I’ve concluded that something was wrong with @Rumraket ‘s calculation at 3125 despite my difficulty to clearly understand it. Here is why:
He intended to calculate the probability that 25 beneficial mutations would accumulate within a replicate of the LTEE experiment. According to his calculation, the probability of such an event is 1/10^150, which is a prodigiously rare event, isn’t ? In fact, it is an event so rare to the point that observing it only once would be practically impossible in the context of observable phenomena in the universe. And yet, in the real world, we could see that such event didn’t happen only once, but 12 times!!! IOW, we are in a situation where the real world tell us that the event is frequent whereas the calculation tells us that it is prodigiously rare. In this type of situation where the real world constantly contradicts a calculation, my claim is that you can confidently conclude that there is a flaw in the calculation, even if you don’t clearly understand it. If you disagree with me on this, I will have to conclude that you are unreasonable and should stop discussing this topic with you.
That’s not quite something the calculation says. That is not quite what probabilities mean either.
The second statement does not correctly characterize the situation.
You have expressed a misunderstanding of the use and meaning of probabilities, not a contradiction between the real world and the calculation (neither of which are propositions in the first place).
You are, of course, not at all obliged to discuss anything with me, or anyone else saying more or less the same things I said regarding this topic. My intention in expressing my disagreement – and in articulating multiple times whence it stems – was to help you recognize your error and correct it. If you find my full explanation of the position and the reasons that had me arrive at it, and the reasons for why your case is unconvincing unreasonable, so be it. That too is not something you have to find, but you are by all means entitled to make that choice anyhow. If you wish to disengage with me, because you do not feel like any progress can be made, that, too, I can live with.
Well, if someone is simply assuming the calculation is correct, I guess they probably wouldn’t test it. Is that your answer? ID’ers haven’t tested the claim that FI can’t evolve because they just assume they are correct?
Most if not all genes on the Howe diagram that are gained. Especially the 73 gene shared by humans and zebra fish.
At this point I am close to where you are. Slight down grade to likely false. I would like to understand why we are seeing divergence in the uniprot data from proteins like like P53 with 30% divergence and beta catenin with less that 1%
Where P53 in humans and chimps has identical sequences.
I probably will after a few more searches or unless data comes up that is worth perusing.
You are most likely right.
You are most likely right. Along with time and reproduction rates most residue substitutions are associated with health problems. This maybe less of an issue in mice.
I doubt either of those is true. If it were an issue, it would be more of one in mice, since the power of selection depends on effective population size.
But wait: are you really giving up on separate creation of species?
The event isn’t what’s being questioned or tested (what ever that would even mean), but the claim regarding how likely it is to occur under some conditions and within some time frame. Hypotheses regarding probabilities of events can be empirically tested, and how big or small the probabilities in question are does not seriously impact our ability to test such hypotheses.
But none of that matters, since the conflict you think you see between the data and the calculation is an artifact of your own ill-trained intuitions and not an actual problem in need of solving.
Assuming that time and space are in fact continuous – an assumption that has served the natural sciences well enough for millennia, with almost no indication that alternatives exist or would make things easier – there is a plethora of very mundane daily events whose probability is not just very very tiny but actually zero. That does not stop them from happening all the time, because that’s not what probabilities do. The error you are making is in the leap from “event E is improbable” to “therefore, event E should not occur often, where ‘often’ means what ever I decide”, or, equivalently, “if event E occurs some number of times I decide is large enough, then its probability must be greater than some value I decide is too small”. This is your intuition speaking, something that leads us astray all the time with things like these. This is exactly why we have maths, and putting your own feelings above it will almost certainly leave you with grossly erroneous expectations.
I believe I have now clearly stated several times that I have calculated the probability of a specific outcome. This should not be confused with the probability of any such outcome occurring.
Edited to add:
You know, it also doesn’t really make sense to call it an “event”, or “occurrence”, since it is more like a result of an extended process at some arbitrarily picked moment in time.
I gave a good explanation for how evolution could build up to a specific result of 500 bits or more, in this post above.
It doesn’t matter that some such result is virtually guaranteed in such an experiment, it is the specific one that has such low odds.
You’ve made progress in understanding, but have again forgotten that you (presumably) are a diploid organism.
Most human missense mutant alleles are discovered and catalogued because homozygotes (often via inbreeding) or compound heterozygotes have health problems. Only a minority of those alleles are dominant.
Most human missense mutant alleles cause NO health problems because they are present in heterozygotes and never seen. This creates enormous sampling bias that invalidates your claim.
If you don’t understand the meanings all the italicized words I used above, please refrain from commenting until you learn them.
Insufficient information. What sort of event are we talking about? How long does it take to occur? Can we detect it happening? Can it be subdivided into a series of independent events that can be tested separately? Has it potentially occurred already, among a large number of past events where it could have, so we just need to look for the outcome?
Since you asked the question, how would you empirically test something when you don’t know what it is?
In practice, I wouldn’t bother testing it, because if I’m assuming the calculation is correct I don’t need to.
I don’t think they are keeping any data secret. Rather, it seems to me that their decision is based on a thorough review/re-evaluation of existing data. Now, if these vaccines were safe and effective, why would the Queensland health authorities want to kill the QuoVax study?
WTF does the Queensland governments decision to no longer preserve already-collected and frosen patient samples in their biobank, have to do with RFK Jr’s cancelation of US government funding for the development of all mRNA vaccines against all upper respiratory infections (for all age groups)?
What is this data you speak of regarding mRNA vaccines against Covid, how does it show these risk/benefit issues you alluded to about different age cohorts, and what does it have to do with any of the above?
Here is what they have to do: both decisions make sense only if the people who took them have evidence that the benefit /risk ratio of these mRNA vaccines is unfavorable.
Just an example. The Covid vaccine boosters are supposed to protect you from being infected, right? Well, it seems that the opposite might be true.
You’re right, my mistake. I should have I said that the Covid boosters were not supposed to increase the risk of ILI. Now, note that several studies have found that the more COVID boosters, the higher the risk of infection. This one for example:
Charming! Not sure vulgarity is a good debate strategy.
“Calling a spade a spade” certainly is a good strategy. And the same would seem to apply to calling a steaming heap of worthless conspiracy-theory bullshit “a bunch of faeces”.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you to “engage” with me on anything Gilbert – because it has been a very very long time since you spouted anything other than worthless paranoid drivel, and similar rubbish – that makes engagement with you utterly pointless.
What I am saying is how heartily sick I am of this logic-free, evidence-free, repetitive blather.
It makes me want to puke!
If you find this offputting, then perhaps you’ll think twice before inflicting any further repetitions.
