Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

sensei:

---

I showed how the nested hierarchy argument is poor.

Taq:

---

No, you didn't. You are trying to claim that we should throw out natural explanations because a deity could produce the same observations through magic. That's the bad logic and poor reasoning.
​
When the evidence is consistent with a natural process, like the nested hierarchy, we don't throw out that explanation because someone claims a supernatural deity could have produced the same pattern for no apparent reason.

---

---

Taq has a warped idea how natural processes work. He embraces this idea of nested hierarchies base on this warped idea. Taq doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. His misunderstandings are wrong and harmful.

Kleinman:

---

Taq has a warped idea how natural processes work. He embraces this idea of nested hierarchies base on this warped idea.

Taq:

---

What warped idea?
​
Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

---

---

You have so many of them. Where to start? Let's start with your belief that humans and chimpanzees begin from a common ancestor. Today there are about 8 billion humans and about 300,000 chimpanzees. Humans clearly have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees. And you have said that their human and chimpanzee genomes are 96.5% similar. Using your numbers, that would give 35,000,000 genetic differences. Based on your understanding of biological evolution, would you tell us how humans got this reproductive advantage?

Kleinman:

---

You have so many of them. Where to start?

Taq:

---

Start with the nested hierarchy. You are not going to drag this thread off topic.
​
Here it is again . . .
​
Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

---

---

Understanding Evolution
Would you quit trying to deflect and explain how humans and chimpanzees are related to one another. And based on your understanding of biological evolution, would you tell us how humans got this reproductive advantage over chimpanzees?

Kleinman:

---

Would you quit trying to deflect and explain how humans and chimpanzees are related to one another.

Taq:

---

I'm not the one deflecting.
​
Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

---

---

Certainly, you deflect and certainly, you are wrong. The reason you can't explain how humans and chimpanzees are related is that you don't understand how biological evolution works. You are claiming nested hierarchy just because you see some similarity. But you refuse to see the differences and account for them. You are wrong Taq and you don't know how biological evolution works. Your claims of nested hierarchies do not correctly explain biological evolution. You don't construct phylogenetic trees properly.

Kleinman:

---

The reason you can't explain how humans and chimpanzees are related is that you don't understand how biological evolution works.

Taq:

---

We are related to chimps in the same way you are related to your cousins. It's not that hard to figure out.

---

---

That's not a reasoned and logically based argument. That's something that ringo would say. You can't explain how humans and chimps are related other than saying you see some similarities. How could humans accumulate adaptive mutations to have a reproductive advantage over chimpanzees? Your nested hierarchies do not explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. Your nested hierarchies are fabricated drawings that don't explain how biological evolution works. If you think they do, explain the reproductive fitness advantage that humans have over chimps.

Kleinman:

---

That's not a reasoned and logically based argument. That's something that ringo would say. You can't explain how humans and chimps are related other than saying you see some similarities.

Taq:

---

Then you are saying that it is not reasoned nor logical that my cousins and I are related through common descent.

---

---

So you obtained your argument from ringo. But you still can't explain how humans have a reproductive fitness advantage over chimpanzees using your nested hierarchies. You know you are related to your cousin because your parents told you. You are seeing patterns but that does not necessarily mean relatedness. Just because the earth is spherical and a baseball is spherical does not mean they are related. Explain how humans have a reproductive fitness advantage over chimpanzees. Let's see if your nested hierarchies can explain this.

Kleinman:

---

If you think they do, explain the reproductive fitness advantage that humans have over chimps.

Taq:

---

The increased reproductive advantage is due to the mutations that humans have which chimps do not.

---

---

How did the human lineage get these mutations which the chimpanzee lineage did not? What are these mutations, and how many of them are there? Do your nested hierarchies explain this?

Kleinman:

---

But you still can't explain how humans have a reproductive fitness advantage over chimpanzees using your nested hierarchies.

Taq:

---

Natural selection of lineage specific mutations.

---

---

Nested hierarchies tell you that? Explain that to all of us in detail. Explain to us how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. AZPaul3 won't (can't) explain how a lineage accumulates adaptive mutations and of course, Phat isn't interested in how that happens. Perhaps you can explain to us how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. You can use your nested hierarchies if you can.

AZPaul3:

---

This is the knowledge base you are trying to deal with. This guy needs years of re-education.

Taq:

---

A cephalanalectomy wouldn't hurt, either.

---

---

Taq, you aren't telling us how nested hierarchies explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. I say they don't explain this and that's why you are wrong.

Kleinman:

---

Taq, you aren't telling us how nested hierarchies explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations.

Taq:

---

Nope.
​
"You have it backwards. The nested hierarchy is the observation, not the explanation. The explanation for the observation of a nested hierarchy is a combination of common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. You get shared features from common ancestry, and you get lineage specific adaptations from mutations that stay within a lineage due to the lack of horizontal genetic transfer (i.e. vertical inheritance)."

---

---

Of course, nested hierarchies don't explain anything about biological evolution. You have observed some similarities between life forms and jumped to the conclusion they are related. Since you can't explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations using nested hierarchies, explain to us how a lineage can accumulate a set of adaptive mutations using "common ancestry, vertical inheritance, mutation, and natural selection" if you can.

Kleinman:

---

You have observed some similarities between life forms and jumped to the conclusion they are related.

Taq:

---

False.

---

---

Why don't you explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations? Don't your observations explain that? Is this science that difficult for a virologist?

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you explain how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations?

Taq:

---

Let's start with your great-grandfather.

---

---

Are you going to tell us what adaptive mutations my great-grandfather had and which further adaptive mutations my grandparents had, and the additional adaptive mutations my parents had? And then I inherited them all? All those 50 to 100 additional mutations that each had were all adaptive? And what exactly am I adapting to? This is the kind of grade school explanation I would expect out of laymen on this forum, not out of a virologist. Can you give a real example of where the adaptive mutations are measured and identified in a population?

Kleinman:

---

Are you going to tell us what adaptive mutations my great-grandfather had and which further adaptive mutations my grandparents had, and the additional adaptive mutations my parents had?

Taq:

---

Do you or do you not understand how mutations accumulate?
​
Cephalanalectomy, stat.

---

---

I'm not the one having trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. You are even having difficulty differentiating any mutation from an adaptive mutation. You are conflating two concepts, adaptive evolution, and neutral evolution. Do your nested hierarchies explain the difference? And why do humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees if all their mutations are neutral?

Kleinman:

---

I'm not the one having trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations.

Taq:

---

Neither am I.

---

---

Then do the math, and verify it with experimental evidence, not some story about nested hierarchies that don't fit either the math or experimental evidence.

Kleinman:

---

You are even having difficulty differentiating any mutation from an adaptive mutation.

Taq:

---

All mutations are passed on in the same way. The same mechanism that passes on neutral and detrimental mutations also passes on beneficial mutations. It's called vertical inheritance.

---

---

That's right, but not all mutations are adaptive mutations. Adaptive mutations are particular mutations and because of this, the joint probability of getting more than one adaptive mutation is computed by multiplication. And you know that mutations are adaptive because they improve the reproductive fitness of those variants. You still haven't done the math to explain the reproductive fitness advantage that humans have over chimps. How many of those 35,000,000 mutations you claim the human genome differs from the chimpanzee genome are adaptive?

Kleinman:

---

Do your nested hierarchies explain the difference?

Taq:

---

A nested hierarchy isn't an explanation. It is an observation.
​
Want to try again?

---

---

You are the one claiming that humans and chimpanzees are related based on these observations. These observations don't explain anything about phylogenetics.

Kleinman:

---

And why do humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees if all their mutations are neutral?

Taq:

---

I never said that all of their mutations were neutral.

---

---

That's brilliant considering there are 8 billion humans and only 300,000 chimpanzees. Tell us, how many of those 35,000,000 genetic differences are adaptive mutations? You don't have to tell us which mutations they are. This shouldn't be difficult for you since you have no trouble explaining how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations.

Theodoric:

---

Now he will tell us there is plenty out there we just have took, but will not provide it himself. Full troll mode.

---

There is more than enough evidence. Taq points it out on this thread.
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319
Don't you know how to do the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Theodoric:

---

No, you presented no evidence of what sensei is claiming. Back under your rock..

---

So, the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments are not evidence? It is obvious that your understanding of biological evolution is not based on science.