|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
My argument is that the physics and mathematics of evolution should be taught correctly in our educational system. I also don't have a problem with teaching Darwinian evolution which I believe is qualitatively correct. From Darwin's "Origin of Species"
The fossil record does not show proof of the theory of evolution, it gives proof counter to that theory. The genetic record also contradicts the theory of evolution, that is if you understand how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly.Phat writes: I guess i'm at a loss here. If we throw out the traditional ToE, what will we replace it with? A NEW ToE? Creationism? Intelligent Design? What are your conclusions so far?Darwin writes:
What Darwin is saying here is qualitatively correct, evolution consists of "competition" which he also calls "the struggle for existence" and "adaptation" which is DNA evolution. All that remains is to correctly quantify competition and DNA evolution and when you do that, you can understand the phenomenon including how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. And you will also understand why reptiles cannot evolve into birds and fish cannot evolve into mammals. That is what hard mathematical science can teach you.
For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
So where DO birds come from? Where DO mammals come from? And you will also understand why reptiles cannot evolve into birds and fish cannot evolve into mammals."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish. In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences. That is what science can tell you.
And you will also understand why reptiles cannot evolve into birds and fish cannot evolve into mammals.ringo writes: So where DO birds come from? Where DO mammals come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, you can’t. Models are only as good as their assumptions, and I think you’d be hard pressed to show that your assumptions are correct - with empirical certainty.
quote: Really? I think you’ve made a basic error.
quote: Funny how so many scientists disagree with you then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish. In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. So back to PaulK's question. Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Yes, I can, and I've shown how to apply the mathematics to the Kishony and Lenski experiments as well as giving the correct explanation for why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. In addition, this math will predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments if they use more than a single selection pressure. And I did it by deriving the governing mathematics from first principles. If you think I've made an incorrect assumption, point it out. Here's the links to the DNA evolution papers again and show us where I made an incorrect assumption: I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish.PaulK writes: No, you can’t. Models are only as good as their assumptions, and I think you’d be hard pressed to show that your assumptions are correct - with empirical certainty.Just a moment... and Just a moment... Even if you had the mathematical training and experience to understand these kinds of mathematical problems, you won't find an incorrect assumption. And you don't have the training or the experience. The difference between you and me is that I do have the training and experience to find these kinds of errors. That's why I can find the incorrect assumption on this page on the Markov Chain models that population geneticists use to determine relatedness. Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia There is an incorrect assumption here and I know where it is and know how to correct it. You can't explain these models. Kleinman writes:
You are thinking wrong. But if you think you are correct, point out my basic error and/or give us a real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution that doesn't obey the math that I've presented. You won't.
In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences.PaulK writes: Really? I think you’ve made a basic error.Kleinman writes:
I can't help it if biologists can't do the mathematics of evolution correctly. Perhaps if they took the mathematics that engineers are required to master instead of their dumbbell math courses, they could figure out this problem. You should take a course in introductory probability theory and even you might learn how DNA evolution works. Go watch the Kahn Academy lectures on probability theory and once you master introductory probability theory, see if you can put together a coherent argument rather than your vague thinking that I've made some kind of error.
That is what science can tell you.PaulK writes: Funny how so many scientists disagree with you then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Oh, that’s simple. We aren’t talking about any of those, we’re talking about the evolution of - for example - birds from dinosaurs. You cannot conclude that the conditions in the experiments match those closely enough to come to the conclusions you do. And by the way, being correct when you agree with evolutionary theory doesn’t mean that you are correct when you disagree. That’s another false assumption.
quote: You’ve ignored the basic fact that DNA evolution is driven by neutral drift, not selection. Neutral drift does not obey your equations.
quote: I have taken classes in probability theory, and I think you misunderstand the application in at least one important way. And you haven’t shown that biologists make any important mistakes either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The point you are missing is that it takes about a billion replications for each beneficial mutation on an evolutionary trajectory. It doesn't matter whether the selection condition is a toxin such as an antibiotic as used in the Kishony experiment, or starvation as used in the Lenski experiment, or any other selection pressure you can imagine. So, if you think it is thermal stress which makes reptiles grow feathers, that lineage must be able to do about a billion replications for each mutation in order to accumulate those mutations to do the genetic transformation. And that's not a billion replications for any reptile, it must be a billion replications of the variant that would benefit from the particular mutation. You have to have vast populations in order for DNA evolution to operate. And even if a reptile lineage can achieve these kinds of populations, you should have a huge number of transitional fossils demonstrating this transformation. You have more t Rex fossils that didn't exist in the billions than the transitional forms that would have had to exist for this type of genetic transformation to occur. And that's just for feathers, what about pneumatic bones, the differences in respiratory and circulatory systems, the excretory system differences, all the differences between reptiles and birds. You simply do not have anywhere near the size of populations necessary for these kinds of genetic transformations. That's why all examples of DNA evolution involve replicators that can achieve huge populations such as microbes or plants. Even so, force the replicator to evolve to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, you don't large enough population sizes to get the multiple lottery winners for these evolutionary processes. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv.
Yes, I can, and I've shown how to apply the mathematics to the Kishony and Lenski experiments as well as giving the correct explanation for why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. In addition, this math will predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments if they use more than a single selection pressure. And I did it by deriving the governing mathematics from first principles. If you think I've made an incorrect assumption, point it out. Here's the links to the DNA evolution papers again and show us where I made an incorrect assumptionPaulK writes: Oh, that’s simple. We aren’t talking about any of those, we’re talking about the evolution of - for example - birds from dinosaurs. You cannot conclude that the conditions in the experiments match those closely enough to come to the conclusions you do.PaulK writes:
That's a two-way street. The difference is that I know where the incorrect assumptions are and you don't.
And by the way, being correct when you agree with evolutionary theory doesn’t mean that you are correct when you disagree. That’s another false assumption.Kleinman writes:
What makes you think that DNA evolution works differently with selection and drift? In fact, the Markov models of DNA evolution work the same for both: You are thinking wrong. But if you think you are correct, point out my basic error and/or give us a real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution that doesn't obey the math that I've presented. You won't.PaulK writes: You’ve ignored the basic fact that DNA evolution is driven by neutral drift, not selection. Neutral drift does not obey your equations.Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia Wikipedia writes:
Now, they do make an incorrect assumption in the development of these models which gives a highly inaccurate relative rate of different change, but you don't know where that error is and I do.
These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection. Rather they describe the relative rates of different change.Kleinman writes:
Here are the links to the papers on DNA evolution again. Show us where I misunderstand the application in at least one important way. I can't help it if biologists can't do the mathematics of evolution correctly. Perhaps if they took the mathematics that engineers are required to master instead of their dumbbell math courses, they could figure out this problem. You should take a course in introductory probability theory and even you might learn how DNA evolution works.PaulK writes: I have taken classes in probability theory, and I think you misunderstand the application in at least one important way. And you haven’t shown that biologists make any important mistakes either.Just a moment... and Just a moment... So point out my misunderstanding. You won't because it is you who don't understand. The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities. There are other errors but that's the big one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The point you are missing is that much of the DNA differences are neutral. Also, I suspect that you miss the fact that evolutionary trajectories are defined with hindsight, so the assumption that a specific beneficial mutation is required is questionable indeed. I will also point out that pneumatic bones - like feathers - evolved in dinosaurs before there were any birds. So I think you underestimate the number of transitional quite considerably.
quote: That is what you claim. However showing that you are correct when you agree with evolutionary science does nothing to support such an assertion. Yet that is what you try to do.
quote: Maybe they do, but that isn’t what you are talking about. Neutral drift, for instance, does not have to wait for a beneficial mutation so any calculation if that factor is utterly irrelevant. Note also that you hold that these models don’t work anyway.
quote: Which of these papers provides the probability argument that humans and chimps cannot share a common ancestor ?
quote: Please explain this alleged blunder - because I believe that the error is yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It doesn't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, DNA evolution works the same for all situations. DNA evolution is simply the mathematics of the evolutionary trajectory. The only difference is that evolutionary trajectories involving beneficial mutations are more likely to occur because the improvement in fitness allows those variants to replicate more which means there is a higher probability of that trajectory being achieved.
The point you are missing is that it takes about a billion replications for each beneficial mutation on an evolutionary trajectoryPaulK writes: The point you are missing is that much of the DNA differences are neutral. Also, I suspect that you miss the fact that evolutionary trajectories are defined with hindsight, so the assumption that a specific beneficial mutation is required is questionable indeed.PaulK writes:
Let's assume you are correct. Are you now going to claim that flight muscles, the differences in circulatory, respiratory, excretory, endocrine, metabolism, anatomy,... all evolved in dinosaurs (reptiles) before they became birds? It is you who grossly underestimate the number of transitionals quite considerably. Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. And the reason that is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities whether the mutation is neutral, detrimental, or beneficial.
I will also point out that pneumatic bones - like feathers - evolved in dinosaurs before there were any birds. So I think you underestimate the number of transitional quite considerably.Kleinman writes:
The error in the Markov model of DNA evolution is the subject of my next paper and I already know how correct that error and apply Markov chain mathematics to the Kishony (and every other example of DNA evolution). Now I've published plenty of math already and you keep saying I'm misunderstanding something. Here's the links to the papers and explain to us where my error is. That's a two-way street. The difference is that I know where the incorrect assumptions are and you don't.PaulK writes: That is what you claim. However showing that you are correct when you agree with evolutionary science does nothing to support such an assertion. Yet that is what you try to do.Just a moment... and Just a moment... So point out my misunderstanding. You won't because it is you who don't understand. Kleinman writes:
DNA evolution works the same whether genetic changes are occurring by drift or when selection is acting. The reason for this is that mutations whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental are random events. The math is the same for all mutations, the joint probability of these mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. What makes you think that DNA evolution works differently with selection and drift? In fact, the Markov models of DNA evolution work the same for bothPaulK writes: Maybe they do, but that isn’t what you are talking about. Neutral drift, for instance, does not have to wait for a beneficial mutation so any calculation if that factor is utterly irrelevant. Note also that you hold that these models don’t work anyway. And don't be stupid. The models I've presented work just fine for all examples of DNA evolution. That's why you haven't been able to point out any errors in the models.
Kleinman writes:
Both models apply. The first model applies to evolution to a single selection pressure and the second model applies to evolution to multiple simultaneous selection pressures. So, use the first model which only requires a billion replication for each mutation (beneficial or otherwise). If you want to assume there are no selective differences between humans and chimps and that all DNA transformation is due to drift, show us how to do the accounting for all the genetic differences between humans and chimps and why the human to human and chimp to chimp differences are so small. Because if it is all about drift, then the human to human differences and chimp to chimp differences should be the same as the human to chimp differences.
Here are the links to the papers on DNA evolution again. Show us where I misunderstand the application in at least one important way.PaulK writes: Which of these papers provides the probability argument that humans and chimps cannot share a common ancestor ?Kleinman writes:
It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class.
The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities.PaulK writes: Please explain this alleged blunder - because I believe that the error is yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Does that mean that you think that neutral drift does have to wait for a beneficial mutation? Because in that respect it certainly does matter. Drift, since it is not selection at all, can also work in parallel, unlike the strong negative selection you favour. So there’s another relevant difference.
quote: I am not going to make claims where I lack information, but it is certainly likely that some of them did in part, perhaps in whole. Feathers certainly did, so did pneumatised bones. And of course, the fossil record is not very good at preserving many of these features so working out when they occurred is necessarily a difficult task.
quote: The basis of my claim is that you underestimated the time available, since traits started to appear earlier than you imagined. The basis of your claim is unclear.
quote: It takes a billion replications to get a neutral mutation? Really? I thought you’d typically get more than one in a single replication (at least in humans.
quote: In other words all your current publications are irrelevant,
quote: You’ve published plenty of stuff that doesn’t address the issue where I think you are wrong. I’m not fooled by this tactic, Kleinman.
quote: And what makes you think that probability is relevant?
quote: And since most of the change is drift, and isn’t a response to selection pressures at all you aren’t going to account for it with just those models.
quote: I am certainly not denying that there are selective differences, but obviously they are not even most of the differences. I am not personally going to try to account for the differences. I don’t claim the expertise and really there is no need. If your calculations missed out a major factor Accounting for even a large part of the differences then they’re wrong, and that’s enough.
quote: I note that you fail to explain the alleged blunder. Instead of citing things I already know please explain how you conclude that biologists ignore this fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
But that isn't what science DOES tell us. If you're going to oppose the actual science, you have to propose an alternative. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences. That is what science can tell you. So where DO birds come from? And where DO mammals come from?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Kleinman writes: Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. Let's look at humans as our example. How many beneficial mutations are available in the human genome? If you think it is just one, you are flat out wrong. Two examples off the top of my head are mutations that control melanin production and lactose tolerance. For changes in melanin production, there are many possible mutations that can change the phenotype, not just one. Even more, both of these mutations can happen in the same population and then be joined together in one genome through sexual reproduction. Skin color doesn't have to wait for lactose tolerance, or vice versa. You seem to think that one experiment is applicable to all populations and all environments. You are wrong. It isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What I mean is that mutations cause diversity in a population. What selection does is reduce diversity by lowering the number and relative frequency of the less fit variants.
It doesn't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, DNA evolution works the same for all situations.PaulK writes: Does that mean that you think that neutral drift does have to wait for a beneficial mutation? Because in that respect it certainly does matter. Drift, since it is not selection at all, can also work in parallel, unlike the strong negative selection you favour. So there’s another relevant difference.Kleinman writes:
You are not going to make a claim but then you make a claim. We have plenty of information about the differences between reptiles and birds. They have different respiratory systems, different circulatory systems,... Do you know that birds have a loop of Henle and reptiles don't?
Let's assume you are correct. Are you now going to claim that flight muscles, the differences in circulatory, respiratory, excretory, endocrine, metabolism, anatomy,... all evolved in dinosaurs (reptiles) before they became birds?PaulK writes: I am not going to make claims where I lack information, but it is certainly likely that some of them did in part, perhaps in whole. Feathers certainly did, so did pneumatised bones. And of course, the fossil record is not very good at preserving many of these features so working out when they occurred is necessarily a difficult task.Kleinman writes:
Let's assume you have 10 million years to account for the drift of humans and chimps from the common ancestor. Tell us why humans are genetically similar, chimps are genetically similar, and yet there are humans and chimps differ by 10s of millions of mutations. Aren't humans and chimps diverging from their common human and chimp ancestors? And what you need to learn is that the carrying capacity of the environment allows for vast populations of microbes but nowhere near the same size population of reptiles and other complex replicators.
It is you who grossly underestimate the number of transitionals quite considerably.PaulK writes: The basis of my claim is that you underestimated the time available since traits started to appear earlier than you imagined. The basis of your claim is unclear.Kleinman writes:
The point is that each mutation, whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental gives rise to a different evolutionary trajectory. What that means if you try to compare the genomes of two lineages, the accumulation of any particular mutations on a lineage will take a billion replications. So, let's say that you compare the genes of humans and chimps and you have only a single base difference in each of 20,000 genes between humans and chimps. 10 million years ago those differences should not have existed. When the two lineages diverge, over 10 million years, those particular mutations must be accumulated whether beneficial, neutral or detrimental. And the accumulations of each of those mutations will require a billion replications of that variant.
Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. And the reason is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities whether the mutation is neutral, detrimental, or beneficial.PaulK writes: It takes a billion replications to get a neutral mutation? Really? I thought you’d typically get more than one in a single replication (at least in humans.Kleinman writes:
Not at all. What it means is that you don't understand how to use the at least one rule in probability theory and have no idea of how to do a Markov Chain computation. When you learn how to do the math correctly, you will get totally consistent results and be able to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments and other examples of evolution. You claim to understand probability theory and claim that I have done something wrong in the math. Show us! The error in the Markov model of DNA evolution is the subject of my next paper and I already know how correct that error and apply Markov chain mathematics to the Kishony (and every other example of DNA evolution)PaulK writes: In other words all your current publications are irrelevant,Just a moment... and Just a moment... There's the math, show us where there is a wrong assumption or math error. You won't because you don't understand introductory probability theory. Kleinman writes:
So you think that the correct mathematics of DNA evolution doesn't apply here? What magic do you think applies to evolution to make reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? You can't even explain the simplest examples of evolution such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. Somebody has already gotten to you and fooled you big time.
Now I've published plenty of math already and you keep saying I'm misunderstanding something. Here's the links to the papers and explain to us where my error is.PaulK writes: You’ve published plenty of stuff that doesn’t address the issue where I think you are wrong. I’m not fooled by this tactic, Kleinman.Kleinman writes:
It is relevant because that is how DNA evolution works. That's why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. The math is really not very difficult, you should learn it so that you don't get fooled so often.
DNA evolution works the same whether genetic changes are occurring by drift or when selection is acting. The reason for this is that mutations whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental are random events. The math is the same for all mutations, the joint probability of these mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.PaulK writes: And what makes you think that probability is relevant?Kleinman writes:
Sure it accounts for drift. Here's how it works. Let's say for example, in the Kishony experiment that he uses ciprofloxacin as the selection pressure. In the drug-free region, he gets a colony of 3e9. In that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for that drug and that variant is able to grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. But also in that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. In that environment, that mutation is neutral. But if that variant with the trimethoprim mutation can replicate 3e9 times, one of its descendants will get a second mutation for increased fitness to trimethoprim. One of those variants will even have a beneficial mutation for ciprofloxacin. That is one of the many points on this subject that you don't understand.
Both models apply. The first model applies to evolution to a single selection pressure and the second model applies to evolution to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.PaulK writes: And since most of the change is drift, and isn’t a response to selection pressures at all you aren’t going to account for it with just those models.Kleinman writes:
The reason you don't try is that you don't know how to do the math. You can't even do the math for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That's why you can't show if I've made any errors in my assumptions or math. You make lots of claims but can't do the math. You should go back and study introductory probability theory and learn how to do the mathematics of stochastic processes such as DNA evolution.
If you want to assume there are no selective differences between humans and chimps and that all DNA transformation is due to drift, show us how to do the accounting for all the genetic differences between humans and chimps and why the human to human and chimp to chimp differences are so smallPaulK writes: I am certainly not denying that there are selective differences, but obviously they are not even most of the differences. I am not personally going to try to account for the differences. I don’t claim the expertise and really there is no need. If your calculations missed out a major factor Accounting for even a large part of the differences then they’re wrong, and that’s enough.Kleinman writes:
Just post a link to a paper that explains how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work (other than my papers). You would think that biologists have already explained these experiments but these papers don't exist. And learn how to do the mathematics of Markov Chain processes because that another way of understanding how DNA evolution works.
It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class.PaulK writes: I note that you fail to explain the alleged blunder. Instead of citing things I already know please explain how you conclude that biologists ignore this fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Kleinman writes:
It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class. The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities.PaulK writes: Please explain this alleged blunder - because I believe that the error is yours. We did learn it in our probability classes. What we're not sure of is whether you had learned it. Or whether you have any understanding of how it would apply in biology. Of course, that begs the question of whether your vague "multiplication rule" (which you repeatedly invoke by name, but which I have not seen you explain) is the same thing that we had learned. Your insistence on applying it in cases where what we had learned is not appropriate makes us wonder whether you know what you are talking about. So explain please what you are talking about. And, yes, I do realize that in doing so you would be violating the Cardinal Rule of Creationists. But if you are ever possibly going to have any kind of credence, then you must violate that Cardinal Rule. So explain what your "multiplication rule of probabilities" is, what situations it applies to, and how it would apply to the case of the probability of a particular mutation appearing in a population of asexual organisms wherein all you need is for one single individual to get it. For that last point, consider this analogous problem. Since writers often describe getting a particular beneficial mutation with the metaphor of "winning the lottery", consider the probabilities of winning the lottery. We can easily calculate the probability of a single individual attempt winning the lottery and we would use what we were taught to be the multiplication rule. But what about the situation of at least one player out of millions of players winning? Just how would the multiplication rule apply there?
ABE:For the lottery problem, here are a couple realistic numbers to work with:
The probability of winning this real-life lottery is 1 in 41,417,353 (ie, p = 2.4144469106946549674480645829781e-8) Number of attempts to win: 39,144,818(based on the population of California, which is reasonable since most players will buy more than one ticket, plus some games are multi-state) Edited by dwise1, : Changed "to biology" to "in biology"Labeled "winning the lottery" as a metaphor Edited by dwise1, : ABE with some numbers to work with
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024