Side Comments on Kondrashov’s Paradox

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@UncensoredPilgrims

@Rumraket

So between the two of us, I am the one with more empirical support.

No, you definitely aren’t. I am the one using an empirical DFE which is published, specifically for the creature I was modelling in my simulation.

That your DFE is empirical is not what is being disputed. That it would remain constant is.

For your claim that we will go extinct to succeed, for you to convince us, you must show it remains constant, since the assumptions going into your model is a point in dispute.

Your DFE does not justify the assumption it remains constant. The DFE you chose for your SLiM simulation has not been tested for that.

@UncensoredPilgrims

You are the one making an unsupported claim that some other DFE would allegedly come into play and rescue the situation, yet without any relevant evidence to support your claim

In all cases where tests have been done, they aren’t constant. Why should we believe yours will be?

That DFE’s change with population fitness is empirically supported, as that is what has happened in all organisms where this has been explicitly tested.

It has been tested in a multicellular fungus (though still a microorganism, it’s a multicellular eukaryote), btw:

Diminishing-returns epistasis among random beneficial mutations in a...

Is it large enough? How large must it be? Why that large?

@UncensoredPilgrims

Your failure to provide this is strong evidence that you aren’t aware of any such data.

Even without the evidence I gave above, I think the evidence we have already is strong, since you can give no valid reason why the rules would magically change for large multicellular organisms. You’ve certainly asserted reasons why you don’t think those DFEs constitute evidence relevant to LMEs, but that really just amounts to denial that all cellular life are subject to similar physical principles.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@UncensoredPilgrims

Certainly, people do that. I am not saying that I am guilty of that. I don’t need to resort to defending my religion against evidence and reason, because I’m too busy defending it with evidence and reason.

And fallacies. And quote-mines. And frantic flapping. And double standards. And outright lies.

I’m reminded that your standard of evidence is ‘an anonymous note deleted from Wikipedia as unsupported several years ago’.

[John_Harshman]

@UncensoredPilgrims

That’s not a fact on the ground either,

We can agree to disagree. I know you won’t consider the evidence. E pur si muove.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Making my comments here for other to consider in their own replies.

@UncensoredPilgrims

It would seem that for me to continue on this thread after this response would be to beat a dead horse, because Dr. Hancock has now made public statements that amount to concessions on every single point that was under debate. I will demonstrate each of these now.

AND

@talkpopgen

However, the debate topic was “Are mutational effects a problem for evolution?” When he contacted me to request the debate, he did not say “I’d like to debate your paper” or “can you defend your paper”, but requested a broad debate about genetic entropy. In addition, he requested to be in the affirmative.

It would seem Paul’s goals are entirely different from Zach’s. Zach is refuting GE. Paul is now claiming to be refuting Zach Hancock.

Without going into details, Zach offered a detailed and nuanced reply, which Paul is re-interpreting as concession. Declare victory and retreat?

@UncensoredPilgrims

Felsenstein’s number is nowhere near 7 billion - it’s 2.7 billion.

Those are both very large populations (for eukaryotes), and of the same magnitude. Does this difference really matter?

@UncensoredPilgrims

Retroactively, Hancock is now attempting to create a false distinction between Sanford and Kondrashov that he should have known all along never existed. Sanford quoted liberally from Kondrashov in his book, and made it clear that Kondrashov’s Paradox was a big part of what he was calling “genetic entropy”.

Yet we keep seeing cases (most recently from @Nesslig20 just above) where Sanford could have been more cleat in his terms. “Mutation-free” was the one I noted above. Words do matter.

@UncensoredPilgrims

During the crossexam, at around timestamp 53:18, I asked Dr. Hancock if he agreed with Lynch’s statement. His response:

“Yes, of course.”

I’m unsure if he realized this contradicted his earlier statements, but in any case this was a concession on point number 3.

This isn’t even a criticism of Zach - it’s just the nature of scientific conclusions that they may always be refined to a better conclusion.

Paul is trying to make the case that refuting Zach is supporting GE. No, supporting GE means supporting GE. As of the last time I checked, we have yet to go extinct 100 times over.

[Paul_King]

@UncensoredPilgrims

3) Hancock stated that population geneticists don’t take their own models as gospel.

During our livestreamed debate, I quoted from Dr. Lynch who made it clear that not only does he take population genetics theory as gospel, he insists that if any claim about evolution cannot be shown to be feasable according to the established population genetics models, it should be held in doubt!

During the crossexam, at around timestamp 53:18, I asked Dr. Hancock if he agreed with Lynch’s statement. His response:

“Yes, of course.”

I’m unsure if he realized this contradicted his earlier statements, but in any case this was a concession on point number 3.

All I need point out is that this is an obvious misrepresentation of Lynch, that Hancock did not agree with the misrepresentation - and the claim is obviously false anyway. There is a big difference between doubting a claim that is contradicted by a model and holding the model to be infallible.

This is the sort of claim that earns creationists their reputation for dishonesty.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@UncensoredPilgrims

Evolution is not a “fact on the ground”, it is the very thing under debate. When you assume the thing under debate is true from the start, that is called circular reasoning.

Evolution and deep time is a conclusion of extensive evidence broader and deeper than any individual simulation model. The tail does not wag the dog.