Have I said that evolution is not possible? Please post the quote. What I have said is that universal common descent is not mathematically possible and as an example, I have used the concept that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor. If you think humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor, please post your experimental evidence showing how it happened. You can use descent with modification, recombination (with or without chimeras), or any other evolutionary process you want as long as you support it with experimental evidence
I donāt waste time on presenting data that is already well know that showcases the consensus of what the scientific experts state. Itās not just me that decided that humans and chimps most likely descended from the same common ancestor.
I always suggest this book as a good base for someone to work from.
But again, I am curious what are the geneticist you are getting your information from? Which geneticists are saying humans and chimps are not descended from a common ancestor?
Thereā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦
Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations
Why does biological competition slow the rate of adaptation? Does the book "Evolution for Kids: A child friendly explanation of the theory of evolution explain why? Perhaps you and Richard Lenski should read Thermodynamics facts for kids because it is the first law of thermodynamics that causes biological competition to slow the rate of adaptation. Do you understand why?
Are your arguments so weak that you wonāt post what I write in context? Why does the first law of thermodynamics cause biological competition to slow the rate of adaptation as shown in the Lenski Experiment?
Itās actually just me using what I see as the same out of context logic you are using. I get it. You reject the scientific consensus of 99.9%+ of the experts. Know how we know the math works outā¦ because it did lol. Know how we know the science does not work out with ID and species just popping up fully formed? Because it did not.
Iām just going to presume you canāt list off your geneticists who agree with youā¦. I wonder whyā¦.
1 Like
It is a very simple question that I ask you. Why does biological competition slow the rate of adaptation in the Lenski experiment? I have even told you it is the first law of thermodynamics. Do 99.9% of believers in universal common descent not understand the principle of conservation of energy? So, why does biological competition slow the rate of adaptation?
Letās try it this way.
Can you produce the math for your argument? Then produce the math for where you think everyone is failing?
Still waiting for some other names to be dropped by you?
To me, I think based off of your general interactions in places like panda thumb and peaceful science, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You donāt have any math or science backing you up. There are already arguments to your stuff. So to save me the headache of nonsense Iām just going to block you, so I donāt have to see you. Pseudoscience just gets so old. Especially for those who canāt even understand how off they are. So , you can still do whatever youāve at, but I wonāt be able to see it after this.
1 Like
Because whether the pressure is an unexploited niche, the appearance of novel predators, parasites, or prey, climate change, or new drugs, inherently nature is constantly and inescapably evolving. Biology observed in any moment is just a snapshot of evolution in time. Evolution is just biology over time.
There are many consistent lines of observational evidence establishing this, supported by mathematical analysis of mutation rates and population reconstructions as posted above, so if someone comes up with a mathematical objection, there is something wrong with the math or inputs, as surely as bumblebees can, in fact, fly.
1 Like
Is that your way of saying that you donāt understand why biological competition slows adaptation? It is actually a very simple first law of thermodynamics problem that neither you nor Richard Lenski understands.
Here is how this very simple mathematical problem works.
-
It takes energy to replicate.
-
That energy is food that can be utilized by the replicator.
-
The carrying capacity is the total amount of energy available to the replicator. In the Lenski case, it is the glucose in the growth media.
-
Energy is being used by all lineages of the population including lineages those that will ultimately go extinct due to the fixation process making the energy unavailable to the variant lineage that ultimately goes to fixation and are candidates for the next adaptive mutation.
In other words, biological competition reduces the number of replications for all lineages due to the conservation of energy. Note that biological competition is minimal in the Kishony experiment because of the very large carrying capacity. This enables colonies to reach a size where there is a reasonable probability that an adaptive mutation will occur on one of its members and the evolutionary process occurs much more rapidly than in the Lenski experiment.
I donāt know of any geneticists that understand this simple principle of thermodynamics and how it applies to biological evolution and why biological competition slows adaptation.
Are you aware that there were drug-resistant variants in the Lenksi experiment even though his bacteria were never exposed to these drugs?
Changes in Intrinsic Antibiotic Susceptibility during a Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli
There was no niche. Why does this happen?
As a general rule, there is existing variation in populations, and environmental change can shift which traits are favored. Allele frequency shift and de novo mutation are not mutually exclusive.
How does that variation occur? For example, how does that variation occur in the Kishony experiment in order to evolve the drug-resistant variants?
Are you aware that Kishony tried to perform his experiment with two drugs? Why didnāt variation occur to allow the two drug experiment to work?
What makes you say this? LUCA is theoretical, but there are multiple lines of evidence that back up the reality of common descent from embryology and evo-devo, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics.
2 Likes
Biological evolution, in particular, descent with modification and adaptation takes a huge population to operate and recover which neither humans nor chimpanzees have achieved. Even with a single selection pressure, it takes a billion replications (for a mutation rate of 1E-9) to get an adaptive variant with a beneficial mutation. Thatās why transitional fossils donāt exist when there should be huge numbers of them because of the large number of members required for a transitional step. Universal common descent makes no mathematical or experimental sense. Natural selection is an extremely slow and mathematically intensive process, even under a single selection pressure as shown by the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Descent with modification and adaptation takes exponentially larger populations when adaptive evolution must occur to multiple simultaneous selection conditions, as demonstrated by the successful use of 3-drug therapy for treating HIV.
Oh dear, I guess I donāt. Why donāt you explain it to me?
That chimps and humans share a common ancestor is well-established, so you have to deal with the reality of the situation not whatever you think should have happened or couldnāt have happened in the past. Here we are and the genetic evidence is pretty clear. Whatās not clear is that you understand the science involved in the explanations.
The Kishony and Lenski experiments show what they show and they are clearly not experiments on ape-like human and chimp ancestors that examine a process that took millions of years. If you want to observe evolution over millions of years you canāt design lab experiments, you have to look at other lines of evidence, like genetics, which can be quite persuasive in what they reveal.
2 Likes
They exist if you do not play the YEC game of āThatās a post flood fully humanā and āThatās just an apeā.
Research into actual primate molecular clocks and populations say otherwise.
I explain the physics (thermodynamics, 1st law) in simple terms to SkovandOfMitaze for biological competition in post number 49. Haldaneās model of substitution can be shown to be an energy equation and Kimuraās model of fixation uses an energy equation, but it is much easier to understand if you consider that it takes energy to replicate and the carrying capacity of the environment is simply the total amount of energy available to the population for subsistence and replication. Descent with modification depends on a different law of thermodynamics, it is a stochastic process.
Descent with modification and adaptation does not depend on time, it depends on the mutation rate and the number of replications (and the number of selection conditions). The same people that claim that chimps and humans share a common ancestor cannot explain the mathematics and physics of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.
Have you done the mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation? If you had, you could explain how drug resistance evolves and why 3-drug therapy for HIV works. You would also see why your claims about transitional fossils and primate molecular clocks make no sense. You could also explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work.