|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explaining the pro-Evolution position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:We are almost finished with the mathematics and then we'll do the arithmetic. And the mathematics and arithmetic apply to any replicator, dinosaurs included.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Sexually reproducing creatures - like dinosaurs - receive genetic material from both parents. Thus it is possible to inherit advantageous mutations from both parents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Kleinman writes: We are almost finished with the mathematics and then we'll do the arithmetic. And the mathematics and arithmetic apply to any replicator, dinosaurs included. Please complete your exposition in your next post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
The mathematics I'm presenting here is the mathematics of rmns by common descent. How do you think replicators accumulate the mutations necessary to adapt to selection pressures by rmns? Perhaps you think that lateral transfer of genetic material is the way it is done? Try doing the mathematics of random ecombination. If you can't do it, I'll show you. They accumulate through selection, so I don't see how the mathematics of random recombination are applicable. The non-random rates of survival and reproduction seem to be more applicable in this instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
e are almost finished with the mathematics and then we'll do the arithmetic. And the mathematics and arithmetic apply to any replicator, dinosaurs included. The mathematics, possibly. Not the arithmetic. Different populations have different properties (size of population, mutation rate, number of selection pressures operating on them) and this will mean that the arithmetic will involve different numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:There is if you understand that rmns is a stochastic process and understand how to do probability calculations. There's no reason to believe that your probability equations are the general solution for rmns, and there is no reason to believe that your probability equations apply to all replicators. You have probability equations for particular replicators in particular situations. You've provided no evidence or argument for them applying as a general case or for all replicators. The closest you've come to it is: "show me one that doesn't", and that is neither evidence nor argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote: quote:Hi to you Percy. What I think Weinreich is saying is that any evolutionary trajectory must take a path of ever increasing fitness. If an evolutionary trajectory requires a detrimental mutation, amplification does not occur of that variant so the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on a member of that lineage remains low. I actually think that Weinreich made an error in his paper when he said there were only 120 possible evolutionary trajectories. It doesn't say how he came up with that number but I suspect he is computing permutations (5!) which is n different things (5 mutations) taken all at a time. He should have used permutations of n different things (4 bases) taken k (5 mutations) at a time with repetition or 4^5=1024 possible pathways. But even that might be a low estimate because you might have 6 mutation variants and so on. Weinreich did publish a follow-up paper where he identified more resistant variants. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution is impossible, I'm giving you the mathematical rules which govern how evolution by rmns works. It is the theory of evolution which is mathematically irrational based on how rmns works. It is the multiplication rule of probabilities which kills the theory of evolution.
quote:The painful part is already over. The calculation for computing the probability of a B mutation on a member which already has the A mutation is done in the exact same manner as computing the probability of the A mutation occurring on some member of the entire population. The only thing that changes is you don't use the entire population size, you only use the portion of the population with mutation A. So if that subpopulation with mutation A does not increase in size, the probability of mutation B occurring on some member with mutation A will be small. That is because the joint probability of mutation B occurring on some member with mutation A is computed using the multiplication rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is the multiplication rule of probabilities which kills the theory of evolution. Ooh, good! This is something to look forward to. Though it seems odd that something so simple and almost universally known should overturn a scientific theory, and that no-one should have noticed it before. It would be one thing if some rare genius were to find a flaw in the theory, but if you are right about the multiplication rule, then you are not a rare genius --- you are a man of middling intellect who has achieved distinction by living among a species of complete morons who cannot apply the math they learned in middle school. Well ... they can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I know Kleinman has been patronizing, but please, let's keep this civil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:That's right. So then how does this change the mathematics? Instead of a haploid replicator, you now have a diploid (ignoring polyploid replicators for the moment). What this effectively does is double the initial population of genomes replicated per generation. Instead of n replicating haploid genomes, that number becomes 2n because of diploid. And then you can try to include recombination into the calculation. I've done the recombination calculation alone to study why recombination does not have a significant effect on the evolution of drug-resistant HIV. The empirical evidence already is clear that rmns is not significantly altered by sexual reproduction. Combination herbicides are already known to impair the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds. There are other examples as well.quote:Sexually reproducing creatures - like dinosaurs - receive genetic material from both parents. Thus it is possible to inherit advantageous mutations from both parents. I suspect you would have to include the mathematics of Mendelian genetics as well. You should try and do the calculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Kleinman writes: I actually think that Weinreich made an error in his paper when he said there were only 120 possible evolutionary trajectories. It doesn't say how he came up with that number but I suspect he is computing permutations (5!) which is n different things (5 mutations) taken all at a time. He should have used permutations of n different things (4 bases) taken k (5 mutations) at a time with repetition or 4^5=1024 possible pathways. See Figure 2 of Weinrich et. al.. The specific mutations are known, he's just stating the number of possible orderings to arrive at the final TEM state, which is 5!.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution is impossible, I'm giving you the mathematical rules which govern how evolution by rmns works. It is the theory of evolution which is mathematically irrational based on how rmns works. It is the multiplication rule of probabilities which kills the theory of evolution. Well, if that's it then we'll just have to see if anyone wants to engage with you further about whether RM/NS renders evolution irrational. Until then, please move on to addressing the dinosaur-to-bird issue. Sorry to be curt, but you've pretty much exhausted everyone's patience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:What I think happened is that evolutionary biologists went down a wrong track when the got stuck on the notion of fixation rather than recognizing its amplification which affects the probabilities, not relative frequencies. Did you notice that relative frequencies don't appear in these probability equations (they do for random recombination)? You don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out this problem. rmns is nothing more than a nested binomial probability problem where the different binomial probabilities problems are linked by the multiplication rule of probabilities. If you did a careful study of a good computer simulation of rmns like Tom Schneider's EV computer simulation and looked carefully at the empirical examples of rmns, its not that hard to see how rmns works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Ok, and I re-read the paper and found where he explicitly does the 5! calculation. It really doesn't matter from the point of view of computing the mathematics of rmns. Each lineage on any particular evolutionary trajectory must still solve nested binomial probability problems linked by the multiplication rule of probabilities. And the only way a lineage can do this efficiently is by amplifying the current beneficial mutation to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members. If the amplification process does not occur, the probabilities of the next beneficial mutation remain low. quote:It's not rmns that renders evolution irrational, rmns works in a mathematically rational way where each evolutionary step is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities. rmns is nothing more than a set of nested binomial probability problems where the individual binomial probability problems are linked by the multiplication rule of probabilities. This is why the only examples of rmns that work efficiently are those with single targeted selection pressures. When a population is subjected to more than a single targeted selection pressure simultaneously, the ability of variants to amplify any particular beneficial mutation for one selection pressure is impaired by the other selection pressures. Try to find an empirical example that doesn't demonstrate this. They don't exist. So the reason why dinosaurs can not transform alleles which produce scales into alleles which produce feathers by rmns is that too many genes must be transformed. Now perhaps in your mind there exist a set of targeted selection pressures, targeting each appropriate gene that would transform a scale into a feather and this set of selection pressures somehow occur consecutively so that one selection pressure does not interfere with the others, then you would have a mathematically valid argument that rmns could transform scales into feathers. But you don't have these selection pressures. And any selection pressure that targets more than a single gene at a time interferes with the rmns process. This is why combination therapy works for HIV, this is why combination herbicides suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, why every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns demonstrates this. It is all due to the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
So the reason why dinosaurs can not transform alleles which produce scales into alleles which produce feathers by rmns is that too many genes must be transformed. How many genes must be transformed to make this change?What is the limit of the number of genes that could allow the transformation? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What I think happened is that evolutionary biologists went down a wrong track when the got stuck on the notion of fixation rather than recognizing its amplification which affects the probabilities, not relative frequencies. Well, fixation is just amplification taken to 100%. And it's easy to work with. It's likely to be a good approximation to math which took the steps from mutation to fixation into effect: such an approximation would start breaking down if and to the extent that beneficial mutations were so common that it's highly likely that a second beneficial mutation will arise before the first one's achieved fixation. Even so, this will not have much qualitative effect: it will still (for example) be the case that evolution goes at a higher rate when there are multiple (soft) selection pressures, because the reasons for that will still apply.
You don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out this problem. That would be kinda my point. Every week, hundreds of people realize that they can overturn either evolution or the Big Bang with reference to some snippet of math or science they learned in middle school. So far, they have invariably been wrong; and it is easy to see why: if it could be done that easily, it would have been done already.
If you did a careful study of a good computer simulation of rmns like Tom Schneider's EV computer simulation and looked carefully at the empirical examples of rmns, its not that hard to see how rmns works. A good computer simulation actually shows that my math in post #132 is correct. Which is nice for me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024