|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explaining the pro-Evolution position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
The problem for the theory of evolution is that you don't have a big enough engine to make it fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Again, the bumble bee didn't get the memo.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
There seems to be some misunderstanding to my argument. rmns is a mechanism of evolution which does occur and I have explained exactly how it works. It is the theory of evolution, the notion that some primordial replicator through rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today is a mathematically irrational belief system.
rmns is too important a phenomenon not to be correctly understood. Antimicrobial drug resistance is becoming a more common problem in the medical field, cancer treatments can and often do fail due to rmns. Herbicide resistance and pesticide resistance is a problem due to rmns. Addressing these problems requires a correct understanding of the physics and mathematics of how rmns operates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I actually learned about the multiplication rule of probabilities in elementary school. You aren't special in having been subject to a Western education.
Maybe evolutionists don't want to think about the multiplication rule for stochastic processes. A theory instantly falsified by reading papers on evolution.
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. What difference does it make when you are only using elementary school mathematics?
The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection. Wrong. You have only been doing rudimentary mathematics of random mutations. You have not done any mathematics of natural selection. Obviously the magnitude of the selection forces is of vital importance. If I had a population of 100,000 humans and I shot them all in the face, the population will never evolve bullet resistance. The selection pressure is too high. If, on the other hand, I was to regularly fire bullets at a height of six foot at the population - the selection pressure is much lighter. If only about 8% of the population is over 6 foot tall, then the population can retain its size, and maybe we'd find shortness or cautiousness may increase in frequency.
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. Except you need actual numbers to show this, which you haven't provided. You have obfuscated the magnitude of NATURAL selection by pointing to an example of ARTIFICIAL selection and said that the 'maths is the same' for both. This may be true, but the NUMBERS are different.
If you think I'm cherry picking the data, post a real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns that doesn't obey my mathematics. The issue is that the numbers involved in viral resistance to combination therapy are enormously different from the evolution of birds. Without examining the numbers related to dinosaurs and birds, how could we say for sure? As has already been pointed out - - we have done the mathematics as it relates to dinosaurs and birds, and the numbers suggest it is entirely feasible.
The theory of evolution doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain how rmns works The theory of evolutions explains that the genome and phenome are related, and that genes are the unit of inheritance {I'm simplifying}. It explains that that during replication of the genes during reproduction, errors can occur. These errors are based on stochastic processes related to environmental processes that are chaotic are thus unpredictable, hence sometimes called 'random' or 'chance' mutations. Since the phenome is related to the genome, mutations can sometimes affect the phenome. That might make it more likely the genes replicate, or not.
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. That's natural history. The theory of evolution is the theory for how life changes. It is neutral as to history, just as any scientific theory is. Natural historians utilize the theory of evolution, theories of geology, astronomy, geography, climatology etc etc etc, to try to understand the specific history of life on earth. Natural history is a story. A narrative. It is evidence based, it relies entirely on science (as opposed to history that also uses documentation and interpretation of human motivations), but it is not a 'scientific theory', in the same sense that Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Also there is not one 'natural history' The details are constantly being argued and debated. But this isn't the theory of evolution. Not sure where you got your training from to have confused history with science.
It's the same math for all replicators. Dinosaurs aren't replicators. They are reproducers. Their genes are the only thing that gets replicated.
The calculations for rmns are actually quite simple. Did it not strike you as odd, that given how simple they are, it took YOU to notice this issue? And that millions of other highly trained people completely missed it? You must think very highly of yourself, and very poorly of others. To a pathological level.
No, what I am saying is that the creation of new alleles by rmns only works efficiently when a single gene is targeted by a single selection pressure. NATURAL selection CANNOT target. That's its defining feature. You've confused the special case of ARTIFICIAL selection with the general case of NATURAL selection. In a natural setting, rather than a lab, the environment changes naturally. Usually quite slowly, but with some jitters. Either it changes slowly enough that biological populations have the time and the numbers to find a 'solution' to the new problems and opportunities it presents or it doesn't. One way the population goes extinct (the eventual outcome in most cases), in the other it has evolved. That's why the NUMBERS are important, not just the mathematics.
PaulK, the reason there is no rational way that feathers can evolve from scales by rmns is there are too many genetic loci which must be transformed simultaneously. Every evolutionary step (beneficial mutation) must amplify in order to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on some member of the lineage with that particular mutation. rmns only works efficiently when a single selection pressure targets a single gene at a time. There was no such selection pressure of 'become birds or die', that is comparable to 'evolve resistance to antivirals or die'. Many Jurassic dinosaurs that did not evolve flight or become 'early birds', went on to become Cretaceous dinosaurs and did fine for a long time. So it seems basically obvious that the evidence suggests the situations, and thus those pesky NUMBERS were radically different.
Evolution will have to occur at a rate of much greater than a thousand generations per beneficial mutation if scales are going to be transformed into feathers. Well let's plug some numbers actually involving feathers shall we? Let's say the Sauropsida arose 300 million years ago and feathered Sauropsida appeared about 200 million years ago. That gives us 100 million years. Generation time for similar organisms is about 1-4 years, we'll call it 2 years. So 50 million generations, is it enough? 50,000,000 generations / 1000 generations per beneficial mutation = 50,000 beneficial mutations Sounds sufficient to me. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Don't get me wrong, there's more than one way replicators can adapt to selection pressures other than rmns. Recombination is a much faster way replicators can adapt and they can do it to multiple selection pressures simultaneously. But they have to have the correct alleles already in the gene pool. On the other hand, rmns is the creation of new alleles in order to adapt. And if the adaptation requires the creation of multiple different new alleles at different genetic loci due to multiple different selection pressures simultaneously, the chances of adaptation are extremely low and the process is extremely slow if it going to happen (see the Lenski experiment for an empirical example).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is the joint probability that two or more beneficial mutation occur on a lineage which drives this problem. Well, that probability's going to be 1, given enough time. So the only problem with, for example, dinosaur-to-bird evolution can be time. So we need to do a calculation about time. This is going to involve knowing things like the probability that a mutation will be beneficial. So why, when asked for this probability, do you say:
My answer is I don't know. But this is not a number which you have to know to understand how rmns works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The challenge for you is to show what could prevent random mutation and natural selection from evolving a primordial replicator into all the life forms we see today. You need to show a physical/chemical/biological roadblock, not just a mathematical fantasy.
There seems to be some misunderstanding to my argument. rmns is a mechanism of evolution which does occur and I have explained exactly how it works. It is the theory of evolution, the notion that some primordial replicator through rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today is a mathematically irrational belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Kleinman writes: It is the theory of evolution, the notion that some primordial replicator through rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today is a mathematically irrational belief system. Then let's see your math with specific examples in real genomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
On the other hand, rmns is the creation of new alleles in order to adapt. And if the adaptation requires the creation of multiple different new alleles at different genetic loci due to multiple different selection pressures simultaneously, the chances of adaptation are extremely low and the process is extremely slow if it going to happen (see the Lenski experiment for an empirical example). But the Lenski experiment seems to be an example of the exact opposite. The environment was constant, so we know that no selection pressures were added. And looking at the data from the experiment, we see that improvements in fitness started off fast and slowed down. This is consistent with my math and my reasoning --- to begin with, there were lots of potential beneficial mutations, and the chance of any one of them was relatively high. But as they occurred and became fixed, there were fewer potential beneficial mutations left, and the rate of the process slowed down. But if you were right, then every time a beneficial mutation spread though the population it would remove a (non-conservative) selection pressure, and the process would speed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:I appreciate your interest bluegenes. I'm not falsifying evolutionary theory, I'm explaining correctly how rmns works. Once you understand how rmns works, what it does is falsify is the theory of evolution, the notion that some primordial replicator through rmns became all the life forms we see today. And I think you haven't read my responses to Dr Adequate. The notion of "fixation" is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to operate. In fact, the notion of fixation is not even a factor in rmns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Thanks Doc. BTW, if you think that fixation and amplification are the same thing, do you think that mass and density are the same thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:I think you will find some disagreement with other posters on this thread. As long as mutation are random events, beneficial mutations are just a subset of all mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
No you did not answer whether you are YEC. If you did please reference post. But easier just to answer again. Unless you want to hide something.
If RMNS cannot explain dinosaurs evolving to birds, what does? Can RMNS explain any evolution from one species to another? How do you explain that there are birds? How did they come to exist?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 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I think you haven't read my responses to Dr Adequate. Or maybe he's read my responses to your responses. Once again, let me point out that it is manifestly the case that the genes that make birds birds and not dinosaurs are in fact fixed in birds. It's not like some (< 100%) proportion of birds are birds and the rest of the birds are dinosaurs. The probability of this fixation happening and the time it would take for this to happen if we started with dinosaurs is therefore what you need to be calculating. If your take on evolution can't even cope with the concept of fixation, then what this shows is not that the concept of fixation is bad, but that your ideas are inadequate to address this question.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024