Re: The Theory of Evolution is Mathematically Irrational Round 2

On Apr 1, 6:00 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip material covered previously]

You really don t get it hersheyh. It took Lenski s bacteria about
32,000 generations to become citrate metabolizers.

Do you have a point? They did evolve it in a relatively small
population in a constant environment within a time frame equaling your
IQ.

When you
extrapolate your cases you describe above to a reptile transforming
into a bird,

That would be a feathered, bipedal, toothed, tailed theropod
transforming into a feathered, bipedal, toothed, and tailed bird,
wouldn't it? Or are you purposely trying to claim that modern birds
popped directly out of a modern lizard egg like the usual stupid
creationist does?

you have entered the realm of mathematical irrationality.

Said with the utter certainty of someone who has refused to put any
actual numbers down to demonstrate this "irrationality".  It is easy
to assert that "x is mathematically irrational" if you can do so
without having to actually provide evidence other than your bogus
assertion that all the changes have to occur simultaneously in the
same individual.

What do you want me to do, I’ve already shown what the multiplication
rule of probabilities does with mutations with a probability of 10^-6.
The beta lactamase example requires five mutations. That would give a
probability of (10^-6)^5.

You seem to prefer large numbers that fail in observations of the real
world. Actually it is more like you to think that everything from a
banana to a apple is a hammer because you want something to hammer a
nail with. The evolution of the ebg gene into a functional beta
lactamase in E. coli would not be *possible* for anyone to evolve beta
lactamase from ebg if it required the simultaneous occurrence of all
five mutations in the same individual. The probability of that would
indeed be (10^-6)^5 or 10^-30. If there are 10^9 bacteria per ml at
saturation in rich media, one would require (10^9bacteria/ml*10^3ml/l)/
10^-30mutants/per unit bacteria or 10^18 l of bacteria to expect a
*mean* of a single such mutant. [Of course, there is, because of the
Poisson distribution a 32% chance that even that large a volume would
come up with zero mutants.] The oceans of the world contain 10^21
liters and are not nearly the rich media needed to sustain that
population of bacteria. So, you are proposing rich media that
represents roughly one thousandth of all the surface water on this
planet be converted to rich media. One could deal with a smaller
Erlenmyer flask if one asked for the bacteria to grow for a number of
generations. Say, 10^4 generations like Lenski has done so far in
over a decade. I will ignore how you would actually restore the
nutrients in the media. Then you would "only" need 10^14 liters which
would need to be refreshed regularly.

Yet people in laboratories have no problem getting the ebg gene to
evolve into a functional beta lactamase gene in a matter of months or
even weeks. And without using Mediterranean seas worth of media. How
can this be if your math is right? Doesn't this mean, if you really
are a scientist, that you have generated a "beautiful theory" that has
been crushed by an "ugly fact"? Reality just doesn't seem to be
agreeing with your mathematical ideas. But then you haven't actually
presented any actual math. Just wishful thinking.

Amplification and lots of generations can
overcome this kind of probability but it is slow and arduous process.
Neutral mutations do not have the benefit of selection so you are
dependent on generations alone to overcome these miniscule
probabilities. This is why you can’t do massive genetic
transformations by the mutation and selection phenomenon.

From the above incomprehensible garbage, it appears that you *still*
do not understand what selective neutrality means. Think of a line
labelled from -1 to +1. The -1 is lethality for an allele relative to
the allele it is being compared to, the strongest possible selection
against a trait. The +1 is the opposite, an allele which survives
while the allele it is being compared to is lethal. Neutrality is the
region near 0. Specifically neutrality is when any selective
advantage/disadvantage is less than the chance variance from
generation to generation.

This is why
John Harshman’s assertion of 40,000,000 differences between humans and
chimpanzees in a million generations can not be accounted for.

Except for the minor detail that John actually showed you the math and
demonstrated that the 40 X 10^6 differences *can* be accounted for
given reasonable assumptions about population size, generation time,
and mutation rate. But you might as well lie, since lying is all you
got.

The
multiplication rule of probabilities obliterates the concept of
abiogenesis and shows that the theory of evolution is a mathematically
irrational belief system.

Assertion again. Do you even know the difference between assertion
without evidence and argument with evidence? I see no evidence that
you do.

However, if you do understand how the
multiplication rule of probabilities dominates the mutation and
selection phenomenon, you can use this understanding to prevent the
evolution of multidrug resistant bacteria, develop more durable cancer
treatments, find safer and more rational uses of herbicides and
prevent herbicide resistant weeds and so on. This is what
evolutionists like you fail to understand.

Except we do and always did understand it. You are simply lying about
this and distorting the arguments of Schneider and other to do so.

Even if you could describe the selection pressures that would
transform a reptile scale into a feather, sequentially it would take a
vast number of generations.

Not necessarily. But it depends on how many generations you consider
to be "vast".

Which would be impossible if the earth were only 6000 years old like
you believe.  But quite possible in the millions of years during which
feathers actually evolved.

Generations has only a minor effect on the mutation and selection
phenomenon.

Yet another lie. If the mutation rate is u, the effect of population
on the predicted number of mutations occurring in a population is u*2N
(for diploid organisms) per generation. That is a linear effect in my
mathematics. The equation for predicted number of mutations occurring
in a population over x generations is x*u*2N. Also a linear effect.
I can only presume that you are talking about the probability that a
given population of size 2N and mutation rate u will have no mutants,
which is based on the Poisson distribution and is equal to e^-lambda,
where lambda is the predicted mean number of mutants expected. The
probability that a population will have at least one mutant, then,
would be 1-e^-lambda. But maybe you are just pulling these phrases
out of yer arse and wouldn't know a Poisson distribution from a fish
stew. But you tell me how you can claim that the number of
"generations has only a minor effect on the mutation and selection
phenomenon." Are you generating equations different from the ones I
just gave you? Where is your math and your working assumptions?

But you don’t understand how mutation and selection works
so why would you know this. Use Inez’s age for the earth, a jillion
years. Mutation and selection still can not accomplish what you claim
in the time available because the dominant mathematical principle
governing this phenomenon is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Typically, when one comes up with equations that say that x cannot
happen in a jillion years and then it is pointed out that x has
actually been observed to happen and happens repeatedly in far less
time and using far smaller populations and material, the scientific
thing to do is NOT to keep right on claiming that your math is right
and reality is wrong. It is to look for the erroneous assumptions in
your math. But then you are acting like a religious nut case, not a
scientist.

[snip, I am tired and have some other things to do]

.