What have we accomplished?

The only thing you have proven is that you are a direct descendant from bananas. And I suggest you submit your work for publication, in Mad magazine. What a surprise, a fish-to-mammals aficionado thinks that DNA evolution is an equilibrium process. Just one more reason that shows you are a mathematically incompetent bungler. Are you sure you want to do this PaulK. I mean you are making one mathematical blunder after another. The Juke-Cantor describes DNA evolution at just a single site, not to all bases.
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia Another blunder on your part. Oh my, do you think the generation is the random trial for DNA evolution and not the replication? In your limited understanding of population genetics, do you think there are no instances where there are more than single offspring in a given generation? Another blunder on your part. That's because at equilibrium the probability that the base at that site will be different than the base was originally will be 0.75 and the probability the base will be the original base is 0.25. These are the two probability equations from that link:
P(A|A,,t)=1/4(1-e^{-8t})
and
P(different|A,,t)=3/4(1-e^{-8t})
That graph is a plot of the second probability curve. You are correct on this point (mark this day on your calendar). That curve approaches an asymptote of 0.75, not 1, and that is the equilibrium point for that site. Too bad that DNA evolution is not an equilibrium process. What that equilibrium point represents is the point where each possible substitution has occurred at least once at that site. Go back and read this paragraph from the link: So, show us how to apply the Jukes-Cantor model to the Kishony experiment. You won't. I've shown you how to use that model to predict the Kishony experiment because when the Jukes-Cantor model reaches equilibrium, all it shows you is the number of replication necessary to reach that equilibrium and that number is simply 1/(mutation rate). But feel free to use this model to demonstrate how you are descended from bananas. I'll wager I'll get a paper peer-reviewed and published on Markov chains and DNA evolution before you do. Why don't you write a paper using the Jukes-Cantor model showing that you are a direct descendent from bananas?

quote:

---

What a surprise, a fish-to-mammals aficionado thinks that DNA evolution is an equilibrium process. Just one more reason that shows you are a mathematically incompetent bungler.

---

We are discussing the implications of the model which does reach an equilibrium. If you have to deviate from the model to make your point then you’re wrong.And that would be true even if your objection had merit.

quote:

---

Are you sure you want to do this PaulK. I mean you are making one mathematical blunder after another. The Juke-Cantor describes DNA evolution at just a single site, not to all bases.
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia

---

Only if a blunder is being right when Kleinman is stupidly wrong. The mathematical model describes how a single site evolves - and it is applied to all sites. The idea that only one site can mutate while all the others cannot change is not part of the model and has no basis in biology.

quote:

---

Oh my, do you think the generation is the random trial for DNA evolution and not the replication? In your limited understanding of population genetics, do you think there are no instances where there are more than single offspring in a given generation? Another blunder on your part.

---

Of course I realise that there can be multiple offspring, but that really doesn’t affect the point. For instance the number of siblings your father had makes no difference to your DNA.

quote:

---

That's because at equilibrium the probability that the base at that site will be different than the base was originally will be 0.75 and the probability the base will be the original base is 0.25.

---

I’m glad I managed to set you right on this.

quote:

---

What that equilibrium point represents is the point where each possible substitution has occurred at least once at that site. Go back and read this paragraph from the link

---

What that equilibrium point represents is the point where the initial state has no influence on the final state, and that is rather important for understanding why 50,000,000 generations is the longest time the model could show. There is no way it could give a time of 500,000,000 generations as you claimed. Indeed, without other evidence you couldn’t conclude any relationship at all if the genomes had diverged so far.

quote:

---

So, show us how to apply the Jukes-Cantor model to the Kishony experiment. You won't

---

There would be ways to apply it, but certainly it should not be applied to the particular mutations that grant resistance because the model is not about selection at all. It could, however be applied to other changes in the DNA - which will occur (yes, even in the Kishony experiment there will be other mutations).Your failure to understand what the model represents is your error, not a fault in the model.

Go for it PaulK, show us how to use the Jukes-Cantor model and that you are a direct descendent to bananas.
quote: Even to the non-homologous portions of the genome? So that's why you think you are a direct descendent to bananas. Oh? So the Jukes-Cantor model only applies to a single individual? I'm beginning to believe that you are a direct descendant of bananas. Do you know how to solve the Jukes-Cantor model without assuming a Poisson distribution? I bet you don't. This is really pathetic. Each state of a Markov chain process only depend on the previous state of the system, all other states have no effect. So when are you going to submit your paper for publication that shows that the Jukes-Cantor model says you are directly related to bananas?

quote:

---

Only if a blunder is being right when Kleinman is stupidly wrong. The mathematical model describes how a single site evolves - and it is applied to all sites. The idea that only one site can mutate while all the others cannot change is not part of the model and has no basis in biology.

​

Even to the non-homologous portions of the genome?

---

The non-homologous parts - if there are any - are as free to mutateAs any other parts. What that has to do with the discussion I can’t say,

quote:

---

Oh? So the Jukes-Cantor model only applies to a single individual?

---

The Jukes-Cantor method is used to compare the genomes of individuals, as well as to consensus genomes constructed from multiple individuals. Molecular Phylogentics

quote:

---

This is really pathetic. Each state of a Markov chain process only depend on the previous state of the system, all other states have no effect.

---

You can’t even get the maths right. Before the equilibrium state the probability that the base has not changed from the original is > 0.25. That is a bias in favour of the original state.The rest of the consequences are also correct. You cannot derive any number of generations > 50,000,000 from the method, with the chosen parameter. And certainly not 500,000,000 however many changes there are in the genome.That you claim otherwise is just your ignorance.

Nothing if you want to claim that you are related to bananas.

So no substantive reply. What a surprise. Not.

If you are dumb enough to believe that you can ignore the non-homologous portions of genomes to do DNA phylogenetics, that's the only reply you deserve. Go publish a paper showing you are a direct descendent of bananas.

And so you continue to post utter nonsense and misrepresent all that folk have attempted to teach you.That is classic Christian Cult of Ignorance behavior.

And still no substantive answer.

Have you sobered up yet? All you have to do is cherry-pick the correct homologous gene from a banana, plug it into the Jukes-Cantor model, and voil, you have bananas in your family tree. Who knew that bananas grow on a tree?

jar will help you on you bananas-to-humans family tree. And you aren't the only one who thinks he's a banana!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmmi7QB33qk

And yet again, all you can do is misrepresent what people have been trying to teach you.

ironically this dust-up with kleinman and the evolutionists underline my point exactlynot only does the casual not understand what the heck any of you are sayingyou're literally vapidly chattering nonsense at each otheryou've outjuked the juke's-cantor cantor and it's bananasthis site has become an absurdityi guess it always was, but when i joined in 03 as a teen, i was more naive to the psychopathetic nature of the s@#$-libs and fringe creationistsEdited by a servant of Christ, : profanityEdited by a servant of Christ, : No reason given.

Is jar going to teach us how fish evolve into mammals? jar, you need to lay off the juice. You are starting to suffer from the DTs.

Very few creationists understand introductory probability theory either. Don't make the mistake that something you don't understand is absurd. It makes you sound like one of those fish-to-mammals aficionados.