Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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 335 of 393 (792856)
10-14-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 2:48 PM


Re: Lenski
Lenski's experiment works because he doesn't starve his populations to death.
Yes. Extinction does stop evolution, it's probably the only thing that can.
So if you put starvation pressure and thermal stress on the population at the same time, well you figure it out.
I figured it out, it turns out that the results of the experiment depend on how hard the selection is.
Why doesn't anything evolve resistance to Iodine? The reason is that Iodine is a very reactive molecule binding to all kinds of biological molecules, denaturing the molecules, far too many targets for rmns to have any chance for a replicator to evolve resistance to this chemical.
Yes, it's the ultimate in hard selection --- it kills everything.
That's not an answer to my point. Let me ask again --- how would make a difference in the math whether you have one selection pressure acting on many loci, or a different selection pressure for each of the loci?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 2:48 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 4:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 337 of 393 (792858)
10-14-2016 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 2:34 PM


Re: Is it summation time?
How does evolution of drug resistance differ than evolution by rmns to any other kind of selection pressure?
Evolution to drug resistance occurs in the face of the hardest hard selection that our brightest and best scientists can devise. As I have proved, the hardness of the selection is a crucial variable in the math, you can't ignore it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 2:34 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 5:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 352 of 393 (792874)
10-14-2016 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 5:02 PM


Re: Lenski: Cit+ isn't slow.
That's about 1 beneficial mutation per thousand generations. If you think that's fast, would you argue about Haldane's dilemma?
Well, it's fast enough: see post #275.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 5:02 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 353 of 393 (792876)
10-14-2016 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 5:12 PM


Re: Is it summation time?
You think starvation is a soft selection pressure?
That depends crucially on whether it's hard or soft.
All adaption by rmns requires lineages to address nested binomial probability problems.
Well, perhaps you could show us some math.
And why do you keep ignoring my question whether the intensity of selection alters the evolutionary trajectory to adaptation?
Where did you ask me that?
The answer is obviously yes.
If the same selection pressure is applied at low intensity, does it require different mutations for adaptation than if the selection pressure occurs at high intensity?
It may.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 5:12 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 354 of 393 (792877)
10-14-2016 5:19 PM


Simulation
So, here are the results of some simulations differing only in the number of selection pressures operating.
Click to enlarge.
As you can see, the rate of adaptation is faster the more selection pressures are operating, in line with (a) my math (b) common sense.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 361 of 393 (792886)
10-14-2016 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 6:17 PM


Re: Lenski: Cit+ isn't slow.
Fast enough for what?
See post #275.
Somehow you have gotten in your mind that adding selection pressures will speed up this process.
Where "somehow" involves (a) a mathematical proof (b) common sense (c) a computer simulation (d) empirical evidence.
So if you have some math, involving "nested binomial probability problems" or otherwise, that shows different, now would be a great time to present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:17 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 365 of 393 (792890)
10-14-2016 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 6:10 PM


Re: the equality of pressure?
I disagree with you. I think combination selection pressures are the rule in nature. Drought, starvation, thermal stress, disease, predation,...
You admitted that conservative selection pressures don't count. Just thought I should remind you.
How large is that population size for dinosaurs?
That's one of the many things you don't know that has prevented you from actually proving anything about dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:10 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 7:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 366 of 393 (792891)
10-14-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 6:31 PM


Re: Simulation
That's not your fixation calculation again?
No, that's the result of simulations, as I said in the post to which you are ostensibly replying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:31 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 367 of 393 (792892)
10-14-2016 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 6:28 PM


Re: Is it summation time?
Do you think the intensity of selection in the Lenski experiment is hard or soft?
Lenski takes a random sample of 1% of the population every day to start a new colony and discards the rest. Insofar as it's meaningful to ask under such circumstances whether the environmental pressures are hard or soft, they're soft.
Again?
Well, so far all you've shown us could have been knocked off in five minutes by a bright middle-schooler and comes nowhere close to proving your point, so yeah, some more math would be nice.
Now I would like to see some empirical evidence of that, you obviously have that.
Try considering the case where the intensity is 0.
Why might that happen?
Adaptive evolution is often a tradeoff. If there is more of an upside associated with making a change, then it's more likely to outweigh the potential downside.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 6:28 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 372 of 393 (792898)
10-14-2016 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Kleinman
10-14-2016 7:07 PM


Re: the equality of pressure?
You think that drought, starvation, thermal stress, disease, predation,... are conservative selection pressures?
Often. Unless they're new.
Yes, one of the many things you do not know. I thought the theory of evolution was settled science? Well, at least you know that fixation and amplification aren't the same thing now.
Perhaps you meant something when you wrote that.
It is your fixation calculation again.
No, that's the result of simulations, as I said in the post to which you are ostensibly replying.
Are you sure about that, it has been a while since I read his papers but I think he uses 10%. So if you think he increases his intensity of selection the evolutionary process will go faster or slower?
What do you mean by "his intensity of selection"?
Actually elementary. So I left off in the mathematics after computing the probability of mutation A occurring in the population. I was just about to compute the probability of mutation B occurring on a member with mutation A. I think I'll start this mathematics tomorrow.
Good, good. And maybe some time this month we could get on to the interesting bit?
Reducing selection pressure only increases the diversity of populations. No directional selection there.
And hence the population will follow a different evolutionary trajectory than if the intensity was not zero. Proving that the intensity matters.
Adaptive evolution, meet nested binomial probability problems and the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Would these be the "nested binomial probability problems" that you've spent the past week not actually posting about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 7:07 PM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 379 of 393 (792915)
10-15-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Kleinman
10-15-2016 9:29 AM


One More Obvious Equation, That's It?
And to compute the joint probability of some member of the population getting both mutation A and B, we use the multiplication rule:
Shouldn't that read "some members"?
What is seen that in order for this evolutionary process to occur, we have a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation in order to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation. That rate of amplification is strongly dependent on environmental conditions, that is the other selection pressures that are acting on the population at that time.
But your math doesn't model this amplification in any way. Unlike, for example, my simulation.
Not only does this make the evolutionary trajectory more complex, the amplification process for any beneficial mutation for one selection pressure is interfered with by selection pressures targeting other genetic loci.
Again, where's the math? All your middle-school math deals with so far is the probability of two mutations arising in a given period of time, it says nothing about how they get amplified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Kleinman, posted 10-15-2016 9:29 AM Kleinman has not replied

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


Message 390 of 393 (792933)
10-15-2016 8:41 PM


Parturient Montes, Nascetur Ridiculus Mus
How to summarize something so vacuous?
Kleinman promised us that his mathematics would overturn the theory of evolution, prove in particular that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, "unravel the bloody mess that evolutionists have made", overturn the theories of Haldane and Kimura, and prove the remarkable proposition that evolution slows down, rather than speeding up, as a result of additional selection pressures.
And what do we get? Over the course of his 135 posts, he has presented us with a handful of trivial equations which would meet the approval of any evolutionary biologist, or indeed any middle-schooler --- accompanied by ever more vehement repetition of his grandiose claims.
Insofar as he has gotten around to making any particular mistakes, I feel that they have been sufficiently answered in this thread, so it would be redundant to make a list; and unless he wishes to add some fresh errors in his summation, we may as well leave it at that.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024