Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

How is the data cherry-picked?

The irony of your lack of self awareness is on display for all to see.

Kleinman:

---

So do the mathematics and prove me wrong.

Taq:

---

The observations prove you wrong. The rate of beneficial mutations differred by a factor of 1,000 in two different environments when using genetically identical E. coli.

---

---

And what is your explanation for why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Happenstance. As shown by the Lederberg experiment, it can take 10 million replications to get a beneficial mutation in a different environment. There is nothing in the genetics of E. coli that limits adaptive mutations to 1 in 1 billion replications.

Kleinman:

---

Go ahead and cherry-pick your data, I'm sure it will impress the mathematically incompetent like Tany.

Taq:

---

How is the data cherry-picked?

---

---

You look for a place where the sequence occurs.

False. They looked at all places where the sequence occurred. This was a comparison of all sequenced ERV's, not a cherry-picked few.

Tanypteryx:

---

The irony of your lack of self awareness is on display for all to see.

---

Chase any bugs lately?

Kleinman:

---

And what is your explanation for why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Taq:

---

Happenstance. As shown by the Lederberg experiment, it can take 10 million replications to get a beneficial mutation in a different environment. There is nothing in the genetics of E. coli that limits adaptive mutations to 1 in 1 billion replications.

---

---

You still haven't shown why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Why doesn't it take 10,000,000?

Happenstance, as already explained. As shown by other experiments, the rate of beneficial mutations can be different in different environments. There is no mathematical or genetic reason why the rate of beneficial mutations should be the same in all environments.

Kleinman:

---

You look for a place where the sequence occurs.

Taq:

---

False. They looked at all places where the sequence occurred. This was a comparison of all sequenced ERV's, not a cherry-picked few.

---

---

They only picked places where they saw matches, that's cherry-picking. It doesn't demonstrate UCD.

Kleinman:

---

You still haven't shown why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Why doesn't it take 10,000,000?

Taq:

---

Happenstance, as already explained. As shown by other experiments, the rate of beneficial mutations can be different in different environments. There is no mathematical or genetic reason why the rate of beneficial mutations should be the same in all environments.

---

---

It isn't the mutation rate that drives descent with adaptation, it is the multiplication rule. If you knew how to do the math, it would be obvious to you.

If that were so then this table in the chimp genome paper wouldn't exist:
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | NatureThat's a list of the lineage specific ERV's. In other words, that's the count of non-matches between the genomes. The number of human lineage specific ERV's is 5 + 77 = 82. The number of lineage specific chimp ERV's was 234 + 45 = 279. They counted both the matches and non-matches.This means that of the ~200,000 ERV's in each genome only a handful were not found in the other genome. The rest were found at the same base in each genome.

Not in sexually reproducing populations. Sexual reproduction takes mutations that happen in different genetic backgrounds and puts them in the same background.

quote:

---

In contrast, sexual populations are not characterized by cohorts of linked mutations (Fig. 2e–h). Instead, the dynamics of each mutation is largely independent of other variation in the population. In these populations, mutations that occur on different backgrounds fix independently, while others briefly hitchhike to moderate frequencies where they persist or are eliminated from the population. . .

​

Together, our results show that sex increases the rate of adaptation both by combining beneficial mutations into the same background and by separating deleterious mutations from advantageous backgrounds that would otherwise drive them to fixation.
Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution | Nature

---

If you understood how sexual reproduction works you would know that the multiplication rule doesn't apply in sexual populations. Citing experiments using clonal populations does nothing to change this fact.

Kleinman:

---

They only picked places where they saw matches, that's cherry-picking.

Taq:

---

If that were so then this table in the chimp genome paper wouldn't exist.

---

---

So this is your proof for UCD. How could anyone disagree with such powerful evidence, except descent with modification.

quote:

---

And that's your proof for UCD?

---

If you’d read my posts you’d know it wasn’t - and you’d know the point I was making.

quote:

---

What facts are those?

---

The ones I mentioned earlier in the post:

quote:

---

Your own example, the Malaria gene shows that it is not advantageous in every environmenT

---

The point is the stability of the environment where it is found. I guess you think we shouldn’t worry about malaria because any time soon it’s bound to just vanish.

quote:

---

… but you have to pretend that there are some alleles that remain advantageous in any environment.

---

No, I really don’t have to pretend anything of the sort. And I don’t.

quote:

---

The point is the experiment is performed in a constant environment, something which doesn't exist in reality for humans. You are so confused, you think it does because the Malaria allele appears. Why aren't they resistant to Tuberculosis, or Small Pox, or Plague, or of a number of other infectious diseases?

---

No, I don’t think that the environment remains constant. I just accept the facts that it is constant enough for sickle cell to exist and even be common in quite large areas.

quote:

---

Not at all, you bring up invalid examples because you are confused. Try bringing up what is in your imagination, like those alleles that are advantageous in any environment.

---

Yes, I get it. You think telling the truth is a sign of confusion. That’s why you lie. Not a surprise coming from a Satan-worshipping nutcase.

quote:

---

So humans can create an environment for bacteria to evolve resistance to drugs

---

Which is yet more evidence that environments do not have to radically change in they way you assume.