Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 11:17 AM
32 online now:
Aussie, Chiroptera, edge, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,937 Year: 11,973/19,786 Month: 1,754/2,641 Week: 263/708 Day: 38/52 Hour: 3/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
27Next
Author Topic:   Explaining the pro-Evolution position
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2853
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 271 of 393 (792785)
10-14-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Rrhain
10-14-2016 4:34 AM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Rrhain, posted 10-14-2016 4:34 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:44 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 272 of 393 (792787)
10-14-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by 1.61803
10-14-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...
The problem for the theory of evolution is that you don't have a big enough engine to make it fly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by 1.61803, posted 10-14-2016 11:36 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by 1.61803, posted 10-14-2016 11:46 AM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2853
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 273 of 393 (792788)
10-14-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 11:44 AM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:44 AM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 274 of 393 (792789)
10-14-2016 11:51 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ringo, posted 10-14-2016 12:03 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:03 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 275 of 393 (792790)
10-14-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 8:38 PM


Numbers are as important as maths
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 8:38 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 276 of 393 (792791)
10-14-2016 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by bluegenes
10-14-2016 9:08 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
quote:
Kleinman writes:

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.


Really? So, if a group of grizzly-like bears moves north and starts living off a diet of seals, they couldn't make multiple adaptations to multiple pressures? They couldn't evolve meat ripping teeth, ice-gripping claws, larger feet for ice walking and swimming, longer necks for swimming, and a suitable camouflage because these are multiple adaptations to multiple pressures and, according to the Kleinman theory of evolution, changes involving many mutations can't happen?

You seem to have a problem with the idea that eight or more genes might be involved in the difference between scales and feathers. Why? Siblings can have different alleles on more than eight genes, so why shouldn't diverging populations of dinosaurs and proto-birds?

You also seem to think that population groups have to be threatened with extinction before significant change takes place. Things like dinosaurs to birds, tree squirrels to "flying" squirrels, and non-polar to polar bears have much more to do with highly successful models diversifying into new niches. There's no hurry. There's also no target.

Mrs. Bird winning a lottery with one million participants is a one in a million chance, but someone winning is 1/1. Evolution doesn't care what wins.



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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by bluegenes, posted 10-14-2016 9:08 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2016 12:07 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:30 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 291 by Modulous, posted 10-14-2016 12:33 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 336 by bluegenes, posted 10-14-2016 3:40 PM Kleinman has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 393 (792792)
10-14-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 11:35 AM


Mathematics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:35 AM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 278 of 393 (792793)
10-14-2016 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 11:51 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Kleinman writes:

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.


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:51 AM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:47 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 279 of 393 (792794)
10-14-2016 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 11:51 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:51 AM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 280 of 393 (792795)
10-14-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 12:01 PM


Lenski
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:01 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 281 of 393 (792796)
10-14-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by bluegenes
10-14-2016 9:20 AM


Re: Is it summation time?
quote:
Would there be any objections if I dropped this thread into summation mode?

Why do that? I want to hear the Kleinman theory. I want to know what the limit is to the number of new alleles that can go to fixation by positive selection in a population group of 100,000 in 1,000,000 generations, and why it wouldn't be enough to transform a land animal into a flier.

I'm fascinated! Please let it roll! (Or you could suggest that Kleinman opens a thread outlining his "falsification" of evolutionary theory, and we could discuss it there).



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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by bluegenes, posted 10-14-2016 9:20 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2016 12:17 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2016 12:21 PM Kleinman has responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 282 of 393 (792797)
10-14-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2016 10:25 AM


Re: Waiting For Goddidit, we know rmnsdidn'tdoit
quote:
It is a bit glacial, isn't it? Still, we may as well see if anything else is going to happen.

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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2016 10:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2016 12:18 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 136
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 283 of 393 (792798)
10-14-2016 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Taq
10-14-2016 10:59 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
quote:
Kleinman writes:

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.


The main problem with your HIV example is that the beneficial mutations are not additive. In most situations, beneficial mutations are additive.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 10:59 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:27 PM Kleinman has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6396
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 284 of 393 (792799)
10-14-2016 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 11:13 AM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...unless they have big enough engine
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:13 AM Kleinman has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 285 of 393 (792800)
10-14-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 12:08 PM


Re: Is it summation time?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:08 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019