|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Are you going to tell us what adaptive mutations my great-grandfather had and which further adaptive mutations my grandparents had, and the additional adaptive mutations my parents had? And then I inherited them all? All those 50 to 100 additional mutations that each had were all adaptive? And what exactly am I adapting to? This is the kind of grade school explanation I would expect out of laymen on this forum, not out of a virologist. Can you give a real example of where the adaptive mutations are measured and identified in a population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Are you going to tell us what adaptive mutations my great-grandfather had and which further adaptive mutations my grandparents had, and the additional adaptive mutations my parents had? Do you or do you not understand how mutations accumulate? Cephalanalectomy, stat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I'm not the one having trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. You are even having difficulty differentiating any mutation from an adaptive mutation. You are conflating two concepts, adaptive evolution, and neutral evolution. Do your nested hierarchies explain the difference? And why do humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees if all their mutations are neutral?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
His response at 468 has earned you a St. Jude medal.
St Jude MedalStop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: I'm not the one having trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. Neither am I.
You are even having difficulty differentiating any mutation from an adaptive mutation. All mutations are passed on in the same way. The same mechanism that passes on neutral and detrimental mutations also passes on beneficial mutations. It's called vertical inheritance.
Do your nested hierarchies explain the difference? A nested hierarchy isn't an explanation. It is an observation. Want to try again?
And why do humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees if all their mutations are neutral? I never said that all of their mutations were neutral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Then do the math, and verify it with experimental evidence, not some story about nested hierarchies that don't fit either the math or experimental evidence. Kleinman:That's right, but not all mutations are adaptive mutations. Adaptive mutations are particular mutations and because of this, the joint probability of getting more than one adaptive mutation is computed by multiplication. And you know that mutations are adaptive because they improve the reproductive fitness of those variants. You still haven't done the math to explain the reproductive fitness advantage that humans have over chimps. How many of those 35,000,000 mutations you claim the human genome differs from the chimpanzee genome are adaptive? Kleinman:You are the one claiming that humans and chimpanzees are related based on these observations. These observations don't explain anything about phylogenetics. Kleinman:That's brilliant considering there are 8 billion humans and only 300,000 chimpanzees. Tell us, how many of those 35,000,000 genetic differences are adaptive mutations? You don't have to tell us which mutations they are. This shouldn't be difficult for you since you have no trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: Then do the math, and verify it with experimental evidence, not some story about nested hierarchies that don't fit either the math or experimental evidence. I already did the math. It's over in this thread: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319 As predicted, you are trying to pull the thread off topic so you can hop on your hobby horse.
Adaptive mutations are particular mutations and because of this, the joint probability of getting more than one adaptive mutation is computed by multiplication. Already covered in this thread: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319
You are the one claiming that humans and chimpanzees are related based on these observations. And I have stated many times now what the explanation for that observation is. Here it is again: "The explanation for the observation of a nested hierarchy is a combination of common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. You get shared features from common ancestry, and you get lineage specific adaptations from mutations that stay within a lineage due to the lack of horizontal genetic transfer (i.e. vertical inheritance)."
Tell us, how many of those 35,000,000 genetic differences are adaptive mutations? Do you think that none of them are adaptive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
This might help clear a few things up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Your problem is, you only look for data that confirms your biased view and discard opposing view based on bad assumptions.
Parsimony does not determine what is truth and what is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What data should we be looking at? What data says "related" in biology that is not within a nested hierarchy? How do you get ancestors and descendants without creating a nested hierarchy? Inplace of nested hierarchy what pattern do you see in the data?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Your questions don't make much sense. According to common ancestry, all organisms are related.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
According to you they are not. So, again, what data says "related" in biology that is not within a nested hierarchy?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I guess my question is this:
Why is there an "opposing" view? Are we talking scientists/biologists who simply disagree or are we talking two entirely different "groups" with two entirely different methodologies, two different sets of definitions for common terms used in the field of study, and two different world views?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
sensei writes: Your problem is, you only look for data that confirms your biased view and discard opposing view based on bad assumptions. Then please tell me what pattern common ancestry, vertical inheritance, and evolution should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy.
Parsimony does not determine what is truth and what is not. "For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. "--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882 I am using the logic of science when I use parsimony. You are using the logic of superstition when you ignore parsimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
sensei writes: According to common ancestry, all organisms are related. We aren't assuming a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. This observation is the same for everyone regardless of their position. Do you agree with this or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024