Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explaining the pro-Evolution position
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 91 of 393 (792462)
10-10-2016 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kleinman
10-09-2016 8:25 PM


Re: Failing Peer Review
Kleinman writes:
quote:
If you want to peer review my work, you had better have a good understanding of probability theory. Here's the short answer why the theory of evolution is not true, it's the multiplication rule of probabilities which makes the theory of evolution not true. For those who don't understand probability theory, it takes a much, much longer answer. It requires teaching you probability theory and how to analyze a stochastic process.
Congratulations. I'm a mathematician. My concentration was in numerical analysis (which includes probability and statistics). Rest assured that I will understand most everything about probability you care to name.
I dare say that you have no idea what a stochastic process is. For one thing, a stochastic process is an evolutionary one. One of the simplest examples is that of the Markov Chain. It is a probabilistic scenario in which you have a state that can change with a probability for each resulting state that is solely based upon the current state, not any of the previous states. It describes completely independent variables. Roulette is a good example. If you have $500 and bet on a particular number, you will either win or lose. Your odds of winning or losing are not dependent upon anything that happened previously (assuming a fair game). It also doesn't matter how you came to have $500, whether you started with that amount, worked your way up to it, or have lost your way down to it.
It seems you have confused many aspects of probability. To help us determine where you're starting from, I'm going to ask some questions. I hope you will answer them honestly.
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?
Yes, in the case of independent events, you multiply the probabilities. Rank and Suit are independent variables for cards and thus, to determine the probability of a card being drawn, you can determine it by multiplying the probability of having drawn that Rank by the probability of having drawn that Suit.
What makes you think that the evolutionary history of a population is based solely upon a series of independent events? Evolution is not a Markov Chain. What happens next is highly dependent upon what came before. Suppose you have a bin with colored balls in it, red and blue. There are 7 red balls and 4 blue balls. You reach in and draw a ball and set it aside. You then reach in and draw a second ball. What is the probability that the second ball is red?
That very much depends upon the color of the first ball you drew. There was a 7-in-11 chance of drawing a red ball the first time. If you did, then there is a 3-in-5 chance that the second ball is red. If the first ball was blue, it's a 7-in-10 chance.
Now, the chance of drawing two red balls in a row is found by multiplying the probabilities of drawing a red ball the first time by drawing a red ball the second time, but that isn't what we're asking. We're asking what the probability is of the second ball being red and you can't determine that without knowing what happened with the first one.
Do you understand how the game Yacht works? You try to roll certain combinations of dice. You have five of them and you roll them all at once. You can then choose certain ones to re-roll (possibly all of them) in an attempt to achieve the specific combination you wanted. So what is the possibility of rolling all dice the same number on the first roll? What if you can do this choose-and-reroll process three times? If you already have four 5s, how difficult is it to roll a fifth 5?
If you could be more specific about what you think is amiss in the way probability is being used in evolutionary theory, it would be helpful for us to figure out what you're talking about. After all, evolution happens to populations, not individuals, and population biology is all about statistics:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kleinman, posted 10-09-2016 8:25 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:09 PM Rrhain has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 393 (792464)
10-10-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Kleinman
10-09-2016 10:32 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
Please explain the following four people who won multiple lotteries.
Or maybe these five folk.
You need a basic understanding of probabilities. Strange and unlikely things do happen.
You also need a basic understanding of large numbers. That seems to be missing in your education so far.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Kleinman, posted 10-09-2016 10:32 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 393 (792469)
10-10-2016 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Kleinman
10-07-2016 5:32 PM


They are rare events when a particular mutation must occur at a particular site in the genome to improve fitness.
And at that level is what I'm talking about when I say that you are wrong to look at these as purely random events on which you should be making probability calculations.
Having a particular mutation at a particular site may or may not be random.
And natural selection must do something specifically to improve the probability that a particular mutation will occur at a particular site in a genome to improve fitness.
Wrong. Natural Selection does not do stuff, it is an effect.
In any stochastic process, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any random experiment. What probability theory does is enable one to predict the relative frequencies of outcomes when the random experiment is done many times. A simple example is tossing a coin. You can not predict whether a head or a tail comes up with any toss. What you can predict is that if you toss the coin many times, about half the outcomes will be heads, the other half of the outcomes will be tails.
But coin tosses are completely independent. What if the odds of a particular mutation occurring are dependent on previous states?
quote:
So what is the frequency of a mutation occurring at a particular site in a genome?
quote:
Which mutation and which site?

Any particular mutation at any particular site.
Huh? That's like me asking you the frequency of rolling a 7 on a die, for any die with any number of sides for either a fair or unfair die...
What I'm trying to get at is the definition of mutation rate. The mutation rate is the probability that mutation will occur at a given site in the genome in a single replication.
No, it isn't. It is a measurement of how many mutations of a particular type one would expect to see over a given amount of time.
quote:
Natural selection is totally relevant. Natural selection must do something very specific in order to improve the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur.
quote:
No, that's complete nonsense. Natural selection doesn't do stuff.

It certainly does, natural selection changes the probabilities of particular mutations occurring by changing population sizes.
No, the environment changes the population sizes. Natural selection is the differential successes that the populations have because of the effect that the environment has on them.
And if NS did change the probabilities of mutations occurring, then how could you treat those mutations as random?
You are changing the mutation rate but you are not changing the fact that mutations are random events.
If I know what kind of radiation causes which mutations, and I do it on purpose, then those mutations would not be random.
You need to give us an empirical example where a mutation is not a random event.
Have you tried doing a Google Scholar search for "non random mutations"?
I'll tell you what; when you start providing evidence for your claims, I'll come back and start looking for sources to provide you.
Random means something that occurs by chance, not predictable.
Right, and if whether or not a mutation occurs can be affected by previous states, unlike a coin toss, then those mutations do not occur by chance alone, i.e. they are not truly random.
I'm pretty sure that I hit the nail on the head in my first reply to you: You're misunderstanding what the Theory of Evolution means by calling a mutation random.
It does not mean that all mutations happen purely by chance, like you are using it.
Natural Selection occurs at the phenotype, and from that perspective, mutations do appear to occur purely from chance (and even in this case there are exceptions). The ToE talks about mutations being random with respect to fitness.
That "with respect to fitness" is the important part you are missing, which is allowing you to make the mistake of treating mutations as a result of pure independent chance that you can then do coin-toss-like probability calculations on at the genetic level.
You can't treat all mutations as independent events and then provide a probability calculation to say that the odds of these particular mutations happening in series is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Kleinman, posted 10-07-2016 5:32 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 393 (792470)
10-10-2016 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kleinman
10-09-2016 9:07 PM


Mathematics cannot change reality it can only model it
Hi Kleinman, and welcome to the fray.
... my argument is that randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. ...
And your problem is that evidence shows convincingly that it can and has done it.
The problem you have is that math is only a modelling technique, and like any model it is good only as long as it predicts reliable results (see Hurricane track projection models for instance) and that when the results are at odds with the model it is the model that is faulty, not reality. That is when scientific modellers tweak their models to agree with reality.
I've discussed this type of problem before on the old improbable probability problem.
Now if you would like to present your model, we'll be happy to help you find where your errors are.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kleinman, posted 10-09-2016 9:07 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 393 (792481)
10-10-2016 1:12 PM


Kleinman's argument
While Kleinman has yet to reveal his argument we have some clues to the way it goes - and I can see some quite serious problems.
From the side of probability theory - aside from the difficulty of calculating the probability of feathers evolving - there is the problem that that is very likely the wrong probability.
Sequences of random events naturally have low probabilities. It is trivial to generate incredibly low probability sequences just by tossing a coin. The probability of the sequence is unimportant, it is necessary to extract some special feature, and - unless there is a justification for choosing that particular feature - it is necessary to also include the possibility of getting other, equally special features.
To take a simple example, suppose you toss a coin and it comes up Heads each time. Unless there is some reason that Heads is more significant than Tails, the relevant probability would be the probability of getting the same result on each toss - which is twice the probability of getting all Heads.
Now, there is no good objective way of choosing which features of the sequence count as "special" in more complicated cases, but it seems rather unlikely that the producing feathers rather than some other adaption is really special enough.
From the side of evolutionary theory, there is also a problem. Combination therapy for HIV works by confronting the virus with an array of threats which must be overcome independently. The fact that the drugs are killing the virus is a very important part of the reason that the virus cannot adapt to counter them all. From the standpoint of evolutionary theory it is hardly surprising that it does work - a sufficiently large array of lethal threats should be enough to drive a population to extinction.
But that is a rather atypical situation, especially when we are considering long timespans. Normal evolution has considerable scope for neutral drift (at the level of gene sequences it is the dominant form of change). Selection may be positive rather than strongly negative - favouring new traits rather than eliminating those without them. Even if we consider antibiotic use - which is very similar - the existence of multiply-resistant bacteria should alert us to the fact that combination therapy is a special case and is designed to be a special case.
Certainly we cannot use combination therapy against HIV as a model for evolution in general. Even if it were only an example of the application of probability to evolution it is poor - because survival is one of the few outcomes that could be classed as "special" enough that we can use the full probability.
So, Kleinman's argument is not looking at all promising which makes the delay in revealing it quite annoying - pure time wasting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:32 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2016 7:29 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 96 of 393 (792483)
10-10-2016 2:13 PM


Moderator On Duty
I have read the entire thread and will be moderating.
This thread never got off the ground back in January, but member Kleinman has begun using it to present his case that "the theory of evolution is not true." He should have proposed his topic over at Proposed New Topics instead of coopting an existing thread, but I didn't catch this until just now, so I'll let it go.
Kleinman: I appreciate that you want to present your case in a methodical fashion, but this is dragging on far too long. Please clearly present your case and its supporting evidence, including all the math. If it's helpful please be aware this board supports LaTeX.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 97 of 393 (792491)
10-10-2016 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
10-09-2016 11:30 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
quote:
Let's say that in order for your family to survive, your family must win two lotteries. And the probability of winning the first lottery is 1 in a million and the probability of winning the second lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability will be 1 in a million times 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, a very low probability. But let's say you are lucky enough to win one of the lotteries and now you are very wealthy and because of all your wealth, you can raise a very large family. And now all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, you will have a reasonable probability that your family will win both lotteries.
quote:
If you wish to say that evolution does not require all beneficial mutations to appear simultaneously, but that rather they can be accumulated by natural selection over many generations, then you could say so.
Indeed, you don't really need to say that: we are familiar with the theory of evolution. Perhaps, then, you could simply proceed to whatever point it is you wish to make. Thank you.

That's the point. When selection pressures target more than a single gene simultaneously, the beneficial mutations must appear simultaneously in order to improve fitness.
Now let's extend the above analogy to a real example of random mutation and natural selection. Let's say I want to treat someone with an infection with an antibiotic. And let's say the bacteria I'm treating need 3 mutations to become resistant to the antibiotic. It's very unlikely that in a single replication that a bacterium will get all 3 mutations but let one lucky member get the first beneficial mutation. Now that member has to replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with that mutation and then there is a reasonable probability that one of those members will get the second beneficial mutation. That new member must now replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with the first 2 mutations and then some lucky member gets the third beneficial mutation and now is resistant to the antibiotic. So random mutation and natural selection works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation (increase in number of those with that mutation) to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring.
But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2016 11:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2016 6:25 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 11:08 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 98 of 393 (792493)
10-10-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rrhain
10-10-2016 6:57 AM


Re: It's already peer reviewed
quote:
If you want to peer review my work, you had better have a good understanding of probability theory. Here's the short answer why the theory of evolution is not true, it's the multiplication rule of probabilities which makes the theory of evolution not true. For those who don't understand probability theory, it takes a much, much longer answer. It requires teaching you probability theory and how to analyze a stochastic process.
quote:
Congratulations. I'm a mathematician. My concentration was in numerical analysis (which includes probability and statistics). Rest assured that I will understand most everything about probability you care to name.

Well good! I've already had my work peer reviewed and published. Here are the links.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed
See if you can find an error in the physics or mathematics. And all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the mathematics in these publications. And in the paper on the mathematics of random mutations with multiple simultaneous selection pressures, the peer reviewers required that I explain where Kimura and Haldane make an error in the physics of their models. The explanation is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 10-10-2016 6:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2016 6:44 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2016 3:22 AM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 139 by Admin, posted 10-11-2016 10:16 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 99 of 393 (792496)
10-10-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
10-10-2016 10:17 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
quote:
Hi Kleinman, and welcome to the fray.
quote:
.. my argument is that ...randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. ...
quote:
And your problem is that evidence shows convincingly that it can and has done it.
The problem you have is that math is only a modelling technique, and like any model it is good only as long as it predicts reliable results (see Hurricane track projection models for instance) and that when the results are at odds with the model it is the model that is faulty, not reality. That is when scientific modellers tweak their models to agree with reality.
I've discussed this type of problem before on the old improbable probability problem.
Now if you would like to present your model, we'll be happy to help you find where your errors are.
Enjoy


Thanks for the welcome. And I noticed from your post you want people to join the effort to solve medical problems. My mathematics does just that. If you understand correctly how rmns works, you can figure out ways to change the odds in your favor. My first paper "The Basic Science and Mathematics of Random Mutation and Natural Selection" got me an invitation to be co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. There is tremendous confusion how drug resistance occurs and how cancer treatments fail. If you understand how rmns works, it becomes obvious. Let's see if you can find an error in the physics and mathematics I've published.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2016 10:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2016 5:47 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 100 of 393 (792498)
10-10-2016 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PaulK
10-10-2016 1:12 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
quote:
While Kleinman has yet to reveal his argument we have some clues to the way it goes - and I can see some quite serious problems.
From the side of probability theory - aside from the difficulty of calculating the probability of feathers evolving - there is the problem that that is very likely the wrong probability.
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. As soon as selection pressures target more than a single genetic locus at a time, the multiplication rule of probabilities makes that probability much, much lower. We see this with every real, measurable and repeatable empirical example of rmns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2016 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2016 6:26 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2016 7:51 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2016 12:29 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 393 (792500)
10-10-2016 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Kleinman
10-10-2016 5:23 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Those are behind a paywall. I'm retired and have no access. Perhaps you can email copy? IM me for email address.
From reading the abstracts they appear to be devoted to specific case studies, and not generalized to the level of a theorum that could show evolution does not work.
Meanwhile you have not addressed the issue of evidence that shows it does work.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:23 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 6:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 102 of 393 (792501)
10-10-2016 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
10-10-2016 5:47 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
quote:
... Let's see if you can find an error in the physics and mathematics I've published.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed
quote:
Those are behind a paywall. I'm retired and have no access. Perhaps you can email copy? IM me for email address.
From reading the abstracts they appear to be devoted to specific case studies, and not generalized to the level of a theorum that could show evolution does not work.
Meanwhile you have not addressed the issue of evidence that shows it does work.
Enjoy

Sorry about the papers being behind a paywall but the costs are prohibitive for me to make them open source. The papers use real empirical examples of rmns as a framework for the equation derivations but the equations are applicable to any real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. In particular, the peer reviewers required that I show how you would use these equations when treating cancer. I have done that.
And yes, I'll send you the papers for your review, how do I "IM" for your email? I'm new to this site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2016 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2016 8:11 AM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 103 of 393 (792502)
10-10-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Kleinman
10-10-2016 4:58 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.
Well, in fact it is possible for diseases to evolve resistance to combination therapies. It just takes a while. Here's one of the key papers in the development of combination therapy for HIV. Note that it says:
For three-base-change mutants, the situation is different. In single replication cycles, less than 10⁻⁷ of all possible three-base mutants are generated per day (Table 6.1). Thus, it is extraordinarily unlikely that any particular three-base-change mutant will arise spontaneously. However, such mutants can be selected by sequential mutations if one- or two-base mutants replicate.
Also, one can hardly take the evolution of resistance to combination therapy as a paradigm for evolution in general. In nature, most species are not being simultaneously assailed by three different poisons carefully designed and selected to fuck them up. If someone were to feed a population of humans on arsenic, cyanide and thallium then the population would not evolve resistance (because of going extinct) but this sheds little light on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 4:58 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 6:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 104 of 393 (792503)
10-10-2016 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Kleinman
10-10-2016 5:32 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
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.
That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:32 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 6:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 105 of 393 (792504)
10-10-2016 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2016 6:25 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
quote:
But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.
quote:
Well, in fact HIV can evolve resistance to combination therapies. It just takes a while. Here's one of the key papers in the development of combination therapy. Note that it says:
For three-base-change mutants, the situation is different. In single replication cycles, less than 10−7 of all possible three-base mutants are generated per day (Table 6.1). Thus, it is extraordinarily unlikely that any particular three-base-change mutant will arise spontaneously. However, such mutants can be selected by sequential mutations if one- or two-base mutants replicate.
Also, one can hardly take the evolution of resistance in HIV as a paradigm for evolution in general. In nature, most species are not being simultaneously assailed by three different poisons carefully designed and selected to fuck them up. If someone were to feed a population of humans on arsenic, cyanide and thallium then the population would not evolve resistance (because of going extinct) but this sheds little light on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Doc, I never said that HIV has no possibility of evolving to 3 drug therapy. It just that the probability of someone winning three lotteries is very low, much, much lower than to two lotteries. And selection pressures are just that, something that kills or impairs the replication of some or all members of a population. Do you think that rmns to starvation and thermal stress work differently then to targeted toxins to enzymes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2016 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2016 6:55 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024