Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explaining the pro-Evolution position
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 166 of 393 (792581)
10-11-2016 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 6:37 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Kleinman writes:
These papers correctly describe the physics and mathematics of rmns including the mathematics or rmns to multiple simultaneous selection pressures, as well as a paper on random recombination. I've already posted the layman's description of how this phenomenon works several times on this thread but you with your skill in probability theory might be interested in the mathematics which goes along with it. All real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the mathematics in these publications.
Can you point to a single genetic difference between two species that couldn't be produced by rmns, and also have the math to back it up? Be specific.
If you can't supply a single example, why do you claim that it falsifies evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 6:37 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 167 of 393 (792582)
10-11-2016 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Pressie
10-11-2016 8:07 AM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
quote:
How do you take an ancestor which has scales and all the genes which produce scales and transform all those scale producing genes into genes which would produce feathers?
quote:
Well, all modern birds (that I, personally, know of) have both scales and feathers. I'm therefore not to sure what you're asking.

Do all modern reptiles also have genes for scales and feathers as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Pressie, posted 10-11-2016 8:07 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 10-11-2016 7:21 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 7:25 PM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 201 by Pressie, posted 10-12-2016 8:19 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 168 of 393 (792583)
10-11-2016 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 7:17 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
Do you think the TOE states birds descended from modern reptiles?
Edited by Theodoric, : Reword 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 7:17 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 10:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 169 of 393 (792584)
10-11-2016 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 7:17 PM


Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
Kleinman writes:
Do all modern reptiles also have genes for scales and feathers as well?
Can you point to any step in the evolution of feathers that required 2 simultaneous mutations? If not, WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT???????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 7:17 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 170 of 393 (792585)
10-11-2016 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taq
10-11-2016 10:21 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
This post is a response to posts 140, 141
quote:
The point of doing the probability calculations is to determine the population size necessary based on a given mutation rate to determine the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. Fixation of a given variant is neither necessary nor sufficient for this process to work. It is even possible for the relative frequency of a variant in a population to decrease yet the variant is still able to evolve to the selection pressure.
quote:
The hardest part is knowing how many beneficial mutations there are to begin with. Looking backwards, we can only see the beneficial mutations that did occur. Jumping to the much larger conclusion that these beneficial mutations are the only ones possible is what leads to bad conclusions. Like the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that usually applies to be beneficial mutations.

You can have more than one beneficial mutation for a given selection pressure, the Weinreich experiment demonstrates that. However, each particular beneficial mutation gives rise to a lineage that is on a different evolutionary trajectory than those variants with a different beneficial mutation. What each of the different variants share in common is that they must amplify (increase in number) before there is a reasonable probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on a member of that lineage.
quote:
So do you want to try to compute the probability that a single beneficial mutation will occur on some member of a lineage?
quote:
The problem is determining how many beneficial mutations are possible in a given lineage in a given environment.
For example, let's look at flight in terrestrial animals. Many different lineages have evolved the ability to fly, and each independent lineage found different ways to achieve that ability. Bats, birds, and dragonflies all have different adaptations. There are many, many possible ways of achieving the benefit of flying. There is no way that we can currently know how many beneficial mutations are possible in a lineage to attain flight. They are probably nearly infinite in number, given background DNA sequences and possible solutions.
So how in the world do we compute the odds of beneficial mutations occurring when we can't even know which mutations would be beneficial?

What determines if a mutation is beneficial or not is whether the variant can amplify (increase in number). In a very limited sense, amplification does not have to occur to improve the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring, a small number lineage which doesn't grow in size over the generations can have enough replications (the random trial) over many generations to improve the probability of another beneficial mutation occurring on a member of that lineage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 10:21 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 4:20 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 171 of 393 (792586)
10-11-2016 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Admin
10-11-2016 10:34 AM


Re: It's already peer reviewed
quote:
Easy peasy, just like the original text, only quoted.
Thank you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Admin, posted 10-11-2016 10:34 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 172 of 393 (792587)
10-11-2016 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Taq
10-11-2016 10:56 AM


Re: paths
quote:
Kleinman writes:
Yes. But the probability problem you must solve is the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring in a given number of replications. The analogous dice rolling problem would be for example the probability of rolling at least a single 1 in a given number of rolls.
The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring is nearly guaranteed since no lineage is perfectly adapted to their environment. There are multiple adaptations that could occur, and multiple mutations that can achieve each adaptation.
The problem you keep having is that you are committing the Sharpshooter fallacy. What you have is a person firing a bullet into a forest 1 km away. When the bullet strikes a tree, you paint a tiny little bullseye around it, and tell everyone just how improbable it is that the sharpshooter could hit that tiny target.
My mathematical model predicts the behavior of every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. If you think I'm cherry picking the data, post a real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns that doesn't obey my mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 10:56 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 7:55 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 4:26 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 173 of 393 (792588)
10-11-2016 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 7:41 PM


Re: paths
My mathematical model predicts the behavior of every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. If you think I'm cherry picking the data, post a real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns that doesn't obey my mathematics.
You're not doing mathematics. You're saying that the evolution of birds from dinosaurs must have been like the evolution of HIV to adapt to combination therapy ... only slower, 'cos that's actually quite fast ... and therefore would have taken so long that it can't have happened.
And all this without doing any math, or having any data about birds or dinosaurs. It's an example of a classic creationist trope that I call the Non-Quantitative Quantitative Argument. "This number (which I haven't calculated) is too big/too small to agree with the theory of evolution!" At this juncture I usually point out that they haven't calculated the number, and they get all grumpy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 7:41 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 10:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 174 of 393 (792589)
10-11-2016 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 4:56 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
This part of the abstract sums it up.
This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
In other words "thoughtless, haphazard, non-design" creates complex stuff.
Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news...

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 4:56 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 10:28 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 175 of 393 (792590)
10-11-2016 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Taq
10-11-2016 11:04 AM


Re: This seems like a good place...
This post is a response to posts 146, 147, 150
quote:
Kleinman writes:
Theodoric, my argument is that randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. And the reason rmns can't do it is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Let's use the lottery as an analogy to show how you are improperly using probabilities.
Let's say that the odds of winning our example lottery is 1 in 1 million. In 10 drawings there are 10 winners. What is the probability that those specific people are the winners?
If, as you claim, we multiply the probabilities that those specific people would win, then it is 1 million to the 10th power, or 1x10^60. That's a 1 with 60 zeros after it. The odds of winning real lotteries is even less than 1 in 1 million. If we took the odds of the last 10 winners of the Powerball lottery being the winners, we would have an even larger number on our hands. The fact that those specific people won the lottery is nearly impossible, yet it happened.
In reality, the odds of those people winning the lottery is 1 in 1, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. That's the part you keep ignoring.
Taq, your analogy is not correct, with rmns, only when a member of a particular lineage gets the beneficial mutation (wins the lottery) does it improve fitness. And if there is more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene that particular member may have to win two or more lotteries at the same time to improve fitness. Once in a while when the population is huge, that happens, like with HIV and Malaria. That's why these replicators need more than two targeted selection pressures to suppress the evolution of drug resistance
quote:
Kleinman writes:
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.
Can you point to any two vertebrate species where two simultaneous mutations had to happen in one of those lineages since the time that they shared a common ancestor?
If not, it seems that your line of argument is completely irrelevant, at least where the evolution of vertebrates is being discussed.
Here's an example: Rodenticide - Wikipedia
quote:
Kleinman writes:
And it takes huge populations and/or large numbers of generations in order for the probabilities to become realistic in these situations.
You only need to shuffle a deck once to get a highly improbable event to occur.
Are you suggesting that if you really shuffle a reptiles' genome you get a bird?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 11:04 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 176 of 393 (792591)
10-11-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ringo
10-11-2016 12:00 PM


quote:
Kleinman writes:
And don't get me wrong, evolution does occur, but the mechanisms of evolution, in particular, rmns, can not make the genetic transformations necessary for the theory of evolution to be true.
Theories are not "true" or "false". They are good or bad, complete or incomplete, useful or not useful, etc. The Theory of Evolution is a good explanation of how evolution happens. It is also the only explanation we have, which makes it by default the best. It is fairly complete. It is very useful.
I'm sorry, but you can't use mathematics to trump that. If the mathematics disagrees with reality, it's the mathematics that you've got wrong.
The theory of evolution doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain how rmns works, it doesn't explain how recombination works. 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. This is a belief system made up by someone who doesn't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities. Somebody better explain correctly how rmns works if you want to understand how to prevent drug resistant microbes and failed cancer treatments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ringo, posted 10-11-2016 12:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2016 12:23 AM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2016 2:08 AM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 10-12-2016 11:57 AM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 177 of 393 (792592)
10-11-2016 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2016 1:24 PM


Re: Concurrent versus Consecutive Pressures
quote:
We might, then, crudely distinguish between three kinds of selective pressure.
* Conservative pressures. Imagine a species of (let us say) mice on an island somewhere, that have been there for a long time and are already well-suited to their niche. They are subject to a thousand conservative selection pressures to stay how they are; this does not particularly interfere with their ability to adapt to one more adaptive pressure.
Ok, any mutation that is detrimental causes the loss or reduced fitness of that member.
quote:
* Adaptive pressures of threat. Now introduce three new predators to the island, each of which by its presence reduces the population, and requiring three different adaptations to evade effectively. If their effect on the population is significant, then it might well be the case that the mice would evolve more effectively if we introduced them one at a time, introducing one when the mice have evolved to cope with the other.
Ok, but you must also assume the mice have adequate food, adequate water, no disease, no thermal stress...
quote:
* Adaptive pressures of opportunity. But suppose instead that we introduced three new food sources to the island, each of which requires a different adaptation to exploit effectively. As this exerts no downward pressure on the population, the mice would adapt faster if they were introduced concurrently than if they were introduced consecutively, by reason of the math presented in my previous post. (By analogy, it is faster to roll 1, 2, and 3 on a die in any order than to roll them in that order.)
I don't agree with your terminology or concept. Increasing food sources reduces selection pressures on populations and therefore increases the diversity of populations. Variants that would not otherwise have sufficient fitness to reproduce in the reduced food source environment would die out. While increasing the food sources will allow them to reproduce. This doesn't mean that rmns can't work in a scenario like this. A variant which can survive and reproduce on 2 of the 3 food sources could improve fitness by getting a mutation which would allow it to use the 3rd food source as well. This would be particularly important when the first two food sources disappear.
quote:
So when considering the evolution of birds (for example) it would be important to know what the pressures were on dinosaurs. The conservative pressures can be neglected. If the adaptive pressure was a pressure of threat --- if small dinosaurs were all but driven to extinction by the emergence of many threats which applied to anything that couldn't fly --- then the more of these pressures there were, the more slowly they would evolve. But if the pressures were pressures of opportunity, if there were benefits available to dinosaurs which were better at jumping/gliding/flying, then if these pressures were concurrent, then the more of them there are the faster the dinosaurs would evolve.
There is no such thing as pressures of opportunity. If a member of a population is being preyed upon, running faster, being able to jump and being able to fly can give improve fitness to reproduce. There are empirical examples of this where reptiles evolve longer legs so as to run faster and escape the predator. But this is no more an example of rmns as the evolution of Great Danes and Chihuahuas. If the reptile must evolve the alleles to escape the predator by rmns, they are dead meat. What the predator does is kill all the slower members of the population and the remaining members by recombination change the expression of existing alleles to give longer legged variants.
quote:
So the nature and not merely the number of the adaptive pressures on the dinosaurs would be crucial to know if we wanted to know how long it would take. Without knowing the nature of the pressures we can't just say "it would be slower if there was more of them", nor can we say "it would be faster if there was more of them" --- and nor should we be counting conservative pressures at all if they are irrelevant to the benefits of flight.
The phenotypes of populations can be altered markedly by recombination. Consider the variants seen in the canine family in just a few thousand years of selective breeding. However, the creation of new alleles by rmns is an extremely slow process, even under ideal circumstances with the correct selection pressures. And if you have multiple directional selection pressures acting simultaneously, the process only slows further.
quote:
This is all very qualitative, and we may note that there are quantitative caveats. If, for example, the pressures of threat only reduced the population by say 1% each, then it would still lead to faster evolution if they were introduced concurrently. This caveat does not apply to combination therapy, since anything that reduced the population of pathogens by a mere 1% would not be considered as a therapy, and no-one would bother to include it in a drug cocktail.
Take a closer look at the Lenski starvtion selection pressure experiment, he maintains his populations at e7-e8. Yet is still takes over a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do you think that rmns will work more quickly if he subjects his populations to thermal stress as well as starvation stress concurrently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2016 9:26 PM Kleinman has replied

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


Message 178 of 393 (792593)
10-11-2016 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Taq
10-11-2016 5:00 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
quote:
Kleinman writes:
If you want to make realistic interpretations of the fossil record, you need to take into account the mechanisms of genetic transformation.
We already have. The divergence between the genomes of species matches up with the age of morphological divergence seen in the fossil record when we include population sizes, mutation rates, and the rest.
So you have the genetic sequences for dinosaurs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 10-11-2016 5:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by AZPaul3, posted 10-11-2016 9:04 PM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 4:40 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 179 of 393 (792594)
10-11-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 6:44 PM


Re: It's already peer reviewed
I do think it is really weird to think that a T Rex red blood cell could last 70 million years.
Well, if there is one thing we learned a long time ago it is that this universe is way weird indeed. There is no doubt, however, that Bob the T. rex, a she actually, she is indeed some 68 million years old. Nothing like this should surprise us any more. We do live in a wonderfully weird world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 6:44 PM Kleinman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by JonF, posted 10-12-2016 8:41 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 180 of 393 (792595)
10-11-2016 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Kleinman
10-11-2016 8:58 PM


Re: Kleinman's argument
So you have the genetic sequences for dinosaurs?
Any pigeon will give you that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Kleinman, posted 10-11-2016 8:58 PM Kleinman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 10-11-2016 9:06 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024