without doing any math, or having any data about birds or dinosaurs. It's an example of a classic creationist trope that I call the Non-Quantitative Quantitative Argument. "This number (which I haven't calculated) is too big/too small to agree with the theory of evolution!" At this juncture I usually point out that they haven't calculated the number, and they get all grumpy.
I have done the math and I understand that it's behind a paywall but it's there.
Here's the first step in doing the math, it is determining the possible outcomes for a mutation.
P(−∞ < X < +∞) = P(Ad) + P(Cy) + P(Gu) + P(Th) + P(iAd) + P(iCy) + P(iGu)
+ P(iTh) + P(del)+ = 1
Where the i term denotes insertion, del denotes deletion, ... denotes any other possible mutation you can think of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 7:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 11:13 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 187 of 393 (792605)
10-11-2016 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coyote
10-11-2016 8:03 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
quote:
This part of the abstract sums it up.
This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
In other words "thoughtless, haphazard, non-design" creates complex stuff.
Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news...
Why don't you bear us some empirical examples of your bad news?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2016 8:03 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2016 10:36 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 188 of 393 (792606)
10-11-2016 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 10:28 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
You're fond of mathematical models, you do the homework and stop trolling us.
You said you got five minutes into that on-line lecture. Try the whole thing. It shows the stuff you're peddling us is invalid.
Of course, I can see why you don't want to watch it...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 10:28 PM Kleinman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 10-12-2016 7:46 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 189 of 393 (792608)
10-11-2016 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 10:24 PM


Re: paths
No Doc, what I am saying is that rmns works the same for all replicators. rmns works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on that lineage.
Amplification? You mean, as in this? And this, you say, improves the probability of another beneficial mutation? How?
And why would it stop birds from evolving?
Here's the first step in doing the math ...
Could we move forward to the steps that involve birds and dinosaurs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 10:24 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 190 of 393 (792609)
10-11-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2016 9:26 PM


Re: Concurrent versus Consecutive Pressures
The following is a response to post 182, 185
quote:
Ok, any mutation that is detrimental causes the loss or reduced fitness of that member.
Right, why do you mention it?
Just trying to make sure I understand your scenario.
quote:
Ok, but you must also assume the mice have adequate food, adequate water, no disease, no thermal stress...
No, just that before the introduction of the predators they maintained their population at the level that it was in fact at in the face of these pressures.
I guess so, ok so go on.
quote:
I don't agree with your terminology or concept. Increasing food sources reduces selection pressures on populations ...
Not if (as I explicitly said) "each [...] requires a different adaptation to exploit effectively". Then they impose selection pressures.
So some variant can us one food source, other variants use the second food source, and a third variant can us the remaining source?
quote:
There is no such thing as pressures of opportunity.
Wrong. See my example.
You can reduce the selection pressures on a population which will allow for increasing diversity, so if you want to call that an opportunity, I guess so.
quote:
The phenotypes of populations can be altered markedly by recombination. Consider the variants seen in the canine family in just a few thousand years of selective breeding. However, the creation of new alleles by rmns is an extremely slow process, even under ideal circumstances with the correct selection pressures. And if you have multiple directional selection pressures acting simultaneously, the process only slows further.
Wrong (in general). See my math.
I've seen your math and you need to learn something about the concept of fixation, it has no bearing on rmns.
quote:
Take a closer look at the Lenski starvtion selection pressure experiment, he maintains his populations at e7-e8. Yet is still takes over a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do you think that rmns will work more quickly if he subjects his populations to thermal stress as well as starvation stress concurrently?
Yes if this involves soft selection, no if the selection is too hard, i.e. if the additional stress reduces the population to such a level that this outweighs the effect of concurrent evolution.
Is that like killing me softly with his song? You need to suggest to Lenski to run his experiment with both thermal stress and starvation stress so he doesn't have to wait a thousand generations per beneficial mutation.
quote:
Last I checked, nobody has sequenced the dinosaur genome except in Jurrasic Park.
I didn't say doing the calculation would would be easy or indeed possible. I merely say that you have not in fact done it.
The calculations for rmns are actually quite simple.
quote:
The equations I derived are general equations applicable to any example of rmns.
And what do they say? Because if all they say is that simultaneous beneficial mutations are unlikely, then this is true but does not do what you want it to, i.e. cast doubt on bird evolution.
My calculations also say that if amplification doesn't occur, the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on that lineage remains low.
quote:
Certainly, but if you are going to take a life form that can not fly and try to give that life form the alleles necessary to fly by rmns, those life forms are already the honored guests at dinner.
Well, you know, non-flying dinosaurs also managed to survive for about 160 million years.
Apparently they didn't have to escape from their predators by flying away.
quote:
Starvation and thermal stress target too many genetic loci simultaneously for replicators to evolve efficiently to these kinds of selection pressures. The Lenski experiments are examples of this.
Except that the bacteria in that experiment did evolve effectively; they are demonstrably fitter than their ancestors. According to WP: "By 20,000 generations the populations grew approximately 70% faster than the ancestral strain."
Not bad for 20,000 generations and about 20 beneficial mutations. But considering that 30 generations of doubling should have given about e12 members with a given beneficial mutation, you have very slow amplification. Remember the uproar over Haldanes dilemma, 300 generations per evolutionary step? But Haldane's model is physically incorrect.
quote:
Again, fair enough, but I think you now recognize that single drug treatment is useless, two drug therapy works better, three drug therapy handles the vast majority of cases, four drug therapy... My paper on the evolution of drug resistance to multiple simultaneous selection pressures addresses this. There's a pattern which emerges as you add selection pressures.
I know, I did the math. And the pattern is different depending on how hard the selection pressures are.
Do you think that the evolutionary trajectory is dependent on the intensity of selection?
quote:
Fixation is based on the notion that natural selection is a conservative phenomenon.
No.
You are wrong on this one Doc. Do a careful study of Haldane's and Kimura's work. It's based on the concept that an increase in one variant is linked with a decrease in the other variants. In fact Haldane's substitution model is analogus to a conservation of energy problem. Here's a link to a paper which describes this:
Just a moment...
Kimura's work is directly based on a diffusion equation which is also a conservative phenomenon.
quote:
Second, rmns can occur with multiple different variants, each taking their own particular evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness and it doesn't matter what the other lineages are doing as long as they are not competing for the resources of the environment.
But eventually they certainly will be.
They will be what?
quote:
Again, I would point out that the traits that make birds birds and not dinosaurs are fixed in birds, so it would be perfectly reasonable to measure the speed of dinosaur-to-bird evolution in terms of the rate at which the genes were fixed.
You are wrong on this Doc. Fixation of an allele is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to occur. If you are so sure you are correct, explain why one variant must decrease in order for another variant to increase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 9:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 11:44 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 191 of 393 (792610)
10-11-2016 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2016 11:13 PM


Re: paths
quote:
No Doc, what I am saying is that rmns works the same for all replicators. rmns works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on that lineage.
Amplification? You mean, as in this? And this, you say, improves the probability of another beneficial mutation? How?
And why would it stop birds from evolving?
What I mean by amplification is simply increase in number of members of a particular lineage. Replication is the principle random trial for rmns. There are two ways to increase the number of random trials, you can increase the number of members in a lineage and you can increase number generations that lineage is able to replicate. Here's an easy way to think of this. Let's say you want to know the probability of rolling at least a single 1 with the roll of 1 die 10 times or 10 dice once, or 5 dice rolled twice etc. They all give the same set of possible outcomes and probabilities. So if you have a large numbers of members in a given lineage, it doesn't take very many generations of replications to have a reasonable probability of getting that beneficial mutation. But once that beneficial mutation occurs on one of the members, it is the progenitor of a new subpopulation (lineage) which must now amplify in order to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occuring to advance the rmns process.
quote:
Here's the first step in doing the math ...
Could we move forward to the steps that involve birds and dinosaurs?
It's the same math for all replicators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 11:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 11:50 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 192 of 393 (792611)
10-11-2016 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 11:21 PM


Re: Concurrent versus Consecutive Pressures
So some variant can us one food source, other variants use the second food source, and a third variant can us the remaining source?
I said different, not incompatible.
You can reduce the selection pressures on a population which will allow for increasing diversity, so if you want to call that an opportunity, I guess so.
But the opportunities increase the selection pressures, because it is now adaptive to be able to take advantage of the opportunities.
I've seen your math and you need to learn something about the concept of fixation, it has no bearing on rmns.
See my previous posts.
Is that like killing me softly with his song?
No.
You need to suggest to Lenski to run his experiment with both thermal stress and starvation stress so he doesn't have to wait a thousand generations per beneficial mutation.
Too late.
You are wrong on this one Doc. Do a careful study of Haldane's and Kimura's work. It's based on the concept that an increase in one variant is linked with a decrease in the other variants.
That's not what conservative selection means.
And I'm sure both Haldane and Kimura were aware that populations grow sometimes. And, knowing that, they did not find the concept of fixation invalid; and nor do I.
They will be what?
They will be competing for the resources of the environment. A population cannot grow indefinitely.
You are wrong on this Doc. Fixation of an allele is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to occur.
Again, this is a strange way of putting it. "Travelling to another country is neither necessary nor sufficient for air travel to occur". Sure. This does not prove that the concept of travelling to another country is meaningless or fictitious, or that one cannot do it by plane.
If you are so sure you are correct, explain why one variant must decrease in order for another variant to increase.
This is not in fact necessarily the case; but it would be the case if the population size is steady, as is often the case in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 11:21 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 393 (792612)
10-11-2016 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 11:35 PM


Re: paths
But once that beneficial mutation occurs on one of the members, it is the progenitor of a new subpopulation (lineage) which must now amplify in order to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occuring ...
How does this improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring? Do you mean just because the population will be larger as a result of the first beneficial mutation, or what?
It's the same math for all replicators.
Well, the actual numbers would be different.
C'mon, Kleinman. You say that dinosaur-to-bird evolution can't have taken place because it would take too long for birds to evolve from dinosaurs. In order to prove your point, it is necessary for you to calculate how long it would take birds to evolve from dinosaurs, and to show your working. If you can't do that, then while many other aspects of this thread may have been entertaining, you haven't even made a start on proving your point.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 11:35 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 194 of 393 (792613)
10-12-2016 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 8:12 PM


quote:
The theory of evolution doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain how rmns works, it doesn't explain how recombination works. It's a theory which takes the concept of common descent and says every living thing we see today came from some replicator from the primordial soup. This is a belief system made up by someone who doesn't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities.
This is hardly the sort of thing we can expect from someone who really had a scientific disproof of the theory of evolution. Universal common descent is not even a very important part of the theory - and it would be dropped if the evidence went against it, with very little effect on evolutionary theory. It is not even what I would expect from somebody who understands how to apply probability theory to long sequences of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 8:12 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 195 of 393 (792614)
10-12-2016 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 6:13 PM


Re: Speed is not efficiency
quote:
Fixation is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work. This notion of fixation is based on an erroneous application of a physical principle. Do you think that natural selection is a conservative phenomenon?
What a bizarre thing to say! Would you not agree that the alleles to create feathers are fixed in every bird population ? And obviously in at least many other dinosaur populations ? It is rather important to evolution that fixation does occur, and natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which it does occur.
And I will add that frequency could be considered a conserved quantity for the simple reason that the sum of the frequencies (of alleles of a gene) must be 1. As you must surely know, through the connection to probability theory at least.
Spouting nonsense does not help your case.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 6:13 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024