Here's a term you're familiar with and likely even
understand:
"Genetic Diversity."
A healthy breading population are not a group of
clones.
Next is another concept, one which will no doubt
lose some people...
Evolution happens to a population, not an
individual.
An individual doesn't evolve a long nose, but a
population typified by a short nose can, over
time, evolve a long nose.
NOTE: This does NOT mean that no short noses,
or medium noses, are ever born, only that they
are a-typical of the population. (See "Genetic
Diversity," above)
"Molecular Dating" pretends that changes to
DNA occur at the exact same slow, clock like
rate regardless of circumstances, and that these
changes are uniform across a population.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
If the "Long Nose" DNA is within a population,
carried by a few individuals, and suddenly having
a short nose if detrimental to survival, a
population might transform from one typified by
short noses to long noses within a very brief
time span. The imaginary Molecular Clock, on
the other hand, posits a slow march from short
to long noses...
Effectively, "Molecular dating" erases the concept
of selective pressures, insisting that changes are
only ever the result of some clock like mutation
rate. And that is MASSIVELY wrong.
Here's a term you're familiar with and likely even
understand:
"Genetic Diversity."
A healthy breading population are not a group of
clones.
Next is another concept, one which will no doubt
lose some people...
Evolution happens to a population, not an
individual.
An individual doesn't evolve a long nose, but a
population typified by a short nose can, over
time, evolve a long nose.
NOTE: This does NOT mean that no short noses,
or medium noses, are ever born, only that they
are a-typical of the population. (See "Genetic
Diversity," above)
"Molecular Dating" pretends that changes to
DNA occur at the exact same slow, clock like
rate regardless of circumstances, and that these
changes are uniform across a population.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
If the "Long Nose" DNA is within a population,
carried by a few individuals, and suddenly having
a short nose if detrimental to survival, a
population might transform from one typified by
short noses to long noses within a very brief
time span. The imaginary Molecular Clock, on
the other hand, posits a slow march from short
to long noses...
Effectively, "Molecular dating" erases the concept
of selective pressures, insisting that changes are
only ever the result of some clock like mutation
rate. And that is MASSIVELY wrong.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/730364921353764864
To the contrary
I hate to fall for the bait, but
a molecular clock assumes neutral evolution
but this is a reasonable assumption
Sequences under positive selection should stand out as rapidly evolving, while those under purifying selection should stand out as slowly
evolving.
But neutral sequences, even if close to ones under selection,
should evolve at a constant rate.
, John Harshman wrote:
I hate to fall for the bait, but
You're an idiot.
a molecular clock assumes neutral evolution
So is assumes no natural selection.
but this is a reasonable assumption
You got it here, folks; the collective is saying that the denial
of natural selection is reasonable.
Sequences under positive selection should stand out as rapidly evolving,
while those under purifying selection should stand out as slowly
evolving.
Negative mutations should be self editing, as they die off with
the unlucky animal.
But neutral sequences, even if close to ones under selection,
should evolve at a constant rate.
No. Because, again, you're missing the point: Evolution happens
to a population, not an individual.
You are just an idiot.
If you read before you snip
Neutral evolution
. Most of your genome, around 90% is the result of neutral evolution.
John Harshman wrote:
If you read before you snip
You never had a dongle. I didn't snip it off.
Evolutions occurs at the level of a population, not the individual.
Neutral evolution
Cites.
. Most of your genome, around 90% is the result of neutral evolution.
You really never bothered to wrk out what you mean by "Evolution."
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic> wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic>
wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
but the fate of every neutral mutation is either elimination or
fixation. Population size is irrelevant, and the probability of
eventual fixation at any time is equal to the frequency in the
population. So at the time of mutation, the probability of eventual
fixation is 1/(2N). Or, for repeated mutations at the same site, µ/(2N).
On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic> >> wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population. >> You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists
mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
but the fate of every neutral mutation is either elimination or
fixation. Population size is irrelevant, and the probability of
eventual fixation at any time is equal to the frequency in the
population. So at the time of mutation, the probability of eventual fixation is 1/(2N). Or, for repeated mutations at the same site, ต/(2N).
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:16:03?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic> >> >> wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population. >> >> You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
I also note a lack of references to Motoo Kimura, Jack King, Tomoko Ohtu or Thomas Jukes.
I was so expecting him to provide a critique of their maths.
but the fate of every neutral mutation is either elimination or
fixation. Population size is irrelevant, and the probability of
eventual fixation at any time is equal to the frequency in the
population. So at the time of mutation, the probability of eventual
fixation is 1/(2N). Or, for repeated mutations at the same site, ?/(2N).
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:16:03?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic>
wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
I also note a lack of references to Motoo Kimura, Jack King, Tomoko Ohtu or Thomas Jukes.Since you mention it, they almost certainly didn't fully consider the ramifications of Hilbert space.
I was so expecting him to provide a critique of their maths.
On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution"
<sic>
wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to
specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists
mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
 but the fate of every neutral mutation is either elimination or
fixation. Population size is irrelevant, and the probability of
eventual fixation at any time is equal to the frequency in the
population. So at the time of mutation, the probability of eventual
fixation is 1/(2N). Or, for repeated mutations at the same site, µ/(2N).
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:11:03?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:16:03?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Since you mention it, they almost certainly didn't fully consider the
On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic>
wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to >> >> >> specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
I also note a lack of references to Motoo Kimura, Jack King, Tomoko Ohtu or Thomas Jukes.
I was so expecting him to provide a critique of their maths.
ramifications of Hilbert space.
Or they did and decided it over-complicate treatment of the Jukes-Cantor model,
the Kimura(2) or the Kimura(3) models. As is, more pedestrian approaches >yield solutions that offer up ways to build seemingly useful intuitions. It's also
so much easier to experimentally test your work with a fairly small set of >variables, at least until you come up with an infinite set of grad students and post-docs.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:11:03?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:16:03?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Since you mention it, they almost certainly didn't fully consider the
On 2023-10-08 19:53:28 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 10/8/23 10:16 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Me neither. But it's pretty certain he doesn't mean what geneticists >> >> mean by dominance -- at least since R. A. Fisher, probably before.
You're a fucking idiot -- I get it -- but your "Neutral Evolution" <sic>Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance",
wouldn't be universal. It still couldn't come to typify the population.
You'd still need something, like a bottleneck or founder effect, to >> >> >> specific "Neutral" sequences and bring them to genetic dominance. >> >> >
I also note a lack of references to Motoo Kimura, Jack King, Tomoko Ohtu or Thomas Jukes.
I was so expecting him to provide a critique of their maths.
ramifications of Hilbert space.
Or they did and decided it over-complicate treatment of the Jukes-Cantor model,
the Kimura(2) or the Kimura(3) models. As is, more pedestrian approaches >yield solutions that offer up ways to build seemingly useful intuitions. It's also
so much easier to experimentally test your work with a fairly small set of >variables, at least until you come up with an infinite set of grad students and post-docs.
No problem. Just go to Hilbert's Grand Hotel.
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance", but the fate of every
neutral mutation is either
John Harshman wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "genetic dominance", but the fate of every
neutral mutation is either
Again, you're thinking in terms of individuals when evolution occurs
at the level of a population.
You lack the fundamentals.
Your comment displays
John Harshman wrote:
Your comment displays
You lack the fundamentals. You have to rotate through your sock
puppets, shit out names that you googled, papers you never read,
things you don't understand because you lack the basics.
You're religious. You cite scripture, except unlike the fundamentalist Christians you never even read it.
On 10/17/23 1:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Your comment displays
You lack the fundamentals. You have to rotate through your sock
puppets, shit out names that you googled, papers you never read,
things you don't understand because you lack the basics.
You're religious. You cite scripture, except unlike the fundamentalist Christians you never even read it.I never cite scripture. What?? All the sock puppets are in your
imagination. And I know the fundamentals pretty well, certainly well
enough to see that you have no clue. But of course you will snip all
this without even reading it.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:51:11 AM UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
On 10/17/23 1:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Your comment displays
You lack the fundamentals. You have to rotate through your sock
puppets, shit out names that you googled, papers you never read,
things you don't understand because you lack the basics.
You're religious. You cite scripture, except unlike the fundamentalist Christians you never even read it.I never cite scripture. What?? All the sock puppets are in your imagination. And I know the fundamentals pretty well, certainly well enough to see that you have no clue. But of course you will snip all
this without even reading it.
My guess is with "Scripture" he means the OoS, and maybe some other "canonical" books on evolutionary biology
I never cite scripture. What?? All the
My guess is with "Scripture" he means the OoS, and maybe some other "canonical" books
John Harshman wrote:
I never cite scripture. What?? All the
Do you even remember what the topic is, assuming you ever
knew?
Genetic dating, the "Molecular Clock" is idiocy.
The reason you snip
John Harshman wrote:
The reason you snip
Don't blame me for their absence...
There is no molecular clock. Even molecular dating itself falsifies
molecular dating, as you can apply the stupid assumptions to
different genes and arrive at different dates... Homo/Pan
divergence as one obvious example.
Why does this upset you?
On 11/10/23 11:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Because he's a troll?
John Harshman wrote:
The reason you snip
Don't blame me for their absence...
There is no molecular clock. Even molecular dating itself falsifies molecular dating, as you can apply the stupid assumptions to
different genes and arrive at different dates... Homo/Pan
divergence as one obvious example.
Why does this upset you?You respojd to this after three weeks? Why even bother, if you're just
going to snip everything?
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:36:37 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/10/23 11:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Because he's a troll?
John Harshman wrote:You respojd to this after three weeks? Why even bother, if you're just
The reason you snip
Don't blame me for their absence...
There is no molecular clock. Even molecular dating itself falsifies
molecular dating, as you can apply the stupid assumptions to
different genes and arrive at different dates... Homo/Pan
divergence as one obvious example.
Why does this upset you?
going to snip everything?
On 11/11/23 1:51 PM, erik simpson wrote:He's providing regular stupidity in many threads, and in other groups as well.
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:36:37 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/10/23 11:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:Because he's a troll?
John Harshman wrote:You respojd to this after three weeks? Why even bother, if you're just
The reason you snip
Don't blame me for their absence...
There is no molecular clock. Even molecular dating itself falsifies
molecular dating, as you can apply the stupid assumptions to
different genes and arrive at different dates... Homo/Pan
divergence as one obvious example.
Why does this upset you?
going to snip everything?
But why wait three weeks? Did he have a non-psychotic break?
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 2:06:37?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:....
On 11/11/23 1:51 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:36:37?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
You respojd to this after three weeks? Why even bother, if you're just >> going to snip everything?Because he's a troll?
But why wait three weeks? Did he have a non-psychotic break?He's providing regular stupidity in many threads, and in other groups as well.
erik simpson wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 2:06:37?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/11/23 1:51 PM, erik simpson wrote:He's providing regular stupidity in many threads, and in other groups as well.
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:36:37?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote: >....But why wait three weeks? Did he have a non-psychotic break?
You respojd to this after three weeks? Why even bother, if you're just >> > >> going to snip everything?Because he's a troll?
He also grows indignant when other buffoons get more
attention than he does.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 06:34:31 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,816 |
| Posted today: | 1 |