On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 12:50:05 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 7:40:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 10:10:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > > Improving fitness is a different physical phenomenon governed by different mathematical principles.
> > > You won't find the mathematics of improved fitness in any population genetics texts at this time.
> >
> > What about published papers? Are you sure you've adequately surveyed
> > them? Have you been over the ones referenced by Muller?
> Who in the reptiles grow feathers crowd has correctly described how rmns works?
There is no such crowd. When I asked you to specify WHICH reptiles
you accuse them of claiming to grow feathers, you ducked the question
by transparently joking "turtles" and then corrected to "maybe lizards,"
both of which are transparently false.
So, the answer to your question is, "None, as befits membership
in the empty set."
> If they have, they certainly haven't worked their way into the medical field. Muller certainly doesn't describe correctly how this phenomeon works.
Show me where he attempted to describe it, or admit that you are talking
about the empty set of attempts by him.
You are like the person who says "This would have been a good place
to..." where one could only avoid this taunt by posting a 1000+ line
post in which every relevant comment is completely supported in a
way that anticipates ALL possible rejoinders.
> In fact he only mentions the mathematics of survival of the fittest.
Show me where he mentions this, or retract.
> This mathematics is inadequate for describing how improvement in fitness works.
Show me where he attempts to describe this, or retract.
> >
> > > > > The creation of more fit variants requires rmns which are not dependent on gene frequencies but the absolute number of replications a variant can do.
> > > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Surprise! Muller does NOT think rmns describe evolution. He
> > > > especially disputes the r (random) part.
> >
> > > rmns is the phenomenon which improves fitness against selection conditions by genetic transformation.
> >
> > You really seem wedded to the "random" part. Muller talks a lot about
> > why it is not useful to use the word in a simplistic way. For instance,
> > the phenotype may have plenty to do through epigenetic evolution
> > that prepares the ground for a genetic mutation which might otherwise be
> > fatal, never mind whether it improves the fitness of the mutated
> > individual.
> So are you going to now claim that evolution is deterministic?
No.
Why do you ask?
> Survival of the fittest is deterministic but improvement in fitness is a stochastic process.
Governed in each individual by quantum indeterminacy, eh?
How come quantum indeterminacy does not enter into survival of the
fittest in The World According to Adam Kleinman?
> >
> >
> > You really need to read Muller's paper in detail instead of cherry-picking
> > and then making unsupportable insults like the following:
> >
> > > Before Muller tries to formulate a new model for evolution,
> > > he should make an attempt to understand the empirical evidence of how genetic transforms work.
> >
> > or insults like the following:
> >
> >
> > > > > So unless the field of biology is going to remove the last vestige of hard mathematical science from its curriculum, they will have to come to grips with the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities and its effect on the production of more fit variants.
> > > >
> > > > The multiplication rule of probabilities is only as good
> > > > as the data fed into it. Muller has oodles to say about all the
> > > > branches of biology that he wants to incorporate into the
> > > > EES, and which help us to see just what the data are really like.
> >
> > > You can extend evolutionary synthesis as far as you want but it will never go far enough to negate the multiplication rule for computing the joint probability of random independent events occurring.
> >
> > The rule isn't negated; the data profoundly affect the individual
> > probabilities, and this is something you will never understand
> > until you start to read Muller without prejudice.
> I keep waiting for you to show us how Muller explains how rmns works.
Why? You accused Muller of being ignorant of it, so it is up
to YOU to show where he botched the alleged explanation.
> Instead you whine when I say he doesn't explain this and neither does any other biologist I know.
See above about the 1000+ line analogy. It would seem that you think
Muller should have written a textbook on the Modern Synthesis, or stand
condemned for not monopolizing over half of the special issue of the
special issue of "Interface Focus 7: 20170015" by writing a complete
[and YOU arrogate to yourself the right to judge HOW complete]
description of how the Modern Synthesis works.
His article can be found in:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
and if you scroll to the bottom, you will see arrowheads marked
Previous and Next
which let you navigate all through the issue.
The "Previous" takes you right away to a five-author introduction
to the whole issue, complete with a table of contents that is
navigable to all the rest of the contributions.
So you might as well go the whole hog and accuse every contributor
of not knowing how rmns work because they did not give detailed
criticisms/descriptions of how they are supposed to work
in the Modern Synthesis.
And then you can repeat your flame about how I whine about
___________ [continue as above} instead of proceeding at your
beck and call.
> > > Muller can do oodles to try to obscure the mathematical facts of life but these facts won't disappear in the fog he produces.
> >
> > Heaping insults on insults like this is indicative of closed-minded
> > prejudice.
> Peter, you have no excuse.
For not doing everything you want me to do at your beck and call?
Who died and made you the moderator of talk.origins?
> You are a professor of mathematics but you haven't mastered the mathematics of stochastic processes.
More of that dishonest "This would be a good place to have written..."
arrogance.
> Stop whining and hit the books and learn this subject.
Fallacy of begging the question.
> > > > Never heard of the EES? You have a lot of interesting reading ahead
> > > > of you, if you click on one of those links.
> >
> > > Why don't you tell us how EES makes reptiles grow feathers?
> >
> > EES doesn't make anything inevitable, least of all the growing
> > of feathers by animals that resemble birds far more than they
> > resemble any living reptiles.
> Anything goes?
Non sequitur noted.
> That sounds like a scientific theory for the reptiles grows feathers crowd.
There you go again, talking about the empty set.
> > Unlike you, I ask questions that are formulated fairly. For instance:
> >
> > Why don't you tell us whether God poofed birds and feathers into
> > existence, or merely made the mutations that produced them have
> > a probability of one?
> I don't waste my time on stupid questions
Let me guess: it is stupid because you go by a definition of
"creationism" which does NOT call the Behe-style "merely
made the mutations" hypothesis "creationism" but
REQUIRES that God poof birds, complete with feathers, into
existence *ex nihilo*,
Actually, that's my concept of creationism too, but I wasn't
sure it was yours. And since you admit to being a creationist,
you are only digging yourself in deeper by continuing to duck
the question.
> Once you understand introductory probability theory, then you will understand why your question is so silly.
Complete bullshit. NO ONE could possibly divine which kind of
creationist you are by reading all the books on probability
theory that have ever been published.
<more bullshit by you snipped here, but dealt with if you insist>
> > > > PS I did find one glaring shortcoming in Muller's paper, but it has nothing
> > > > to do with anything you've ever tried to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Curious? Just ask and I'll tell you what it is.
> >
> > > Everybody knows you didn't quite get the mathematics of probability theory
> >
> > Stop trolling. You have no evidence for this insult, none whatsoever.
<snip claims dealt with in a reply yesterday to a different post of yours>
> > > so you wouldn't recognize if Muller had more than one glaring shortcoming.
> >
> > I don't think you can actually document a single one. You certainly have NOT
> > documented a single one, whereas I can tell you exactly where to find the
> > big weakness I have found. It is in the middle of Section 3.4.
> >
> > See if you can spot it.
I don't think you know enough about evolution or paleontology
[either would do] to spot it, and I don't expect you ever to
try to prove I am wrong about this.
> Muller's one fundamental error is enough for me.
Of not monopolizing more than half that special issue? Everything
you have written so far suggests that this is the ONLY "fundamental
error" -- in fact the ONLY "error" -- you have been able to find.
> If you find more, good for you. Of course you don't recognize the error Muller makes with his description of population genetics.
And you have not been able to show that he made any such error.
Your taunts after the passages you quoted from him were
Ron Okimoto style non-sequiturs.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/