Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 233 of 393 (792734)
10-13-2016 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 5:30 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
It is the multiplication rule of probabilities which kills the theory of evolution.
Ooh, good! This is something to look forward to.
Though it seems odd that something so simple and almost universally known should overturn a scientific theory, and that no-one should have noticed it before. It would be one thing if some rare genius were to find a flaw in the theory, but if you are right about the multiplication rule, then you are not a rare genius --- you are a man of middling intellect who has achieved distinction by living among a species of complete morons who cannot apply the math they learned in middle school. Well ... they can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 5:30 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Admin, posted 10-13-2016 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 237 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 6:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 240 of 393 (792742)
10-13-2016 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 6:44 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
What I think happened is that evolutionary biologists went down a wrong track when the got stuck on the notion of fixation rather than recognizing its amplification which affects the probabilities, not relative frequencies.
Well, fixation is just amplification taken to 100%. And it's easy to work with. It's likely to be a good approximation to math which took the steps from mutation to fixation into effect: such an approximation would start breaking down if and to the extent that beneficial mutations were so common that it's highly likely that a second beneficial mutation will arise before the first one's achieved fixation. Even so, this will not have much qualitative effect: it will still (for example) be the case that evolution goes at a higher rate when there are multiple (soft) selection pressures, because the reasons for that will still apply.
You don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out this problem.
That would be kinda my point.
Every week, hundreds of people realize that they can overturn either evolution or the Big Bang with reference to some snippet of math or science they learned in middle school. So far, they have invariably been wrong; and it is easy to see why: if it could be done that easily, it would have been done already.
If you did a careful study of a good computer simulation of rmns like Tom Schneider's EV computer simulation and looked carefully at the empirical examples of rmns, its not that hard to see how rmns works.
A good computer simulation actually shows that my math in post #132 is correct. Which is nice for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 6:44 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 243 of 393 (792745)
10-13-2016 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 8:38 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Fixation is not the same as amplification.
Well, fixation is amplification to 100%
What if the total population size is 10? If you need a million replications to have a reasonable probability for a particular mutation, that would require 100,000 generations.
And then fixation, if it occurred at all, would occur quickly, and very likely before any other given beneficial mutation arose. This would be a splendid example of a case where you could entirely neglect amplification as such and just think about fixation.
I actually learned about the multiplication rule of probabilities in elementary school. Maybe evolutionists don't want to think about the multiplication rule for stochastic processes.
The people who worked out the math of the theory of evolution think about the laws of probability quite a lot.
But there is a difference between fixation and amplification.
And a simulation, which has no particular concept of fixation, still produces the same qualitative results as math which uses the concept of fixation, because it is in fact a good approximation.
I don't know why the rest of your post is about recombination.
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.
Do you have any empirical evidence that this happens when the selection pressures are not hard? You know, cases where the selection pressures aren't us hitting the population with the most virulent poisons our ingenuity can devise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 8:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 9:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 248 of 393 (792751)
10-13-2016 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 9:50 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Are you sure about that?
Yes.
No more replications after that?
What?
Let's make the example even simpler than that. Let's say you have a population of 10 exact clonal matches. Every allele is already fixed. but you have only 10 replications. To get a million replications with a constant population size over the generations would require 100,000 generations
Why do you mention it?
Of course they do and the earliest paper I know of where the multiplication rule applies to rmns was discussed is Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. But Haldane and Kimura don't address this aspect of evolution in their models.
They don't address ... the multiplication rule of probabilities?
The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
The math of evolution has to include that as a variable, since it will in fact affect the outcome.
However, large s doesn't necessarily mean hard selection. What I was talking about was whether the selection is hard or soft (which also has to be a variable in the model).
The point I think you are trying to make is that if the intensity of the selection is low, amplification will be easier for the remaining variants.
No ...
What I asked was: "Do you have any empirical evidence that this [i.e. "combination selection pressures stifles rmns"] happens when the selection pressures are not hard? You know, cases where the selection pressures aren't us hitting the population with the most virulent poisons our ingenuity can devise?"
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 9:50 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


(1)
Message 263 of 393 (792776)
10-14-2016 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Admin
10-14-2016 8:55 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Admin, posted 10-14-2016 8:55 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 266 of 393 (792780)
10-14-2016 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Taq
10-14-2016 10:59 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
What I mean by additive is if A and B are both beneficial mutations on their own, then an individual with both A and B will be more fit than individuals with just A or B. In the case of multi-drug treatment and HIV, there is no way for an amplification of just A or just B because the individual viruses with just one potentially beneficially mutation do not reproduce at a higher rate.
Do you have a reference for this?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 11:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

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


Message 286 of 393 (792801)
10-14-2016 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 12:12 PM


Re: Waiting For Goddidit, we know rmnsdidn'tdoit
Thanks Doc. BTW, if you think that fixation and amplification are the same thing ...
I don't, which is why I have never said so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:12 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 289 of 393 (792804)
10-14-2016 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Taq
10-14-2016 11:06 AM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
I don't have a reference at hand, but I may find time to find one.
I think my example of melanin production and malaria resistance should suffice, unless someone can explain how darker skin will not be selected for unless someone also has mutations that confer malarial resistance (and visa versa).
I meant specifically for the bit where you said "the individual viruses with just one potentially beneficially mutation do not reproduce at a higher rate".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 11:06 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 293 of 393 (792808)
10-14-2016 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taq
10-14-2016 12:33 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
Sorry for the confusion.
With multidrug therapy, if a virus gains a mutation that confers resistance to just one of the drugs it will not be fitter than other viruses without that same mutation. This means that individual viral particles with just one mutation to one drug will replicate at the same rate as those without the mutation.
But do you have a reference for this? It seems like quite an important point, so it would be nice to have something to back it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 295 of 393 (792810)
10-14-2016 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 12:40 PM


Re: Mathematics
Time is not measured in seconds, minutes, hours for rmns, the measure of time for rmns is replications (generations).
Quite: so generation time is also something you'd need to know.
The reason I answer I don't know to a question is I don't know.
But why did you say you didn't need to know?
What you can do with calculations like mine are obtain estimates of the upper limits of the probabilities for rmns. Assume that when the mutation occurs at the particular site, it is always the beneficial mutation, that will raise your probabilities slightly but it will not make the multiplication rule go away when more than a single beneficial mutation must occur on a lineage.
Again, the probability of that is 1 --- given enough time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:40 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 2:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 308 of 393 (792825)
10-14-2016 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 12:58 PM


Re: Lenski
That's the point, Lenski is using only a single directional selection pressure, starvation.
But this exerts pressure on a whole lot of loci. Why would it make a difference if each locus had the same amount of pressure on it, but from a different underlying environmental cause? How in the world would that show up in the math? By the time you've put it into numbers and put the numbers into the equations, you can't tell if both loci are under pressure from starvation, or if one is under pressure from starvation and the other from fire-breathing dragons. That disappears from the math just like the color of objects disappears from problems in kinetics.
Unless you can show me some math which does take into account the causes of the pressures, and explain to me how and why it does so ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 12:58 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 310 of 393 (792828)
10-14-2016 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Taq
10-14-2016 12:53 PM


Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
I would think that it would be self evident.
Not quite; maybe I don't know enough about medicine. But I would have thought that since no drug is 100% effective, each drug is just getting a shot, with a certain probability of success, of killing each viral particle. One which is immune to one of the drugs (I would have thought) would therefore have a greater probability of survival. Stop me if I'm wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Taq, posted 10-14-2016 12:53 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2016 1:53 PM Dr Adequate has 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