Summations Only

quote:

---

Wow!
I didn't realize that the TOE included such a claim.
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.

---

Theodoric, my argument is that randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. And the reason rmns can't do it is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

quote:

---

Since AZPaul3 doesn't have the mathematical skill to peer review a probability problem, let's call this thread Why the Theory of Evolution is not true

quote:

---

You have no idea of the strength of my math abilities, but you have shown us ample reason to doubt yours.

​

Don't change the thread on my account. Or are you trying to escape your opening gambit because you are incapable of following through?

​

Go ahead. Let us see your full argument. Show us your skills and your majik. Prove to us, in deep mathematical detail, how the TOE cannot be correct. I assure you I will do my best to keep up.

---

---

Well, let's test your math abilities. The short answer for the reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Do you understand why this is true? The multiplication rule is the reason why combination therapy works for the treatment HIV. The first step in doing the mathematics is to compute the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur in a population for a given mutation rate in a single generation. Do you want me to write out the equation for you?

quote:

---

I don't give a rats ass about your probability argument you refuse to divulge. I was commenting on the strawman you made in the post I responded to.

---

It is probability theory which gives the correct mathematical tools to describe rmns. If you think otherwise, post your analysis of how rmns works. And you should want to understand how rmns works because this is the reason microbes evolve resistance to antimicrobial agents and cancer treatments fail.

quote:

---

my argument is that randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. And the reason rmns can't do it is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

quote:

---

Prove it.

---

---

Let's start with a simple minimally mathematic analogy to help you understand how rmns operates:Let's say that in order for your family to survive, your family must win two lotteries. And the probability of winning the first lottery is 1 in a million and the probability of winning the second lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability will be 1 in a million times 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, a very low probability. But let's say you are lucky enough to win one of the lotteries and now you are very wealthy and because of all your wealth, you can raise a very large family. And now all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, you will have a reasonable probability that your family will win both lotteries.

quote:

---

I have a problem with his simplistic statement that reptiles transformed into birds. I guess technically it is correct but he seems to be trying to confuse the issue by using term reptiles instead of dinosaurs. The idea of common ancestor seems to be lost on him.

---

How do you take an ancestor which has scales and all the genes which produce scales and transform all those scale producing genes into genes which would produce feathers? Then consider that HIV can not efficiently transform two genes subject to three targeted selection pressures. And HIV is the fastest evolving replicator known with high mutation rates, huge populations and it does recombination. This is a consequence of the multiplication rule of probabilities.

quote:

---

For you to win both lotteries, that probability will be 1 in a million times 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion,

quote:

---

Why?

---

---

The joint probability of two (or more) random independent events is computed by multiplying the individual probabilities.

quote:

---

Well thats embarrassing. For you. Only took me one minute using the google.

quote:

---

quote:
Last year, scientists announced the discovery in Siberia of Kulindadromeus, a small, 150 million-year-old, plant-eating dinosaur that had both scales and feathers. The finding of such an ancient plumage prompted the group to speculate that a fuzzy coating of feathers may have been the rule for dinosaurs rather than the exception. Some artists have run with the idea and drawn up depictions of giant feathered brontosaurs.

quote:

---

Page Not Found | The Guardian
So according to you there was no evolution from single cell to muticell creatures?

---

---

---

Ok, so let's try to follow your logic. Did the lineage of this creature always have scales and feathers? Or did it evolve from a creature that only had scales, only have feathers or neither?

quote:

---

Let's say that in order for your family to survive, your family must win two lotteries. And the probability of winning the first lottery is 1 in a million and the probability of winning the second lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability will be 1 in a million times 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, a very low probability. But let's say you are lucky enough to win one of the lotteries and now you are very wealthy and because of all your wealth, you can raise a very large family. And now all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, you will have a reasonable probability that your family will win both lotteries.

quote:

---

If you wish to say that evolution does not require all beneficial mutations to appear simultaneously, but that rather they can be accumulated by natural selection over many generations, then you could say so.

​

Indeed, you don't really need to say that: we are familiar with the theory of evolution. Perhaps, then, you could simply proceed to whatever point it is you wish to make. Thank you.

---

---

That's the point. When selection pressures target more than a single gene simultaneously, the beneficial mutations must appear simultaneously in order to improve fitness.Now let's extend the above analogy to a real example of random mutation and natural selection. Let's say I want to treat someone with an infection with an antibiotic. And let's say the bacteria I'm treating need 3 mutations to become resistant to the antibiotic. It's very unlikely that in a single replication that a bacterium will get all 3 mutations but let one lucky member get the first beneficial mutation. Now that member has to replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with that mutation and then there is a reasonable probability that one of those members will get the second beneficial mutation. That new member must now replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with the first 2 mutations and then some lucky member gets the third beneficial mutation and now is resistant to the antibiotic. So random mutation and natural selection works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation (increase in number of those with that mutation) to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring.But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.

quote:

---

If you want to peer review my work, you had better have a good understanding of probability theory. Here's the short answer why the theory of evolution is not true, it's the multiplication rule of probabilities which makes the theory of evolution not true. For those who don't understand probability theory, it takes a much, much longer answer. It requires teaching you probability theory and how to analyze a stochastic process.

quote:

---

Congratulations. I'm a mathematician. My concentration was in numerical analysis (which includes probability and statistics). Rest assured that I will understand most everything about probability you care to name.

---

---

Well good! I've already had my work peer reviewed and published. Here are the links.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed
See if you can find an error in the physics or mathematics. And all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the mathematics in these publications. And in the paper on the mathematics of random mutations with multiple simultaneous selection pressures, the peer reviewers required that I explain where Kimura and Haldane make an error in the physics of their models. The explanation is there.

quote:

---

Hi Kleinman, and welcome to the fray.

quote:

---

.. my argument is that ...randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. ...

quote:

---

And your problem is that evidence shows convincingly that it can and has done it.

​

The problem you have is that math is only a modelling technique, and like any model it is good only as long as it predicts reliable results (see Hurricane track projection models for instance) and that when the results are at odds with the model it is the model that is faulty, not reality. That is when scientific modellers tweak their models to agree with reality.

​

I've discussed this type of problem before on the old improbable probability problem.

​

Now if you would like to present your model, we'll be happy to help you find where your errors are.

​

Enjoy

---

---

---

Thanks for the welcome. And I noticed from your post you want people to join the effort to solve medical problems. My mathematics does just that. If you understand correctly how rmns works, you can figure out ways to change the odds in your favor. My first paper "The Basic Science and Mathematics of Random Mutation and Natural Selection" got me an invitation to be co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. There is tremendous confusion how drug resistance occurs and how cancer treatments fail. If you understand how rmns works, it becomes obvious. Let's see if you can find an error in the physics and mathematics I've published.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed

quote:

---

While Kleinman has yet to reveal his argument we have some clues to the way it goes - and I can see some quite serious problems.
From the side of probability theory - aside from the difficulty of calculating the probability of feathers evolving - there is the problem that that is very likely the wrong probability.

---

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. As soon as selection pressures target more than a single genetic locus at a time, the multiplication rule of probabilities makes that probability much, much lower. We see this with every real, measurable and repeatable empirical example of rmns.

quote:

---

... Let's see if you can find an error in the physics and mathematics I've published.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed

quote:

---

Those are behind a paywall. I'm retired and have no access. Perhaps you can email copy? IM me for email address.

​

From reading the abstracts they appear to be devoted to specific case studies, and not generalized to the level of a theorum that could show evolution does not work.

​

Meanwhile you have not addressed the issue of evidence that shows it does work.

​

Enjoy

---

---

Sorry about the papers being behind a paywall but the costs are prohibitive for me to make them open source. The papers use real empirical examples of rmns as a framework for the equation derivations but the equations are applicable to any real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. In particular, the peer reviewers required that I show how you would use these equations when treating cancer. I have done that.And yes, I'll send you the papers for your review, how do I "IM" for your email? I'm new to this site.

quote:

---

But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.

quote:

---

Well, in fact HIV can evolve resistance to combination therapies. It just takes a while. Here's one of the key papers in the development of combination therapy. Note that it says:

​

For three-base-change mutants, the situation is different. In single replication cycles, less than 10−7 of all possible three-base mutants are generated per day (Table 6.1). Thus, it is extraordinarily unlikely that any particular three-base-change mutant will arise spontaneously. However, such mutants can be selected by sequential mutations if one- or two-base mutants replicate.
Also, one can hardly take the evolution of resistance in HIV as a paradigm for evolution in general. In nature, most species are not being simultaneously assailed by three different poisons carefully designed and selected to fuck them up. If someone were to feed a population of humans on arsenic, cyanide and thallium then the population would not evolve resistance (because of going extinct) but this sheds little light on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

---

---

Doc, I never said that HIV has no possibility of evolving to 3 drug therapy. It just that the probability of someone winning three lotteries is very low, much, much lower than to two lotteries. And selection pressures are just that, something that kills or impairs the replication of some or all members of a population. Do you think that rmns to starvation and thermal stress work differently then to targeted toxins to enzymes?

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence for it?

---

---

Yes, I published the mathematics which correctly describes how rmns works. Here are the links:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed

quote:

---

The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed

quote:

---

I note that your own paper says: "Recently, it has been seen that combination therapy for the treatment of malaria has failed to prevent the emergence of drug-resistant variants."

---

---

And there is a straightforward explanation why that happens. Malaria can achieve populations of a trillion or more in an infected individual. When you have populations that large, the probabilities will become realistic that you will get members of that population with double beneficial mutations. Durable treatment for malaria will require at least three effective drugs used simultaneously. This is especially true when treating immune compromised individuals.

quote:

---

Similarly, here's a paper on the evolution of resistance to combination therapy in HIV patients.

​

So if you propose that there was some set of natural conditions, without planning and forethought, that somehow prevented dinosaurs from evolving into birds over millions of years --- with greater efficiency that we, with intelligence, forethought, and understanding of the underlying microbiology, can prevent the evolution of drug resistance in pathogens over mere decades ... well, that's not a proposition that anyone's going to swallow without a great deal of evidence for it; it seems intrinsically unlikely.

---

What prevents reptiles (or dinosaurs if you wish) evolving into birds is the multiplication rule of probabilities. All real, measurable and repeatable examples of random mutation and natural selection verify this.