Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr7482047pbc.0.1335485987083; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni102415pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal From: hersheyh Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 130 Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org Approved: robo...@ediacara.org Message-ID: <31735790.2441.1335485764091.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynei5> References: <2015691d-1334-4fbf-a829-2016e98366f4@po5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <1acb8933-b51e-4ba6-b4c2-d6ce1ac2c18c@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <6f68a3f1-1374-489e-a9dd-6c5510895b3c@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com> <25b2118d-d16e-4f5e-9859-883f666ef3bd@c4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <0f64a185-6cb5-4716-ae2e-328eade4e67b@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <9ea28680-5640-4392-950e-91806ce8dc3f@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1335486682 37370 128.100.83.246 (27 Apr 2012 00:31:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:31:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Authentication-Warning: yws13.prod.google.com: news set sender to n...@google.com using -f X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.175.146.52 In-Reply-To: <9ea28680-5640-4392-950e-91806ce8dc3f@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.175.146.52; User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnD1Q+ETyr8NP9k1T98ptO9mW0YSI+xK/PBa2gYWxMnfFQD6pAPV865e0kSV2J5qgRxi2fSconU/ZoPWcMDwlGP53vePmOiFOYZ/XpxWcyOpxoqnA8rB5UqGVXt0Ua9imlqF9nFlSK779/DPR7gWODnBz3lGw== X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org id q3R0VMOS037359 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote: > On Apr 23, 9:00 pm, David Murdock wrote: > > On Apr 23, 12:16 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 9:30 am, David Murdock wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:22 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote: > > [snip] > Before one should talk about bird origins in a science class, > especially if one is going to try to impose evolutionist folklore on a > naïve child’s mind and say that birds came from reptiles by mutation > and selection, the instructor should properly train the child’s mind > in the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection > phenomenon. The proper teaching of these evolutionary processes by > mutation and selection should include the teaching of the probability > of a particular mutation occurring at a particular site in an > individual member of a population, That would be the probability of the event per trial, aka p in most equations. That value is determined empirically by examining n trials and observing the number of defined events and making the division of # of events by the number of trials to get p, the probability or frequency of event per trial. > the probability of that mutation > occurring in one of “N” members of a population That would be the binomial mass probability of mutation, not the probability of mutation per trial. And you mean the probability of one or more mutation 'events' in n examined trials rather than merely the probability of one mutation 'event' in n trials. The binomial mass probability of one or more mutation events in n trials is typically determined by calculating the probability of exactly no such events, given a probability per trial of p, and subtracting that value from 1. That gives you the same result as adding the probability of one, two, three....n events in n trials. > and the probability > that that mutation will occur in one of “N” members of a population > over “G” generations. If you examine n trials per generation, then the total number of trials observed for the presence or absence of the mutant-of-interest (the event) would be calculated as N, the number examined per generation, times g, the number of generations examined. > And once that naïve child understands that, Now that I have explained it to you, dear naive child, do you agree with what I said? > the > proper teaching of mutation and selection should train the child to > compute the probability of 2 particular mutations occurring at 2 > particular different sites in a subpopulation as a function of > population size and number of generations. A new double-mutant in any given generation can occur in any of 4 possible ways, depending on the probability of particular events in the previous generation. These 4 ways are: 1) new mutation to A in a cell whose parent was already B. 2) new mutation to B in a cell whose parent was already A. 3) new simultaneous mutation to both A and B in a cell whose parent was nether A nor B. 4) recombination between parent cells, one that had A and one that had B. Since we are assuming that there was no A;B cell in the parent generation, the probability of cells with A plus the probability of cells with B in the parent generation must be less than one. If there were A;B cells in the parent generation, the probability of A;B cells in the next generation would be a function of its relative fitness. New mutation to A;B would be of little or no consequence. The binomial mass probability of each of these mutually exclusive events would need to be added together to generate the total binomial mass probability of new mutation. p, in each case, would be the product of either the frequency of the mutation in the old parent generation times the mutation rate for the other, or the mutation rates times each other, or, for recombination, the product of the two frequencies in the parent generation times a recombination factor, as I have described several times. The product of probabiltiies is present in the value of p. I note that you still have not commented on my equation with anything but ad hominem attacks. > This should be done because > this mathematics describes how beneficial mutations can be accumulated > in a subpopulation. I have presented the correct analysis. Your analysis does not include a multiplication of probabilities of the event. It is simply a multiplication of the binomial mass probability of one mutation in a population of size n times the binomial mass probability of a second mutation in a smaller population size. It is GIGO. > This would teach to the naïve child the consequence of the > multiplication rule of probabilities on the mutation and selection > process and how the mutation and selection process must operate in > order for an evolutionary process to occur such as the evolution of > drug resistance to a particular drug or the disruption of the > evolution of drug resistance that we see with the use of combination > therapy to treat HIV. It is clear from the example set by John > Harshman, PhD in evolutionary biology that you don’t have to > understand the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and > selection phenomenon in order to get a doctorate in evolutionism. John > starts from the premise that reptiles turn into birds by mutation and > selection and ends up with a confused collection of mathematically > irrational pseudo-scientific folklore. So you say without presenting any math relevant to the evolution of the class Aves. > The evolutionist approach to teaching science (in particular the basic > science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon) as > espoused by John Harshman has its sad consequences as you should be > aware of and they include multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide > resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than > durable cancer treatments. If anyone taught what you think and posit as math, they should be charged with academic fraud.