probability from somebody who also knows how to apply it to biology.

[jillery]

Yet another short (< 15 min) video from PZ and Pharyngula, this one
seemingly intelligently designed and fine-tuned for certain T.O.
trolls:

<https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/12/a-trivial-point-about-selection-that-some-people-just-dont-get/>

<https://tinyurl.com/y7zfyny6>

From the video:
**********************************
So for example they'll point out that your typical protein is
made up of about 300 amino acids which is correct. They also point
out that there are about 20 different kinds of amino acids which is
also correct. And then they'll make the great *erroneous* [emphasis
mine] leap, and they'll say "well then the chance of all 300 amino
acids being in the exactly right order in their specified position in
that protein are incredibly low". And they may even tell you the
calculation. It's really a simple calculation. To make the odds of
300 random amino acids following into a particular order to form a
protein is about 1 over 20 to the 300th power. Yeah that's a really
tiny number. It's a really improbable sort of event. If you
calculate it out that's one over a number with about 400 zeros after
it. I think we can safely say that's not going to happen in our
lifetime or the lifetime of planet Earth. And here's the thing: their
calculation is actually correct but the problem is that their
assumptions are all *wrong*. [emphasis mine]
************************************

The above should sound very familiar to just about everybody who posts
to T.O., especially to the trolls who rely on this Creationist PRATT.

For those who claim they're the only ones who know anything about
probability, I dare them to challenge PZ's bona fides. My impression
is he's been applying the multiplication rule of probability to
populations for most of his adult life.

For those who want just the video thank you:

<https://youtu.be/sy5QU-y0AHU>

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So Barbie is going to correct this evolutionist prattle and tell us how to compute the probability of two beneficial mutations occurring. You can do it for either sequential or simultaneous mutations. Of the many problems you have with mathematics, they include not knowing when to apply which equation. You have posted the probabilities for the primordial soup which are actually massively lower than the probabilities you posted above. But you don't know why. So write out the probabilities for an evolutionary process by rmns which you won't because you can't. The reason is that you are a Barbie.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:18:52 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

So, no comment about the content of her post, only yet
another in your series of contentless personal attacks
combined with yet another assertion regarding irrelevant
multiple simultaneous mutations?

No surprise there...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:18:52 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Once again the dim bulb misses the point. In the delusional belief of a primordial soup, he thinks it consists of only L-amino acids. Not only has modern biology transformed into mythology, it is stupid mythology only believed by the misinterpretators of the Archidumbtrex fossil.

[John Harshman]

Let's assume that you can actually spell Archaeopteryx. What is the
proper interpretation of that fossil (or 11 fossils, so far)?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Any interpretation of fossils that ignores the mechanisms of genetic transformation is at best rank speculation.

[erik simpson]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

Let me guess: He's never actually given it much thought (like the age of the
earth).

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What makes you think that you are any better at knowing the age of the earth than how rmns works? All that John knows about rmns is the addition rule and that he applies incorrectly.

[John Harshman]

I didn't ask what was wrong with other interpretations. I asked what
your interpretation was.

[jillery]

Nope, that's not it. Instead it's your compulsion to post your lies
and spam and snark and non sequiturs.

Too bad you have nothing intelligent to say, ass.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:33:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Yeppers. As much as I would like to take credit for the comments
above, the part that refutes the good DrDr's spam is from PZ.

Steadly also conflated posters' comments and posters' quotes. Not
sure how common is that cognitive flaw, but I don't recall any other
posters to T.O. showing it.

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
L-amino acids and Archiedumtrex fossils have any relevance to PZ's
video. Your failure to do so once again shows your compulsion to post
non sequiturs because you have nothing intelligent to say.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

My interpretation is it is not a reptile turning into a bird. rmns cannot make that kind of transformation.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:33:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:18:52 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

As usual, Barbie doesn't show how to compute the joint probability of two beneficial mutations occurring. Barbie demonstrates the skills of a biologist doing a probability calculation.

[erik simpson]

Not that it's relevant to the fossil record, but as an astrophysics PhD I know
quite a bit about the age of the earth, also a lot about modelling physical
systems with PDEs.

[John Harshman]

I didn't ask what your interpretation was not. I asked what it was.
Third time's the charm!

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:49:50 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You started this thread with a post containing a calculation based on 20 amino acids. You don't understand chirality. In your bizarre imagination, you think that the primordial soup consists of only L-amino acids and then post a calculation based on this delusion. Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Oh boy! Perhaps you want to show us how to compute the joint probability of two beneficial mutations occurring. You can show us how to do the computation for sequential beneficial mutations or simultaneous beneficial mutations. Sorry, it's not done using PDEs, this calculation is done with probability equations. Of course, if you can show us how to do the calculation with a PDE, go for it.

[erik simpson]

"Naive" is the word I would to describe your efforts to model "rmns" in the real
world. Hoyle's account is less naive, but still unrealistic. Are you familiar
with the work of MoToo Kimura? If not, it would indicate a significant
disconnect with the whole field of population genetics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You may have some understanding of astrophysics but you have no understanding of the physics of evolutionary processes. What Kimura, Hoyle and Haldane are modeling is the mathematics of survival of the fittest. This mathematics is not applicable to the mathematics of improvement of fitness. You make the error of thinking that survival of the fittest represents an improvement in fitness when in actuality, the end result of this competition is simply the extinction of the less fit variants. And whether you think it naive to be able to model rmns in the real world, the mathematics I've presented correctly describes every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to present a real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this mathematics. You won't because they don't exist.

[Mark Isaak]

So, basically, all of your objections boil down to: "Nyah Nyah! I can't
hear you!"

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[erik simpson]

I don't believe you understand the real world problem well enough to model
anything. As for the inapplicability of PDEs, consider the description of
evolutionary processes in a population with and extended geogrphic range, where
selection pressures are space as well as time dependent. Even if we knew the
basic "probabilities" that you insist we must multiply (which we don't), we also
generally lack the knowledge of how the selection pressures vary (also in space
and time). Even the work are real population geneticists can at best illuminate
some of the tendencies, and by no means are taken as real 'predictions' of real
evolutionary trajectories. "Naive" doesn't begin to describe your assertion
that "rmns can't explain evolution".

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

No, graduate student of population genetics, by objection boil down to the multiplication rule of probabilities. But if you find the misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil convincing, join the ranks of the reptiles grow feathers Barbies.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It's not what you believe, it is what you can prove. Do you believe that a series of microevolutionary changes can add up to a macroevolutionary change?

[Wolffan]

On 13Jan 2018, John Harshman wrote
(in article<Kr2dnfDh3p9Y-8fH...@giganews.com>):

I’d kinda like to see that, too.

I’m not holding my breath waiting, though.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I leave the irrational speculations to the Barbies.

[Wolffan]

On 13Jan 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<edd04cc1-051c-406f...@googlegroups.com>):

Intriguing. So having an actual interpretation is irrational speculation, eh?
Do tell me more.

[jillery]

As usual, you merely assert facts not in evidence.

>In your bizarre imagination, you think that the primordial soup consists of only L-amino acids and then post a calculation based on this delusion.

Your claim of delusion would be against PZ, not me. And your
assertion that he thinks the primordial soup consisted of only L-amino
acids is absurd on its face. That life on Earth uses L-amino acids
almost exclusively in no way suggests that was the only form available
at the time of abiogenesis. My impression is you have been credulously
swallowing way too much crap from the Creationists' camel.

>Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.

And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
how you think it's "delusional".

[jillery]

That's only because he's too busy shouting his non
sequitur spam and snark.

[jillery]

As usual, Allie the ass replies with his compulsive non sequitur spam
and snark.

[jillery]

You also neglect to provide any explanation, Allie.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:07:08 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Oh, I see, you think the primordial soup consisted of only 20 L amino acids. Math wasn't your only tough subject.

>
>
> >In your bizarre imagination, you think that the primordial soup consists of only L-amino acids and then post a calculation based on this delusion.
>
>
> Your claim of delusion would be against PZ, not me. And your
> assertion that he thinks the primordial soup consisted of only L-amino
> acids is absurd on its face. That life on Earth uses L-amino acids
> almost exclusively in no way suggests that was the only form available
> at the time of abiogenesis. My impression is you have been credulously
> swallowing way too much crap from the Creationists' camel.

That claim is stupid as your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil. The primordial soup concept is one of the dumbest ideas around. And you perpetuate this delusion. So where are all your biologists who understand probability theory? Perhaps this is a punctuated equilibrium moment?

>
>
> >Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.
>
>
> And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
> identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
> how you think it's "delusional".

Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is the product of the delusions from the mind that thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Math is tough for Barbie and so is Chemistry.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:25:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:36:11 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

I can, without speculation, tell you what the Archiedumbtrex fossil is not. It is not a reptile growing feathers. The reason the Archiedumbtrex fossil is not a reptile growing feathers is the multiplication rule of probabilities. rmns cannot make that kind of transformation. But if one of your biologists who knows how to do probability calculations can prove otherwise, I'm open to hearing that. So far, all you have show up is an astrophysicist who doesn't know how to do a probability calculation. You are a perfect reason why Wacky Tabacky should remain illegal, we already have way too many people hallucinating at our universities.

[Ray Martinez]

That's right; it's all about interpretations: which has a better fit or correspondence with reality? Starting assumptions determine interpretation or explanation of evidence. So the real and only issue is which worldview provides the best explanation of evidence, teleology or evolution?

According to the evolutionary explanation, Archaeopteryx bridges the gap between reptiles and birds. Relevant fossils have been closely examined. The clavicles of Archaeopteryx (or lack thereof) are deemed uniquely bird-like thus the specimen represents direct evidence that birds evolved from reptiles.

But according to the teleological explanation, a single-set of fossils cannot have any bearing on the truth or falsity of design. It's a trivial matter whether a specimen had bird-like clavicles or not? We do not stake the validity of design on whether a specimen had clavicles or not; or, for example, whether the thumb of a panda exhibits an evolutionary arrangement? Simply ridiculous. So much riding on so little. According to Paley, pandas, birds, and all other sexually reproducing animal species are observed to have been designed.

"The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation" (C. Darwin Autobio:59).

Ray

[jillery]

Your answer, of what design is not, is no more useful than the good
DrDr's answer of what his interpretation is not.

And Paley never observed life being designed, any more than you have.

>"The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation" (C. Darwin Autobio:59).
>
>Ray

[jillery]

Perhaps someday, if you keep spamming long enough, one of your replies
might actually be a coherent response. But based on the
multiplication rule of probability, that would likely require more
than the lifetime of the universe.

>> >In your bizarre imagination, you think that the primordial soup consists of only L-amino acids and then post a calculation based on this delusion.
>>
>>
>> Your claim of delusion would be against PZ, not me. And your
>> assertion that he thinks the primordial soup consisted of only L-amino
>> acids is absurd on its face. That life on Earth uses L-amino acids
>> almost exclusively in no way suggests that was the only form available
>> at the time of abiogenesis. My impression is you have been credulously
>> swallowing way too much crap from the Creationists' camel.
>That claim is stupid as your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil.

Really? And what is my "misinterpretation" of the Archiedumbtrex
fossil?

>The primordial soup concept is one of the dumbest ideas around.

Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?

>And you perpetuate this delusion.

Nope. That's another one of your stupid lies.

>So where are all your biologists who understand probability theory? Perhaps this is a punctuated equilibrium moment?

Any time you want to respond to what PZ actually said, be my guest.

>> >Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.
>>
>>
>> And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
>> identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
>> how you think it's "delusional".
>Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is the product of the delusions from the mind that thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Math is tough for Barbie and so is Chemistry.

Coherent argumentation is tough for ass Allies.

[jillery]

Your non sequitur spam and snark does not an explanation make.

>It is not a reptile growing feathers. The reason the Archiedumbtrex fossil is not a reptile growing feathers is the multiplication rule of probabilities. rmns cannot make that kind of transformation. But if one of your biologists who knows how to do probability calculations can prove otherwise, I'm open to hearing that. So far, all you have show up is an astrophysicist who doesn't know how to do a probability calculation. You are a perfect reason why Wacky Tabacky should remain illegal, we already have way too many people hallucinating at our universities.

So you have nothing intelligent to say about what PZ said. Is anybody
surprised.

[Wolffan]

On 13Jan 2018, jillery wrote
(in article<p37l5dplj92qfbdp0...@4ax.com>):

The next time I see him post something intelligent about anything will be the
first time.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
> On 13Jan 2018, jillery wrote
> (in article<p37l5dplj92qfbdp0...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:37:44 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

How could I match the claim that reptiles grow feathers? That has got to be something off the IQ scale. Speaking of IQ, what happened to Bart Simpson's dumber brother? I was hoping he would tell us whether a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. Perhaps you want to try and answer that question.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

It seems to me very difficult to take Drdr seriously until he publishes something that demonstrates that his experimental results reflect what actually happens in nature. Simply asserting it won't do.
Until then he's just another creationist blowhard.

gregwrld

[Ray Martinez]

Neither I nor Paley has ever made that particular claim. And no Darwinian scholar has ever accused an opponent of making that claim. You're just an ordinary Evolutionist on the internet doing what ordinary Evolutionists on the internet are known to do.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25645658
and I've submitted another paper which explains the difference between the mathematics of survival of the fittest (Haldane and Kimura's work) and the mathematics of improving fitness (rmns). Somebody has got to explain to you evolutionist Barbies how evolution works. We'll never solve the problem of drug resistance when biologists teach naive school children that reptiles grow feathers yet don't understand the physics of evolution.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 17:43:57 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Of course you did, just above:

"... are observed to have been designed."


And that's only the latest instance. You have said similar many times
in the past, and many posters have pointed out this error to you many
times.

>And no Darwinian scholar has ever accused an opponent of making that claim. You're just an ordinary Evolutionist on the internet doing what ordinary Evolutionists on the internet are known to do.
>
>Ray

If you mean to point out that your answer, of what design is not, is
worthless, then you're correct.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 17:51:08 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 5:35:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It seems to me very difficult to take Drdr seriously until he publishes something that demonstrates that his experimental results reflect what actually happens in nature. Simply asserting it won't do.
>> Until then he's just another creationist blowhard.
>>
>> gregwrld
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
>http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25645658
>and I've submitted another paper which explains the difference between the mathematics of survival of the fittest (Haldane and Kimura's work) and the mathematics of improving fitness (rmns). Somebody has got to explain to you evolutionist Barbies how evolution works.

Even if so, it's a good thing it's not you, because you never explain
anything.

>We'll never solve the problem of drug resistance when biologists teach naive school children that reptiles grow feathers yet don't understand the physics of evolution.

[Wolffan]

On 13Jan 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<79e38d80-51f6-4dd1...@googlegroups.com>):

oh, there’s no need for you to continue to show how silly you are, that’s
well established. Everyone knows that you will always sprout the same idiocy,
and will never, ever, actually show anything which could be taken seriously.
Even AB tries harder than you do to present something. He fails because
he’s an idiot, but you don’t even try.

> That has got to be
> something off the IQ scale. Speaking of IQ, what happened to Bart Simpson's
> dumber brother? I was hoping he would tell us whether a series of
> microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. Perhaps you
> want to try and answer that question.

yes.

[Wolffan]

On 13Jan 2018, czeba...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<5a466889-15bd-4292...@googlegroups.com>):

[John Harshman]

Third time apparently wasn't the charm. There's no charm. Nothing will
induce Alan to expose his real opinion, presumably because it will make
him look like an idiot.

[jillery]

You noticed that, too.

>Nothing will
>induce Alan to expose his real opinion, presumably because it will make
>him look like an idiot.

You're probably right, but I can't imagine how anything he might say
would make him look any more idiotic than he already does. If so,
then he has nothing to lose by finally confessing all; he really is
Bozo the Clown.

[dale]

On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
> random amino acids

aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?

does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?

--
Not a professional opinion unless specified.
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/

[Ray Martinez]

The former statement, your statement, is present tense and the latter statement, my statement, seen directly above, is past tense. Thus the two statements are not equivalent. But you've treated both statements to be as such with no awareness of the fact.

You don't know that no human being could have witnessed God designing any thing? You don't know that design is ascertained after the fact on earth by mankind?

I obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

Unfortunately, your work relies on the multiplication rule of
probabilities, and you don't know the first thing about the
multiplication rule of probabilities. (You only know it starting with
the second thing. The first thing one must know about it is when you
can *or cannot* apply it. And with your learning disability, it appears
you will never know.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/13/18 1:12 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

>>> My interpretation is it is not a reptile turning into a bird. rmns cannot make that kind of transformation.
>>

>> So, basically, all of your objections boil down to: "Nyah Nyah! I can't
>> hear you!"

> No,

It wasn't a question.

> [m]y objection boil down to the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Which you don't understand.

> But if you find the misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil convincing, join the ranks of the reptiles grow feathers Barbies.

You don't like it. That alone shows the interpretation is reliable.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>> random amino acids
>
>aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>
>does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?

Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:12:19 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Then you are caught on your own hook. Since you admit the act of
designing was past tense, then said person could not have observed
said act. Your claim would then be equivalent to saying that you
observed Columbus had discovered the New World, which is nonsense.

Only someone who claims to have bought a bridge in Brooklyn would
claim that "observe" is synonymous with "infer" or "interpret". It's
just another one of your stupid word games.

Hoist by your petard, ye be.

[dale]

On 1/14/18 7:16 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> random amino acids
>>
>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>>
>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
>
>
> Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
> distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.
>

the roll of dice is predictable if you observe all the particulars of
the roll ... might be said to be random because the observation of each
particular is difficult

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <avcesg....@news.alt.net>, dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

> On 1/14/18 7:16 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>> random amino acids
> >>
> >> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
> >>
> >> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
> >
> >
> > Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
> > distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.
> >
>
>
> the roll of dice is predictable if you observe all the particulars of
> the roll ... might be said to be random because the observation of each
> particular is difficult

When we talk of genetic mutations as 'random' we are not saying that
they do not follow the laws of physics in some deterministic fashion. We
are saying that mutations are not correlated in any way with the
environment or with the needs of the organism.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Burkhard]

Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <avcesg....@news.alt.net>, dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/18 7:16 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> random amino acids
>>>>
>>>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>>>>
>>>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
>>>
>>>
>>> Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
>>> distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.
>>>
>>
>>
>> the roll of dice is predictable if you observe all the particulars of
>> the roll ... might be said to be random because the observation of each
>> particular is difficult
>
> When we talk of genetic mutations as 'random' we are not saying that
> they do not follow the laws of physics in some deterministic fashion. We
> are saying that mutations are not correlated in any way

bit too strong even that, no? Different environments seem to be in
different degrees mutagenetic (e.g. level of radiation). What you mean
of course is that the environment does not determine where a mutation
happens, but it can be correlated to things such as frequency.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>Let me guess: He's never actually given it much thought (like the age of the
>earth).

Sure he has, and the answer is always the same: "Anything
but evolution as it actually works!".

See?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:49:50 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

Translated into AllieSpeak: "Excuse me; did you fart?"

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:49:51 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:33:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

>> Yeppers. As much as I would like to take credit for the comments
>> above, the part that refutes the good DrDr's spam is from PZ.
>>
>> Steadly also conflated posters' comments and posters' quotes. Not
>> sure how common is that cognitive flaw, but I don't recall any other
>> posters to T.O. showing it.

>As usual, Barbie doesn't show how to compute the joint probability of two beneficial mutations occurring. Barbie demonstrates the skills of a biologist doing a probability calculation.

Also as usual, Non Sequiturs 'r' Allie.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:12:34 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-8, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:25:04 AM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-8, erik simpson wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> > > > On 1/13/18 10:49 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> > > > > Once again the dim bulb misses the point. In the delusional belief of
>> > > > > a primordial soup, he thinks it consists of only L-amino acids. Not
>> > > > > only has modern biology transformed into mythology, it is stupid
>> > > > > mythology only believed by the misinterpretators of the Archidumbtrex
>> > > > > fossil.
>> > > >

>> > > > Let's assume that you can actually spell Archaeopteryx. What is the
>> > > > proper interpretation of that fossil (or 11 fossils, so far)?
>> > >
>> > > Let me guess: He's never actually given it much thought (like the age of the
>> > > earth).
>> >

>> > What makes you think that you are any better at knowing the age of the earth than how rmns works? All that John knows about rmns is the addition rule and that he applies incorrectly.
>>
>> Not that it's relevant to the fossil record, but as an astrophysics PhD I know
>> quite a bit about the age of the earth, also a lot about modelling physical
>> systems with PDEs.
>
>Oh boy! Perhaps you want to show us how to compute the joint probability of two beneficial mutations occurring.

Since that scenario is irrelevant to evolution outside
restricted multiple-drug experiments in the lab, what
possible relevance could it have?

Once more, and seemingly perpetually, Non Sequiturs 'r'
Allie.

> You can show us how to do the computation for sequential beneficial mutations or simultaneous beneficial mutations.

Do yo imagine that they are the same? Sorry, but they are
not, especially since the population subject to selection
for subsequent mutations consists of (mainly) the
beneficiaries of the first.

> Sorry, it's not done using PDEs, this calculation is done with probability equations. Of course, if you can show us how to do the calculation with a PDE, go for it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:36:11 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 13Jan 2018, John Harshman wrote
>> (in article<Kr2dnfDh3p9Y-8fH...@giganews.com>):
>>

>> > On 1/13/18 11:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

>> > > > > Any interpretation of fossils that ignores the mechanisms of genetic
>> > > > > transformation is at best rank speculation.
>> > > > I didn't ask what was wrong with other interpretations. I asked what
>> > > > your interpretation was.
>> > >

>> > > My interpretation is it is not a reptile turning into a bird. rmns cannot
>> > > make that kind of transformation.

>> > I didn't ask what your interpretation was not. I asked what it was.
>> > Third time's the charm!
>>
>> I’d kinda like to see that, too.
>>
>> I’m not holding my breath waiting, though.
>
>I leave the irrational speculations to the Barbies.

So you admit that you have no alternative to propose, and
your objection is based solely on personal (probably
religious) belief?

OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>> random amino acids
>
>aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?

No.

>does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:55:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:27:46 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:07:08 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:49:50 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

>>> >> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
>>> >> L-amino acids and Archiedumtrex fossils have any relevance to PZ's
>>> >> video. Your failure to do so once again shows your compulsion to post
>>> >> non sequiturs because you have nothing intelligent to say.
>>> >You started this thread with a post containing a calculation based on 20 amino acids. You don't understand chirality.
>>>
>>>
>>> As usual, you merely assert facts not in evidence.
>>Oh, I see, you think the primordial soup consisted of only 20 L amino acids. Math wasn't your only tough subject.
>
>
>Perhaps someday, if you keep spamming long enough, one of your replies
>might actually be a coherent response. But based on the
>multiplication rule of probability, that would likely require more
>than the lifetime of the universe.
>
>
>>> >In your bizarre imagination, you think that the primordial soup consists of only L-amino acids and then post a calculation based on this delusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your claim of delusion would be against PZ, not me. And your
>>> assertion that he thinks the primordial soup consisted of only L-amino
>>> acids is absurd on its face. That life on Earth uses L-amino acids
>>> almost exclusively in no way suggests that was the only form available
>>> at the time of abiogenesis. My impression is you have been credulously
>>> swallowing way too much crap from the Creationists' camel.
>>That claim is stupid as your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil.
>
>
>Really? And what is my "misinterpretation" of the Archiedumbtrex
>fossil?

Allow me? Since Archie has all the characteristics of a
reptile, *and* has feathers, you've naively interpreted it
as a reptile with feathers.

Allie, OTOH, since he *knows* (apparently it was written on
a stone tablet, now missing, or directly communicated by
God) that reptiles *can't* grow feathers, due to something
about simultaneous beneficial mutations, the kind not
actually required by evolution, knows it can't be anything
of the sort, although he seems strangely reticent regarding
how it *should* be interpreted.

That about sum it up, Allie?

>>The primordial soup concept is one of the dumbest ideas around.
>
>
>Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?
>
>
>>And you perpetuate this delusion.
>
>
>Nope. That's another one of your stupid lies.
>
>
>>So where are all your biologists who understand probability theory? Perhaps this is a punctuated equilibrium moment?
>
>
>Any time you want to respond to what PZ actually said, be my guest.
>
>
>>> >Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>> And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
>>> identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
>>> how you think it's "delusional".
>>Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is the product of the delusions from the mind that thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Math is tough for Barbie and so is Chemistry.
>
>
>Coherent argumentation is tough for ass Allies.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <p3g496$ire$2...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Yes, I meant that which specific mutations occur isn't correlated with
any needs imposed by the environment. AFAIK, more mutagenic environments
don't favour any particular set of mutations.

[Ernest Major]

On 14/01/2018 17:33, Burkhard wrote:
>> When we talk of genetic mutations as 'random' we are not saying that
>> they do not follow the laws of physics in some deterministic fashion. We
>> are saying that mutations are not correlated in any way
>
> bit too strong even that, no? Different environments seem to be in
> different degrees mutagenetic (e.g. level of radiation). What you mean
> of course is that the environment does not determine where a mutation
> happens, but it can be correlated to things such as frequency.

The way I'd put is that when we speak of mutations being random there is
no bias towards mutations of less or greater fitness. I'm not completely
convinced that this is true at the margins; different mechanisms for
mutation may have different ratios of beneficial to neutral to
detrimental mutations (e.g. deletions are more likely to be deleterious
- pun unintentional - than point mutations), with the potential
consequence that between different costs of suppressing mutations, and
different selection pressures for supressing mutations, of particular
classes, there may be a slight bias averaged over all mutations.

So, perhaps, within each class of mutation due to a particular
mechanism, there is no bias towards mutations of greater or lesser fitness.

>
>
>  with the
>> environment or with the needs of the organism.
>>
>> Andre
>>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

The alternative way of looking at it is that he doesn't know which
probabilities to multiply. Most of the time he would have us believe
that it is the probabilities of mutations occurring that should be
multiplied, but I believe that he has conceded that it makes a
difference whether a bacterial population is exposed to several
antibiotics sequentially or simultaneously.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So the joint probability of random events add up? You may put your dunce cap on and join John Harshman in the corner.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

My work depends on the multiplication rule of probabilities because that is how you compute the joint probability of random independent events. Did they teach you something different in your graduate course in population genetics? If so, that would explain why you don't know the difference between survival of the fittest and improving fitness.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You should complain to the peer reviewers and editors who publish my papers. They seem to think I got it right. But if you have a better explanation of how rmns works, tell us. But you won't because you don't know.

>
> > But if you find the misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil convincing, join the ranks of the reptiles grow feathers Barbies.
>
> You don't like it. That alone shows the interpretation is reliable.

It's not that I don't like it, in fact I think it is amusing, psychotic but amusing.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

We can't predict whether the mutation will occur or will not occur for a given replication but we can predict the relative frequency of the mutation if we have many replications.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If the antibiotics are used sequentially, only a single mutation at a time is required to improve fitness. If the antibiotics are used simultaneously, it takes simultaneous beneficial mutations to improve fitness. And this principle applies to any selection pressures. For example, if Lenski applied thermal stress at the same time he applies starvation stress, it would take beneficial mutations to both stressors simultaneously to improve fitness. As it is, the improvement in fitness for each beneficial mutation for starvation alone is quite small. That is why it takes 1000 generations for fixation of each beneficial mutation.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Wolffan]

On 14Jan 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<b85d040c-961e-4958...@googlegroups.com>):

nope. Small changes add up. But you know this.

[dale]

wouldn't the result of such a set of mutations mapped onto a the set of
environmental conditions:

1) result in the environmental conditions becoming the mutations

but not

2) (1) plus sets with nothing in common with (1)

because

3) the original conditions (1) are the set of every condition (1)or(2)




> Andre

[dale]

this is a statement, not an explanation

"We cannot predict ..."

you did not explain "why"

>>
>> Andre
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
>

[Ray Martinez]

Where did you obtain the idea that a non-random selection process exists?

Ray

[dale]

On 1/14/18 1:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> random amino acids
>>
>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>
> No.

because it had to happen to fit into a particular paradigm ? which paradigm?

>
>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?


--

[jillery]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:35:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

If in fact that's what Allie means, one can only wonder why he didn't
just say so.

As for being naive, it is the "misinterpretation" Huxley applied when
he itemized those features of Archaeopteryx which are bird-like and
which are reptile-like, a misinterpretation which remains the
consensus of paleontologists to this day.

Apparently Allie thinks he's the only one who correctly interprets
Archaeopteryx fossils.

>Allie, OTOH, since he *knows* (apparently it was written on
>a stone tablet, now missing, or directly communicated by
>God) that reptiles *can't* grow feathers, due to something
>about simultaneous beneficial mutations, the kind not
>actually required by evolution, knows it can't be anything
>of the sort, although he seems strangely reticent regarding
>how it *should* be interpreted.
>
>That about sum it up, Allie?
>
>>>The primordial soup concept is one of the dumbest ideas around.
>>
>>
>>Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?
>>
>>
>>>And you perpetuate this delusion.
>>
>>
>>Nope. That's another one of your stupid lies.
>>
>>
>>>So where are all your biologists who understand probability theory? Perhaps this is a punctuated equilibrium moment?
>>
>>
>>Any time you want to respond to what PZ actually said, be my guest.
>>
>>
>>>> >Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
>>>> identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
>>>> how you think it's "delusional".
>>>Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is the product of the delusions from the mind that thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Math is tough for Barbie and so is Chemistry.
>>
>>
>>Coherent argumentation is tough for ass Allies.

--

[jillery]

Once again, you repeat assertions which were shown incorrect. Your
comment about Lenski's experiment is an exaggeration at best, It
applies only in cases where said stressors are lethal. Both
starvation stress and thermal stress are gradients, and lethal only in
extremis. In all other instances, beneficial mutations for either
and/or both can accumulate sequentially, and resistance develop
gradually. This is analogous to instances of non-lethal antibiotic
concentrations allowing the evolution of drug resistance.

[jillery]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:14:07 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 1/14/18 7:20 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 7:40:05 AM UTC-8, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>> In article <avcesg....@news.alt.net>, dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/18 7:16 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> random amino acids
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
>>>>> distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the roll of dice is predictable if you observe all the particulars of
>>>> the roll ... might be said to be random because the observation of each
>>>> particular is difficult
>>>
>>> When we talk of genetic mutations as 'random' we are not saying that
>>> they do not follow the laws of physics in some deterministic fashion. We
>>> are saying that mutations are not correlated in any way with the
>>> environment or with the needs of the organism.
>> We can't predict whether the mutation will occur or will not occur for a given replication >but we can predict the relative frequency of the mutation if we have many replications.
>
>this is a statement, not an explanation
>
>"We cannot predict ..."
>
>you did not explain "why"

Typically, "we cannot predict" because either:

1) we currently lack the ability to obtain sufficient knowledge to
make such predictions, or

2) sufficient knowledge is impossible to obtain as a matter of
principle.

AIUI 2) applies to genetic mutations.

[jillery]

Correct. Increasing mutagens is roughly analogous to rolling dice
faster.

[Mark Isaak]

Now explain how the multiplication rule of probabilities applies in a
population subject to dozens of different events that affect the genes
of its members, none of which events are independent.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
> On 14Jan 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
> (in article<b85d040c-961e-4958...@googlegroups.com>):

>
> > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 13Jan 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
> > > (in article<79e38d80-51f6-4dd1...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > On 13Jan 2018, jillery wrote
> > > > > (in article<p37l5dplj92qfbdp0...@4ax.com>):
> > > > >

> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:37:44 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:25:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:36:11 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-8, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 13Jan 2018, John Harshman wrote
> > > > > > > > > > (in article<Kr2dnfDh3p9Y-8fH...@giganews.com>):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/18 11:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, John Harshman
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/18 11:05 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, John Harshman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/13/18 10:49 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:18:52 -0800 (PST), the following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-8, jillery
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another short (< 15 min) video from PZ and Pharyngula,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seemingly intelligently designed and fine-tuned for certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T.O.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trolls:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/12/a-trivia
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > l-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > po
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int-a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bout-selection-that-some-people-just-dont-get/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> nope. Small changes add up. But you know this.

The title of this thread is "probability from somebody who also knows how to apply it to biology." You obviously are not the one. So let's see if you can write down the mathematics for a single microevolutionary change. Let's use the Kishony experiment as an example. If you are not familiar, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas
Write down the mathematics for the first beneficial mutation which allows Kishony's bacteria to grow in the low-intensity drug region, call it mutation A.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 6:10:02 PM UTC-8, dale wrote:

> wouldn't the result of such a set of mutations mapped onto a the set of
> environmental conditions:
>
> 1) result in the environmental conditions becoming the mutations
>
> but not
>
> 2) (1) plus sets with nothing in common with (1)
>
> because
>
> 3) the original conditions (1) are the set of every condition (1)or(2)

The environmental conditions determine which mutations are beneficial or not. For example, an environment with an antibiotic will cause variants with particular mutations to be more fit than variants without those mutations. Absent the antibiotic, those mutations are not beneficial.

>
>
>
>
> > Andre

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 6:15:02 PM UTC-8, dale wrote:
> On 1/14/18 7:20 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 7:40:05 AM UTC-8, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> >> In article <avcesg....@news.alt.net>, dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/14/18 7:16 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>>>>> random amino acids
> >>>>>
> >>>>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Genetic mutations are random as are the roll of fair dice. Their
> >>>> distribution is predictable, but not a specific event.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> the roll of dice is predictable if you observe all the particulars of
> >>> the roll ... might be said to be random because the observation of each
> >>> particular is difficult
> >>
> >> When we talk of genetic mutations as 'random' we are not saying that
> >> they do not follow the laws of physics in some deterministic fashion. We

> >> are saying that mutations are not correlated in any way with the
> >> environment or with the needs of the organism.
> > We can't predict whether the mutation will occur or will not occur for a given replication >but we can predict the relative frequency of the mutation if we have many replications.
>
> this is a statement, not an explanation
>
> "We cannot predict ..."
>
> you did not explain "why"

It is the nature of the stochastic process or also called the random experiment. The simplest example of this is a coin flip. We can't predict the outcome of a single flip of the coin but we know if we flip the coin many times, about half the outcomes will be heads and the other half will be tails. Probability theory is based on the understanding that random processes exhibit statistical regularity. Las Vegas and Atlantic City base their games on these principles. Evolutionary processes also obey these principles if you understand how to apply them. Don't expect to get this kind of understanding from a biologist.

>
>
> >>
> >> Andre
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
> >
>
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Tell us which of those events are not independent. Better yet, give us an empirical example of what you are claiming. On the other hand, I give you empirical examples of how the multiplication rule applies to rmns. A particularly good example is the Kishony experiment. Here you have colonies of bacteria getting all kinds of mutations until you get a member who gets a particular beneficial mutation which allows it to grow in the next higher drug concentration region. That new variant starts a new colony in that higher drug concentration region, its descendants getting all kinds of mutations until some lucky member gets the next beneficial mutation allowing it to grow in the next higher drug concentration region. You write the mathematics for each beneficial mutation as a binomial probability calculation and you compute the joint probability of the second mutation occurring on some member with the first mutation by multiplying those two equations using the multiplication rule. This is an example of the mathematics of improving fitness which is not the same as the mathematics of survival of the fittest. And I am sure they did not teach you this in your graduate course in population genetics.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:15:49 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 1/14/18 1:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:54:15 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 1/13/18 12:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> random amino acids
>>>
>>> aren't random causes and random effects unobservable and not testable?
>>
>> No.
>
>because it had to happen to fit into a particular paradigm ?

No, because "random", "unobservable" and "untestable" have
actual meanings, and are not mutually exclusive. I suggest a
good dictionary; this one usually works for me:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

> which paradigm?
>
>>
>>> does this assume a Gaussian distribution or a random seed population?
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:43:15 -0500, the following appeared

Why should he change his losing style (spam, snark, personal
attacks, etc.) for this subject alone?

>As for being naive, it is the "misinterpretation" Huxley applied when
>he itemized those features of Archaeopteryx which are bird-like and
>which are reptile-like, a misinterpretation which remains the
>consensus of paleontologists to this day.

Agreed; to be clear, my comment was my assumption of Allie's
belief, not mine.

>Apparently Allie thinks he's the only one who correctly interprets
>Archaeopteryx fossils.

Well, since he thinks he's the only one who understands math
*or* evolutionary biology, that's a fair assessment...

>>Allie, OTOH, since he *knows* (apparently it was written on
>>a stone tablet, now missing, or directly communicated by
>>God) that reptiles *can't* grow feathers, due to something
>>about simultaneous beneficial mutations, the kind not
>>actually required by evolution, knows it can't be anything
>>of the sort, although he seems strangely reticent regarding
>>how it *should* be interpreted.
>>
>>That about sum it up, Allie?

[Crickets from Allie; I guess the Archie got his tongue. Or
maybe feathered his prop...]

>>>>The primordial soup concept is one of the dumbest ideas around.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Then why did YOU bring it up?
>>>
>>>
>>>>And you perpetuate this delusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. That's another one of your stupid lies.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So where are all your biologists who understand probability theory? Perhaps this is a punctuated equilibrium moment?
>>>
>>>
>>>Any time you want to respond to what PZ actually said, be my guest.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> >Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is another example of this delusional thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And as usual, you simply repeat your asinine assertions without
>>>>> identifying what you think my "misinterpretation" is, or explaining
>>>>> how you think it's "delusional".
>>>>Your misinterpretation of the Archiedumbtrex fossil is the product of the delusions from the mind that thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Math is tough for Barbie and so is Chemistry.
>>>
>>>
>>>Coherent argumentation is tough for ass Allies.
--

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 9:35:07 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:43:15 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:35:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:55:36 -0500, the following appeared
> >>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:27:46 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

What a collection of whining, mathematically incompetent crybabies.

>
> >As for being naive, it is the "misinterpretation" Huxley applied when
> >he itemized those features of Archaeopteryx which are bird-like and
> >which are reptile-like, a misinterpretation which remains the
> >consensus of paleontologists to this day.
>
> Agreed; to be clear, my comment was my assumption of Allie's
> belief, not mine.
>
> >Apparently Allie thinks he's the only one who correctly interprets
> >Archaeopteryx fossils.
>
> Well, since he thinks he's the only one who understands math
> *or* evolutionary biology, that's a fair assessment...

Who else understands both the math *and* the evolutionary biology on this forum? Perhaps you think it's Bill Rogers who only can write papers on the emergence of drug resistance? Or Mark Isaak who doesn't know the difference between survival of the fittest and improvement in fitness? Or perhaps it is the Directeur de Recherche Emerite at the CNRS in Marseilles who is still trying to sort out Hoyle's work? Or perhaps you think it is Bart Simpson's dumber brother who thinks evolution is too complicated to figure out. Or perhaps it is you think it is a dim bulb retired EE whose understanding of science doesn't go beyond Kirchhoff's laws? Of course, you have your Archiedumbtrex fossil which you and your ilk interpret only in the context of your fantasy worldview.

>
> >>Allie, OTOH, since he *knows* (apparently it was written on
> >>a stone tablet, now missing, or directly communicated by
> >>God) that reptiles *can't* grow feathers, due to something
> >>about simultaneous beneficial mutations, the kind not
> >>actually required by evolution, knows it can't be anything
> >>of the sort, although he seems strangely reticent regarding
> >>how it *should* be interpreted.
> >>
> >>That about sum it up, Allie?
>
> [Crickets from Allie; I guess the Archie got his tongue. Or
> maybe feathered his prop...]

My advice to you is cut out the wacky tabacky and the etoh. You are having enough trouble dealing with reality sober.

[Mark Isaak]

I did. None of them are independent. Oh, the mutations are (mostly)
independent of each other at the moment they occur, but mutations affect
phenotype, which affects migration, mating choice, and survival, which
affects population numbers and gene frequencies, which affect number of
new mutations and, especially, the frequency of mutated genes.

> Better yet, give us an empirical example of what you are claiming.

Your home probably has some spiders, silverfish, mites, and other
arthropods wandering around in various corners. Look at them.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

This is the kind of stupidity that you learned in your graduate course in population genetics?

> but mutations affect
> phenotype, which affects migration, mating choice, and survival, which
> affects population numbers and gene frequencies, which affect number of
> new mutations and, especially, the frequency of mutated genes.

This is the kind of mush for brains produced by biology departments around the world. You make Sean look smart. Do you think that change in frequency at which random events occur somehow makes them not random??? You have been taking math lessons from John Harshman.

>
> > Better yet, give us an empirical example of what you are claiming.
>
> Your home probably has some spiders, silverfish, mites, and other
> arthropods wandering around in various corners. Look at them.

None of them are growing feathers either. I while back you posted that you didn't understand this topic. That's the only time you posted something correctly.

[Tim Norfolk]

> > --
> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> >
> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > Attributed to Voltaire

Strangely enough, I was just watching 'Bill Nye saves the world", in an episode on mutations and antibiotic resistance. They showed a successive sequence of beneficial mutations corresponding to concentrations of antibiotics. Fascinating stuff.

[jillery]

The Kishony experiment shows E.coli evolving 4 beneficial mutations in
just 11 days. That doesn't square with your multiplication rule of
probability.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

IOW why ask why.

>>As for being naive, it is the "misinterpretation" Huxley applied when
>>he itemized those features of Archaeopteryx which are bird-like and
>>which are reptile-like, a misinterpretation which remains the
>>consensus of paleontologists to this day.
>
>Agreed; to be clear, my comment was my assumption of Allie's
>belief, not mine.

I admit I don't always catch such "nuance", but that was a big enough
gorilla even for me.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Bill Nye the pseudo-science guy is right on top of things. So if you are one of those biologists who know how to apply probability theory to biology, why don't you explain how this happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas&t=3s

[erik simpson]

Here's a new bit of information for you to mock/ignore:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02515-y

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

Barbie has trouble doing the math. Under ideal conditions, bacteria can double about every 20min. In just 1 day, that 2^70 replications and the Kishony experiment is done without competition to slow the amplification process. For a mutation rate of e-8, it only takes about e8 replications for each beneficial mutation to overcome the multiplication rule for this evolutionary process. Do you want me to do the math for you to compute how many doublings necessary for e8 replications? I better since math is tough for Barbie, it is less than 30 doublings to give the necessary replications. That's only half a day of population growth necessary for each beneficial mutation. Kishony's populations apparently not growing that fast.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

> > > > > --
> > > > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > > > > Attributed to Voltaire
> > >

> > > Strangely enough, I was just watching 'Bill Nye saves the world", in an episode on mutations and antibiotic resistance. They showed a successive sequence of beneficial mutations corresponding to concentrations of antibiotics. Fascinating stuff.
> > Bill Nye the pseudo-science guy is right on top of things. So if you are one of those biologists who know how to apply probability theory to biology, why don't you explain how this happens:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas&t=3s
>
> Here's a new bit of information for you to mock/ignore:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02515-y

So Bart Simpson's dumber brother thinks that reptiles grow feathers. Do you care to tell us what the selection pressure was that did this? And don't forget to tell us the genes targeted and the mutations required to do such a genetic transformation. Oh, I forgot, you are an astrophysicist who can tell us how the universe came to be yet evolution is to complex for anyone to understand. You still haven't told us whether a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change, are you too busy gazing at the stars or are you watching reptiles grow feathers?

[jillery]

>Strangely enough, I was just watching 'Bill Nye saves the world", in an episode on mutations and antibiotic resistance. They showed a successive sequence of beneficial mutations corresponding to concentrations of antibiotics. Fascinating stuff.

That would be the same Kishony experiment the good DrDr erroneously
claims to support his multipliction rule of probability.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Barbie can't do the math.