|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explaining the pro-Evolution position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:I had a link (which is now dead) to a paper where biologists looked at this problem. What they did is looked at the genomes of birds and the genomes of reptiles and tried to determine which genes would need to be transformed to turn scales into feathers. They identified at least eight genes. Once you get above the transformation of a single gene by a single selection pressure, rmns is stifled. How much is it stifled? Consider the evolution of HIV where only 2 genes are targeted by 3 selection pressures and you have people surviving for decades instead of weeks. If you have huge populations such as seen with Malaria (trillions or more), 2 selection pressures still allows for the emergence of resistance. This happens because with populations this large, the probabilities of double beneficial mutations become realistic. But each evolutionary step means that double beneficial mutation variant must amplify into the trillions as well for the next set of double beneficial mutations. This is why 2 drug therapy will not be adequate for durable treatment of Malaria. 3 drug therapy will be required, in particular with those patients with impaired immune systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Fixation is not the same as amplification. What if the total population size is 10? If you need a million replications to have a reasonable probability for a particular mutation, that would require 100,000 generations. And fixation is not necessary for amplification to occur. The relative frequencies of the particular variants evolving to a selection pressure can remain constant while the entire population size is increasing. You have to use the number of replications to determine your probabilities. quote:I actually learned about the multiplication rule of probabilities in elementary school. Maybe evolutionists don't want to think about the multiplication rule for stochastic processes. It kinda gums up the theory of evolution. But it is very useful to understand this if you want to develop durable treatments for cancers and infectious diseases. quote:But there is a difference between fixation and amplification. Now random recombination is dependent on relative frequencies of alleles in a population. Now I haven't done the mathematics for rmns for sexually reproducing replicators including recombination. I also think you would have to include Mendelian probabilities in the calculation. I don't think this case will rescue the theory of evolution because the empirical evidence already shows that combination selection pressures stifles rmns (eg combination herbicides) for this class of replicators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fixation is not the same as amplification. Well, fixation is amplification to 100%
What if the total population size is 10? If you need a million replications to have a reasonable probability for a particular mutation, that would require 100,000 generations. And then fixation, if it occurred at all, would occur quickly, and very likely before any other given beneficial mutation arose. This would be a splendid example of a case where you could entirely neglect amplification as such and just think about fixation.
I actually learned about the multiplication rule of probabilities in elementary school. Maybe evolutionists don't want to think about the multiplication rule for stochastic processes. The people who worked out the math of the theory of evolution think about the laws of probability quite a lot.
But there is a difference between fixation and amplification. And a simulation, which has no particular concept of fixation, still produces the same qualitative results as math which uses the concept of fixation, because it is in fact a good approximation. I don't know why the rest of your post is about recombination.
I don't think this case will rescue the theory of evolution because the empirical evidence already shows that combination selection pressures stifles rmns (eg combination herbicides) for this class of replicators. Do you have any empirical evidence that this happens when the selection pressures are not hard? You know, cases where the selection pressures aren't us hitting the population with the most virulent poisons our ingenuity can devise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So your answer to these questions
Theo writes:
is? How many genes must be transformed to make this change?What is the limit of the number of genes that could allow the transformation? I mean really they are simple questions. You have made it very clear that you have figured this all out therefore you must know the answers. Sorry but that you have a dead link that asserts something doesn't cut it. Is the answer for the first question 8 or not? You know the math, are you saying you don't know the answer for the second question? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
First, let's look at the physics behind the story. The lift equations for rigid wings are straightforward enough. Bumble-bees are fairly big, weighing almost a gram, and have a wing area of about a square centimetre.Tot up all the figures and you find that bees cannot generate enough lift at their typical flying speed of about 1 ms. So here we have an example of math/physics at work, which shows for a certain set of parameters bumblebees can't fly! But bumblebees, not having read of this, continue to fly just fine. So, what does this tell us? If math and physics professionals model the wrong variables they get the wrong answers, even if all the math is correct. And, as often is the case, math and physics professionals usually know squat about biology and related subjects. (Increasing one's knowledge of math and physics does not correct this deficiency.)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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Are you sure about that? No more replications after that? quote:Let's make the example even simpler than that. Let's say you have a population of 10 exact clonal matches. Every allele is already fixed. but you have only 10 replications. To get a million replications with a constant population size over the generations would require 100,000 generations quote:Of course they do and the earliest paper I know of where the multiplication rule applies to rmns was discussed is Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. But Haldane and Kimura don't address this aspect of evolution in their models. I have a big advantage over Haldane and Kimura, they didn't have all the empirical evidence of rmns that is available today. quote:You can have amplification without fixation simply by all variants increasing in number yet still maintaining the same relative frequencies and you can have fixation without amplification simply by having all other variants dying out. quote:Because the probabilities of random recombination are dependent on the relative frequencies of variants in the population, not the absolute number of each variant. quote:The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection. The question is does the evolutionary trajectory (mutations required) to resistance to the selection pressure(s) change depending on the intensity of selection? The point I think you are trying to make is that if the intensity of the selection is low, amplification will be easier for the remaining variants. I posted what I thought was a very interesting video of the evolution of resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic. Here's the link to the video again:Scientists create video of bacteria evolving drug resistance. I've written to the scientist who made this video and asked that he repeat the experiment with 2 and then with 3 drugs using the same technique of low to high-intensity selection with the combinations. That would give some empirical answer to this question. What I suspect is that if the bacteria are able to evolve resistance to the combinations, it will be much, much slower than to the single drug experiment. Watch the video and tell me what you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:The web site where this link was posted is a university web site. The web site is still there and I contacted the professor who originally posted the paper and asked for a copy but no response. I'm sure I still have the link and you can contact the professor yourself and see if you can get the paper. What I do remember is that they listed at least 8 genes necessary to be transformed. If you want, I'll search my older computer and find the link and perhaps you will have better luck finding the paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you sure about that? Yes.
No more replications after that? What?
Let's make the example even simpler than that. Let's say you have a population of 10 exact clonal matches. Every allele is already fixed. but you have only 10 replications. To get a million replications with a constant population size over the generations would require 100,000 generations Why do you mention it?
Of course they do and the earliest paper I know of where the multiplication rule applies to rmns was discussed is Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. But Haldane and Kimura don't address this aspect of evolution in their models. They don't address ... the multiplication rule of probabilities?
The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection. The math of evolution has to include that as a variable, since it will in fact affect the outcome. However, large s doesn't necessarily mean hard selection. What I was talking about was whether the selection is hard or soft (which also has to be a variable in the model).
The point I think you are trying to make is that if the intensity of the selection is low, amplification will be easier for the remaining variants. No ... What I asked was: "Do you have any empirical evidence that this [i.e. "combination selection pressures stifles rmns"] happens when the selection pressures are not hard? You know, cases where the selection pressures aren't us hitting the population with the most virulent poisons our ingenuity can devise?" Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Early in my career, I worked in the aerospace industry. We had a saying "Put a big enough engine on anything and you can make it fly". I assure you that I have enough training in microbiology, biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry, genetics,... to understand rmns. You show me your degrees and I'll show you mine. And I'm pretty sure I've had a lot more training in mathematics and physics than you.First, let's look at the physics behind the story. The lift equations for rigid wings are straightforward enough. Bumble-bees are fairly big, weighing almost a gram, and have a wing area of about a square centimetre.Tot up all the figures and you find that bees cannot generate enough lift at their typical flying speed of about 1 ms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You may have more training in math and physics than I do, but you are making the classic creationist "magic bullet" mistake we see so often here. (And I do have a few degrees hanging on my wall. Well, actually, they're stuffed in a drawer somewhere.)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a lot of knowledge in a very narrow and largely unrelated field lets you put the silver dagger in the heart of the theory of evolution, eh? You are about the ten thousandth person to try this, or so it seems. So far none has succeeded.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."
I think that that describes the IDists quite well. The inability of YECs to understand even the most basic science, coupled with the inability to quote any scientific source accurately, makes it child's play to shoot down the vast majority of typical YEC arguments; they fall apart immediately upon examination. OTOH, the IDists are experts at bullshit. They will throw all kinds of technical chaff at you to hide what they are really doing. Their bullshit is truly of a much higher quality than that of other creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Obviously if reality differs from the model, the model is wrong and must be changed. Whether you consider that a change in the mathematics or not is irrelevant.
quote: You aren't much of a mathematician if you think that examining one special case is enough to demonstrate a claim about the general case.
quote: Again you insist on talking about a set of very similar special cases but claim to have a generally applicable model. You might wish to consider how it is that combination therapies work, yet multiply-resistant bacteria are such a problem. That might lead you to a useful insight in understanding why combination therapies work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
With all due respect, but did nobody else notice that "little man's" (ie, Kleineman) source was Tom Schneider's EV computer simulation, which I was only able to find on creationist sites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes:
quote: This is a lovely story, but it's just that: A story. You cribbed your story from Physics World and you should have kept on going:
So how do bees fly then? And why do they need to flap their wings while jumbo jets don't? These turn out to be very interesting questions that reveal a lot of physics. Jumbo jets have fixed wings because their wing area and speed are large enough to satisfy the lift equations for flight. But the small wings on a bumble-bee are much less efficient. Coupled with low speeds and the high drag on a wing when flapping, it might appear, at first glance, that insects cannot fly and that most birds can't get off the ground either. It goes even further, talking about the way the eddies off the wings generate a secondary lift, for example.
quote: Or, math and physics professionals are smart enough to understand that if you already know the answer and your model doesn't actually spit it out, that means the model is wrong and you need to do more work.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
quote: And I'm sure you haven't. After all, you haven't answered any of my questions about mathematics: You have a standard deck of 52 cards. You randomly choose a card. What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?What is the probability of having drawn an Ace? What is the probability of having drawn a Spade? What is the probability of having drawn a black card? What is the probability of having drawn a card? What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given no information?What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is an Ace? What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a Spade? What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a black card? Suppose you have a single-gene trait with two alleles with perfect dominant/recessive expression. If you are homozygous for dominant allele or heterozygous, you display the dominant trait. Only if you are homozygous for recessive allele do you display the recessive trait and you always do if you are homozygous recessive. Suppose the current rate of recessive display is 1-in-1,000. Suppose that those who display recessive trait are sterile and cannot reproduce while those who display dominant trait (either homozygous dominant or heterozygous) have no difference in reproductive capability. How many generations would need to pass in order to reduce the appearance of recessive trait from 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-1,000,000? To help you start: What is the value for p? What is the value for q?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024