Re: The reason the theory of evolution is not true
If dinosaurs wanted to fly,...
They didn't. Several extinct lineages may have evolved flight, and one species evolved into birds, but the overwhelming majority of dinosaur species remained terrestrial, and absolutely no species "wanted" to fly. Flight was not and is not a target at which evolution aims.
There are no targets.
Legend tells of how Robin Hood, on his deathbed, fired an arrow into the forest and asked to be buried wherever it chanced to fall. If a creationist came across the grave and heard the story he would, of course, wonder at the extraordinary improbability of Robin hitting the right spot!
...they will need the alleles that would enable them to do this. And there are too many genetic loci needed to be transformed for scales to become feathers by rmns.
How many is "too many"? On what time scale? What's the limit to the number of changes which can take place on a genome?
Re: Mathematics cannot change reality but when done correctly can predict it
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.
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).
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).
Very rapid adaptations involving new alleles occurred in all cultures in the Lenski experiment. But perhaps you are thinking of the complicated sequence of mutations that produced the Cit+ strain in just one of the twelve cultures after ~30,000 generations? Is that what you are thinking of as slow?
If so, here's something to consider. The Lenski cultures are all in the same environment and undergo the same processes. These are not actually very conducive to the emergence of Cit+ as a dominant strain. Change the circumstances, and Cit+ organisms can emerge in less than 100 generations. The potentiating, actualizing and refining mutations, a considerable sequence, can all take place in one culture in a few weeks.
That, ironically, is a paper by creationists who didn't like the idea that the occurrence of Cit+ in Lenski is special, and set out to show that it could happen easily. It can.
So, where are your calculations? Surely they're not based on the view that an adaptation involving 5 or more mutations in sequence would take ~31,000 generations in a culture of bacteria in any or all environments? How are environments factored in?
You still seem to be assuming that organisms have to be threatened with extinction in order to evolve, as suggested before. They don't. Flying squirrels evolve alongside the non-flying versions they descend from, and both thrive. It's just better to be able to glide in certain environments. Same with dinosaurs. The fliers existed alongside the non-fliers for tens of millions of years. They just fill different niches.
Interesting to you, because it shows the type of multi-mutation adaptation that you seem to think highly improbable happening repeatedly with ease.
So do you agree with them when they said, "We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved."
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the "information" waffle.
These calculations simply describe what populations have to do to accumulate beneficial mutations in order to adapt to selection pressures.
So tell me, can numerous beneficial mutations be facing positive selection in one species at the same time?