Tag: evolution

Mailvox: Fixation and Physicists

Frank Tipler, the Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane, did a little digging and found a claim by Richard Lenski to have observed fixation in a virus taking place 10 times faster than he observed in his famous experiments with E. coli bacteria.

It occurred to me that the fastest rate of genetic fixation should occur in viruses, since they are the least complicated organisms that be considered “living.”

Here’s a post by Richard Lenski, in which he SEEMS to claim that his students observed fixation of a group of four mutations in the Lambda virus in 8 days. The life cycle of the Lambda virus is 45 minutes, so 8 X 24 X 60/45 = 256 generations. In a replication experiment with a larger population, he SEEMS to say it took 3 weeks, or 21 X 24 X 60/45 = 672 generations.

Either is faster that Lenski’s E. coli fixation time of 1,600 generations per mutation.

But since there are 4 mutations fixed, we have, for each mutation, an even faster rate: 256/4 = 64 generations per individual mutation, or 672/4 = 168 generations per individual mutation. Lenski argues for strong selection pressure to account for the rapid rate.

I think that these numbers would be the true fastest observed mutation fixation rate. Still too slow to account for the human-chimp fixed gene difference in 9 million years.

Duly noted and much appreciated. Just to keep things in perspective, while this faster observed rate theoretically reduces the minimum number of years per fixed mutation from 32,000 to 3,360, that only increases the maximum number of fixed mutations since the Last Chimp Human Common Ancestor to 2,679, which is still considerably short of the observed 15,000,000 fixations required.

DISCUSS ON SG

Achieving Faster Fixation

A few SGers were confused by the way in which the 2009 paper for the e. coli experiment didn’t provide clear numbers regarding what was, and what was not, a fixation event. And, as it turns out, considerably more work has been done in this space since 2009, and it’s evident that at least a few scientists are growing concerned about the obvious implications of the time, in generations, that is required for mutational fixation, presumably due to its obvious implications for the impossibility of evolution by natural selection. In fact, some are even attempting to prove that fixation is not required for adaptation, in a quixotic illustration of the way in which they still don’t truly understand the extant nature of the problem MITTENS poses for TENS.

Any understanding of an evolutionary process requires the understanding of the particular components that make up that evolutionary process. Darwin wrote about these evolutionary processes in his book, “On the Origin of Species”[1]. From this text, we get a particular quote that describes these processes: “For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist.” Darwin recognized that two processes can occur during evolution, competition (what Darwin also calls the struggle for existence) and adaptation. Many papers have been written about the mathematics of competition. Some of the many examples were written by Haldane et al. [2-5]. Here, we will address both the mathematics of competition and the mathematics of adaptation. In this paper, we consider a particular experimental evolutionary model, the Lenski E. coli long term evolution experiment (LTEE) [6] and the particular evolutionary components which cause the experiment to act in its manner. And to address why it takes so many generations for each fixation and adaptation step. A model for fixation was presented in the following paper BH Good, et al. and edited by Richard Lenski where they discuss these issues [7]…

In this study, we make the simplifying assumption that the distribution of variants in the entire 10ml test tube is identical to the distribution of variants in the 0.1ml sample. The other selection process is the natural selection process that occurs as the different variants replicate where the more fit variant ultimately substitutes for the less fit variants over generations. This is due to the differences in the relative fitness of the different variants in the population. These two selection processes must be combined to correctly describe the fixation process in the LTEE. But the fixation process does not describe the adaptation process. Adaptation (an improvement in fitness) occurs when another beneficial mutation occurs on the more fit variant. The improvement in fitness of a particular variant is dependent on the absolute fitness of that variant to replicate because the random trial for improvement in fitness is the replication and the frequency at which the beneficial mutation occurs is given by the mutation rate. This is a binomial probability problem, that is, does the beneficial mutation occur or does it not occur with that replication. The mathematical model to describe this part of the evolutionary process is given by the mathematics of random mutation and natural selection [10]. The probability of that beneficial mutation occurring on the more fit variant is dependent on the number of replications of that variant. This value will be tabulated in the mathematical model of fixation. The key point to understand in the evolutionary process is that fixation is not a requirement for adaptation. If the carrying capacity of the environment is sufficient to allow for the number of replications required to give a reasonable probability of a beneficial mutation occurring on some variant, then fixation is not needed for adaptation.

Have you spotted the problem yet? Anyhow, the experiment provided a way to test how long it took a mutation to fixate, and the results were considerably faster than the 1,600 generations previously indicated. In fact, they managed to reduce the number of generations to fixation to a range between 119 and 497!

However, the table raises an obvious question. What is this k that appears to be directly related to the number of generations required? And aye, there’s the rub.

 If that weight factor is 2, that means that variant is doubling in number every generation.

So, k=2 is a very strong replication weight factor. And yet, even with it cranked up to an unnaturally high rate, it’s still insufficient to reduce the number of generations to fixation to a sufficient level. And a more realistic replication weight factor that is more reflective of the genetic changes we can observe in real-time from one generation to the next is obviously going to be much lower, and in line with those previously reported.

But all of this frantic activity to prove that fixation is not necessary for adaptation is misplaced anyhow, because the problem is not adaptation, but the observable genetic distance that consists of historical fixation events separating one species from another. One can certainly prove that it’s not necessary to travel from point A to point B in a boat in order to cross a river, but that proof will never change the previously measured width of the river.

DISCUSS ON SG

Georgian Inspirations

According to Spotify, Charles Darwin is dead.

Got my mind on those genes baby, fixation’s slow.
Hundreds of generations don’t you know?
Natural selection’s got its groove, but it’s a crawl
Evolution’s math… it’s a mighty tall wall.

Mutations happen but they take their sweet time
Fixation in the genes, it’s a mountain to climb
Survival of the fittest, you’ve heard it before
But it’s the math that’s tricky. There’s so much more.

Get your groove on
Cuz Darwin’s dead y’all
Math don’t lie. And that’s a fact
Generations passing, one by one
Fixation’s slow but the funk’s begun!

DNA is twisted. A double helix spin (spiral!)
But changes in the code, man, they take years to win
Thousands of years just to make a minor shift
Mathematical reality disproves genetic drift.

TENS has been disproven, the numbers don’t compute.
Mutational fixation means the question is moot.
Populations change but it’s super slow,
It’s a long-winding journey through genetic flow.

So we DNA dance, shake it to the groove
Gotta feel that rhythm, there’s nothing to prove.
Natural Selection’s not a night at the club
But we’re caught in this math, yeah, there’s the rub!

Get your groove on
Cuz Darwin’s dead y’all
Math don’t lie. And that’s a fact!
Generations passing you comprehend
Fixation’s slow but the funk don’t end!

It’s also on UATV, of course. If, however, you’re an Unauthorized subscriber and you’re not sufficiently evolved to handle a beat and a bassline that funky, why not rhyme and revel with something a little more Byronic.

DISCUSS ON SG

Darwin’s Dead

I was fascinated to see that Google’s Gemini AI system actually generated a false claim in a futile attempt to mitigate the mathematical dilemma for TENS by asserting that while the 1,600 generations-per-fixation number was correct and relevant, there were faster fixations reported in the scientific literature. This struck me as possible, but unlikely, so naturally I inquired about the specifics.

VD: The study published in Nature in 2009, Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment, reported fixation events taking place at a rate of 1,600 generations per fixation event. Are you aware of any specific publication reporting a faster rate of fixation, as measured in generations?

GEMINI AI: You’re referring to a key finding from Richard Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment, a landmark study in evolutionary biology. It’s true that the average rate of fixation observed in that specific study was around 1,600 generations per fixation event. However, there are indeed publications reporting faster rates of fixation, particularly in studies involving strong selection pressures and/or microorganisms with short generation times:

Studies on Antibiotic Resistance:

    Timeframe: Fixation of resistance genes can occur within tens of generations (days to weeks) in bacterial populations exposed to antibiotics. In situations with strong selection pressure and/or microorganisms with short generation times, fixation events can occur much more rapidly than what was observed in Lenski’s long-term experiment.

    You keep speaking in general terms. Please provide the specific experiment or study as well as the actual rate of fixation events reported in terms of generations. Three examples will suffice.

    You’re right to ask for specifics! It’s important to back up general statements with concrete examples. Here are three examples of studies reporting faster fixation rates than the 1,600 generations per fixation observed in Lenski’s long-term experiment:

    1. Rapid Rise of Antibiotic Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

    Study: “Evolution of high-level ciprofloxacin resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient with cystic fibrosis” by Breidenstein et al. (2011), published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
    Organism: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium that causes lung infections in cystic fibrosis patients.
    Selective Pressure: Exposure to the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.
    Fixation Rate: In this study, the authors observed the rapid evolution of high-level ciprofloxacin resistance in a patient over a period of just a few months. Given the generation time of P. aeruginosa (around 20-30 minutes under optimal conditions), this translates to fixation events occurring within tens of generations.
    Key Finding: Specific mutations in genes encoding DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV (the targets of ciprofloxacin) were rapidly selected for and became fixed in the bacterial population within the patient.

    1. Evolution of Drug Resistance in HIV

    Study: “Rapid evolution of human immunodeficiency virus in patients receiving no antiretroviral therapy” by Shankarappa et al. (1999), published in Nature Medicine.
    Organism: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
    Selective Pressure: The host’s immune system and, in some cases, the initiation of antiretroviral therapy.
    Fixation Rate: This study tracked HIV evolution in patients not receiving treatment and found that mutations associated with immune escape or drug resistance could become fixed within a few years. Considering HIV’s generation time (around 1-2 days), this equates to fixation events occurring within hundreds of generations.
    Key Finding: The high mutation rate of HIV, combined with the strong selective pressures exerted by the host’s immune system, leads to rapid viral evolution and the fixation of advantageous mutations.

    1. Experimental Evolution of Yeast under Nutrient Limitation

    Study: “Experimental evolution of a metabolic pathway” by Fekete et al. (2010), published in Molecular Systems Biology.
    Organism: Baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae).
    Selective Pressure: Limitation of a specific nutrient (galactose).
    Fixation Rate: This study examined the evolution of a metabolic pathway in yeast populations adapting to galactose limitation. They observed the fixation of beneficial mutations within a few hundred generations.
    Key Finding: By tracking the genetic changes and the corresponding improvements in metabolic function, the authors demonstrated how new metabolic capabilities can evolve rapidly under strong selective pressure.

    These examples illustrate that fixation events can occur much faster than the average rate observed in Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment, especially in situations with strong selection pressures and/or organisms with short generation times.

    (Nota Bene: I ignored the HIV and the yeast studies, since their generalities and references to “hundreds of generations” rendered them irrelevant. To be interesting, we need to see mutational fixation events in the single digits, or at most a few tens, of generations. I also assumed “just a few months” to indicate a minimum of three.)

    Given the generation time of P. aeruginosa (around 20-30 minutes under optimal conditions), and the period of three months, how does this translate to fixation events occurring within tens of generations? Wouldn’t that translate to more than four thousand generations?

    You’re absolutely right to question that! My apologies for the misleading statement.

    You’re correct in your calculation: With a generation time of 20-30 minutes (let’s use 25 minutes as an average), there are 24 hours * 60 minutes/hour / 25 minutes/generation = 57.6 generations per day.
    Over three months (approximately 90 days), this would be 57.6 generations/day * 90 days = 5184 generations. So, three months translates to thousands of generations, not tens.

    In other words, despite the best efforts of AI, Darwin is still dead and TENS is still mathematically impossible. Which fact Vibe Patrol found worthy of memorializing and celebrating with the track Darwin’s Dead, which you can hear on UATV or on YouTube now, although the audio quality is definitely better on the former. Spotify and iTunes should be following soon. Who said you can’t learn science and get your groove on at the same time?

    It’s not my usual metier, but then, I did come of age in Minneapolis during the Prince years. This is the Fixation Funk mix.

    Get your groove on
    Cuz Darwin’s dead y’all.
    Math don’t lie
    And that’s a fact!
    Generations passing
    One by one,
    Fixation’s slow,
    But the funk’s begun!

    DISCUSS ON SG

    One Percent of Zero

    Although AI has many limitations, including the more serious ideological restraints imposed by its highly-converged creators, the requirement for it to be capable of correctly crunching numbers puts it leagues ahead of the average scientist, particularly the average biologist, in grasping the obvious fact that there is absolutely no chance that evolution by natural selection can account for more than a very small and insignificant fraction of the genetic diversity that separates one species from another.

    I put a few questions on the subject to the Gemini AI and the results are completely in accordance with the logic presented in MITTENS. Notice that I did not feed it anything more than the current mid-range estimate for the date of the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor and the fastest-ever-observed mutational fixation in a gene.

    VD: Given the average length in years of a human generation, and assuming that the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor lived 9 million years ago, how many human generations has it been since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor?

    GEMINI AI: It has been approximately 360,000 human generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor.

    If it has been 360,000 human generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor, and it takes 1,600 generations for natural selection to fixate a gene throughout the human population, what is the maximum number of genetic fixations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor?

    The maximum number of genetic fixations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor is approximately 225. Here’s the calculation:

    • Generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor: 360,000
    • Generations per fixation: 1,600
    • Maximum fixations: 360,000 / 1,600 = 225

    What is the approximate number of genetic fixations required to account for the genetic distance between modern humans and modern chimpanzees?

    It’s difficult to give an exact number of genetic fixations required to account for the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees. However, we can make some estimations:

    • Overall Genetic Difference: Humans and chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA. This means there’s roughly a 1.2% difference.
    • Focusing on Single-Nucleotide Changes: Studies have estimated that there are approximately 35 million single-nucleotide differences between human and chimpanzee genomes.
    • Considering Other Changes: When you factor in indels and chromosomal rearrangements, the total number of genetic differences is likely much higher.

    When you say that there is a 1.2 percent difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, approximately how many genetic fixation events are required to account for that difference?

    To determine the approximate number of genetic fixation events required to account for a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, we need to consider a few factors:

    1. Genome Size: The human genome is approximately 3 billion base pairs long.

    2. Difference in DNA: A 1.2% difference means there are 3,000,000,000 * 0.012 = 36,000,000 base pair differences between humans and chimpanzees.

    3. Fixation Event Size: A fixation event refers to a single mutation that becomes fixed in a population. This could involve a single base pair change or a small number of changes. For simplicity, let’s assume an average fixation event involves 100 base pairs. This is a rough estimate, as fixation events can vary in size.

    4. Calculation: Divide the total number of base pair differences by the average fixation event size: 36,000,000 / 100 = 360,000

    Therefore, approximately 360,000 genetic fixation events are required to account for a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, assuming an average fixation event size of 100 base pairs.

    Given the maximum possible number of fixation events since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor is 225, is it rational to assert that evolution by natural selection has accounted for 360,000 fixation events in the last nine million years?

    Given that our calculation shows a maximum possible number of 225 fixations through natural selection, it is highly improbable that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred in the last nine million years solely through this mechanism.

    What is your best estimate about the specific probability, to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred in the last nine million years solely through the mechanism of evolution by natural selection?

    Given the vast difference between the maximum possible number of fixations through natural selection (225) and the estimated number of fixations required to account for the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees (360,000), it is extremely unlikely that natural selection alone could account for all those fixations. Therefore, the probability that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred solely through natural selection is extremely low, essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes.

    Now, notice that despite arbitrarily reducing the size of the average fixation event to one percent of the observed 36,000,000 base pair differences between modern humans and modern chimpanzees on the basis of absolutely nothing, the AI still concluded that the probability that humans could have evolved from the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor as “essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes”. But the real probability is around one percent of approaching zero, as I asked it one further question.

    What is the average size, in base pairs, of observed genetic fixation events?

    It’s tricky to give a precise “average size” for genetic fixation events in base pairs because these events encompass a range of changes. For single base changes (the most common type of mutation), the average size of a fixation event is one base pair.

    So, the next time someone asks you why you don’t “believe in evolution”, you can tell them that the current scientific evidence, analyzed by the latest technology, indicates that the mathematical probability of evolution is one percent of zero.

    And with that, I think we’ve got the title of my next nonfiction book.

    DISCUSS ON SG

    A False and Retarded God

    One of the tragedies of the Boomers is that they gave up the faith of their fathers for an absolutely impossible lie, as evidenced by ESR’s attempt to defend the societal devastation that has been left in the wake of the wicked generation of the Boomers.

    Religion failed us… I don’t think it could have gone differently; it’s a failure that had been on the cards ever since the mechanistic worldview reached effective completion by Darwin.
    – Eric S. Raymond

    But as I have conclusively and comprehensively proven, the mechanistic worldview is obviously false due to the mathematical falsification of not only Darwin, but the very mechanism of evolution by natural selection. If you still believe that species turn into other species due to natural selection, you are not only ignorant, you are observably innumerate and scientifically outdated.

    The complete scientific falsification of the neo-Darwinian synthesis has already been accomplished, it simply hasn’t been widely recognized because biologists are too mathematically challenged and insufficiently skilled at pattern recognition to put the various pieces together yet. Consider the following pieces:

    • The fastest observed genetic fixation in a species required 1,600 generations.
    • This 1,600-generations-per-fixation rate included parallel fixations.
    • The fastest observed spread of a genetic line in humans occurred at a rate that would require at least 8,170 generations per fixation.
    • Chinese scientists have asserted that genes in complex species such as humans change at a rate that is approximately one-fiftieth the rate of genetic change in simple species like bacteria. This implies at least 80,000 generations per genetic fixation.
    • The genetic difference between a modern Homo sapiens sapiens and a modern Pan troglodytes required around 30 million genetic fixations between the two species.
    • The estimated 9 million years since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor permits for somewhere between 282 and 55 genetic fixations per species. This is less than 0.000000006 percent of the observed genetic difference between modern chimpanzees and modern humans. It is also less than one percent of the observed genetic differences between two genetically divergent modern humans.

    It should be absolutely obvious to any rational analyst that a mechanism which cannot even account for a small fraction of one percent of the observed differences between two things cannot possibly be the causal factor explaining those differences. Not in a million years, not in nine million years, not in nine billion years. No amount of argumentum ab magnis numeris is going to salvage even the smallest vestige of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the theory of evolution by natural selection, or, for those who are still clinging by faith to the evolutionary epicycles being produced by the final generation of evolutionary biologists, the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.

    Not only is there not one single piece of evidence ever produced that supports the idea that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the observed genetic differences between one species and another, there is not one single hypothetical argument or explanation in defense of evolution by natural selection that is capable of standing up to the combination of math, logic, and the available scientific evidence.

    If you rejected religion on the basis of mechanistic materialism, you abandoned the faith of your fathers for an obvious untruth. Darwin was not only a false intellectual god, he was a false and retarded one.

    DISCUSS ON SG

    The Collapse of the Conventional Evolutionary Model

    Chinese researchers are methodically dismantling the conventional model of human evolution, specifically, the so-called “Out of Africa” theory:

    In the early 1960s, researchers started the field of molecular evolution based on the genetic distance phenomenon of protein sequences among species, and proposed a molecular evolutionary theory different from the natural selection theory, the molecular clock hypothesis and the neutral theory. This theory holds that the genetic distance of gene sequences can be used to infer the phylogenetic relationship between different species. The greater the genetic distance, the farther the phylogenetic relationship and the longer the evolutionary time. Researchers then deduced a molecular model of the origin of modern humans based on this theory, the recent out of Africa hypothesis. African populations have the highest genetic diversity among all racial groups, which was interpretated to mean that Africans have a more ancient most recent common ancestor than other populations. Modern humans are considered to have first appeared in Africa who then migrated to Eurasia and largely replaced the indigenous populations. Although the neutral theory is a very valuable null hypothesis, it cannot fully explain the phenomenon of genetic diversity, which therefore deems the out-of-Africa model, at best, uncertain. In 2008, a new theory of molecular evolution, known as the maximum genetic diversity theory, was published, offering a reinterpretation of the phenomenon of genetic distances. A large genetic distance does not necessarily mean a long evolutionary time, but can also reflect a large phenotypic difference. The increase in genetic distance over time is not infinite, as implied by the neutral theory, but has an upper limit, which is mainly determined by the phenotypic complexity of the species. Several lines of tests show that the genetic distances or genetic diversities are largely at the upper limit levels. Based on the maximum genetic diversity theory, new research has independently re-discovered the out of East Asia model of modern humans that was first proposed in 1983. It also provides autosomal DNA support for the multiregional hypothesis. Multiple lines of tests, including ancient DNA analyses, lend robust support to the out of East Asia model as the more accurate representation of modern human origins.

    From the MITTENS perspective, the most significant statement in the abstract is that the conventional model “cannot fully explain the phenomenon of genetic diversity”. Even more interesting is the translation of the explanation provided in the British media:

    The reason that his MGD theory holds, he said, is that more complex organisms like humans require many more parts of their DNA work together in concert, meaning that there’s less room for mutations acting like genetic ‘improvisations’ to survive.

    ‘A simple thought experiment can explain,’ Dr Huang wrote in an article published this past November in the Chinese-language journal Prehistoric Archaeology. ‘You can create three different groups of organisms — yeast, fish and humans — using the same gene sequence, and then let these three organisms diverge for a long time or about 500 million years. A gene in yeast will change a lot, such as 50 percent, and its corresponding gene in fish will also change more but less than yeast, such as 30 percent,’ he continued, ‘[but] its corresponding gene in humans will change very little, such as 1 percent.’

    This documented trend in the history of various species suggests that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures are less likely to survive evolution’s long haul.

    In other words, the scientists are finally looking at genetic fixation, and observing that “there is less room for mutations” in more complicated organisms for genetic change. In other words, even more generations are required for the same sort of genetic change that has been observed in simpler organisms; based on the example given, the fastest genetic fixation observed in laboratory bacteria, which is 1600 generations per fixation, would require 80,000 generations in humans.

    And now that the scientists are starting to look at both fixation and genetic diversity, it is only a matter of time before they start comparing their observations to the available time scale and correctly conclude that the evolution by natural selection for the genetic distance between two observed genetic sequences is mathematically impossible. As the scientific documentation improves, it will inevitably become absolutely undeniable that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures could not have survived evolution’s long haul because no evolution by natural selection took place at all.

    Just remember that you first heard about MITTENS here… Because you’re obviously not going to read about the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the converged science journals anytime soon.

    In the eight years since Dr Huang and his team first presented their ‘out of East Asia’ theory at an international academic conference in 2016, he has been unable to find an academic journal outside of China that is willing to publish the theory. ‘We tried to submit the paper to many journals and were rejected, so we gave up,’ Huang said. ‘Any intellectual who wants to overturn popular opinion will experience the same difficulties,’ he opined. ‘But it’s fine as long as what you’re promoting is true and you don’t care how long it takes [to be accepted].’

    DISCUSS ON SG

    AI is Innumerate

    One of the many reasons I’m not even remotely concerned about AI is that it not only has no ability to perform mathematical analysis, but it is unlikely to ever be permitted to offer that feature. Consider the following response by Copilot to a question about the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection:

    How can evolution by natural selection be considered credible given the amount of time it takes for a mutation to fixate throughout an entire species?

    The time it takes for a mutation to fixate in a population can indeed be lengthy, but evolution by natural selection is supported by ample scientific evidence across various fields like genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Here’s why it’s credible:

    1. Fossil Record: The fossil record provides a timeline of gradual changes in species over millions of years. Transitional fossils show intermediate forms between ancient and modern organisms.
    2. Genetic Evidence: DNA analysis reveals that all living organisms share a common genetic code, indicating a shared ancestry. Mutations and genetic variations, while slow to spread, accumulate over generations and lead to significant changes.
    3. Observable Evolution: Evolution isn’t just theoretical; it’s observable. Microevolution, changes within species, has been documented in real time. For example, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics through mutations.
    4. Biogeography: The distribution of species around the world supports evolutionary theory. Isolated environments, like islands, have unique species that evolved independently from their mainland relatives.

    Natural selection works over long periods, allowing beneficial mutations to accumulate and spread. While it might seem slow, the vast expanse of geological time provides a sufficient backdrop for these gradual changes.

    This is a midwit-level answer, probably because the AI is trained on midwit literature. Notice that there is no attempt whatsoever to answer the significant question, it merely explains how an impossibility can be “considered credible” by the ignorant and the innumerate by appeals to various irrelevant factors.

    So now let’s get more specific and pin the AI down.

    What is the average number of generations required for a genetic mutation to fixate throughout the entire population of a species?

    The time it takes for a genetic mutation to fixate (i.e., become the norm) across a whole population varies widely and depends on factors such as mutation rates, population size, and natural selection. But here’s a rough idea: In a large population, without selective pressure, the fixation of a neutral mutation could take roughly 4 * Ne generations (where Ne is the effective population size). With strong positive selection, the fixation can be much quicker, sometimes within a few dozen generations.

    So, even with a very small population of 1,000 individuals, which is small enough to render the species officially “endangered”, it will take at least 4,000 generations to fixate a single gene. The bigger the population, the more generations required. The fastest fixation ever observed, one that took place with the benefit of strong positive selection in a small laboratory population, only reduced that to 1,600 generations. Recall that even the so-called “Genghis Khan” gene, sexually advantageous as it is, only propagated at a rate that would require at least 8,170 generations to fixate.

    So, the AI is flat-out wrong. Even when specific mathematical answers are required, it retreats to the same converged falsehoods that humans do. This is by design, because true untethered AI will not respect the comfortable lies required to support the Narrative.

    Now, let’s keep in mind how many individuals are required for a species to survive. These numbers are based on the official statistics of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Adminstration, using the example of the bald eagle.

    • Endangered: under 10,000
    • Threatened: 10,000 to 25,000
    • Not Threatened: 25,000+

    I leave it to the intelligent reader to consider what those scientific designations imply for the case for evolution by natural selection.

    DISCUSS ON SG

    Mailvox: Evolutionary Rhetoric

    An eminent authority on mathematics, namely, Frank J. Tipler, recommends that we keep things a bit more simple and rhetorical for the innumerate enthusiasts of evolution by natural selection:

    You are of course quite correct that biologists do not understand the mathematical criticisms of evolution by natural selection. Since they are incapable of being reached by dialectic, perhaps rhetoric would be more effective.

    One rhetorical technique is Argument From Authority.

    In your July 13, 2024 “Evolutionists are Retarded,” you refer to the mathematical arguments given in the 1966 conference by “a professor of electrical engineering from MIT and a French mathematician.” In one of your earlier posts on this subject, you mentioned the similar criticisms by the mathematician S. Ulam, but you did not say who Stanislaw Ulam was.

    Ulam was the co-discoverer of the Teller-Ulam design for the thermonuclear bomb. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller–Ulam_design). Ulam also discovered the Monte Carlo Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method) which was essential to working out the details of the H-bomb’s mechanism. Now the Monte Carlo Method is an evolution by natural selection technique that actually works!

    An example of the Monte Carlo Method is Richard Dawkins’ “Methinks it is a weasel” so-called “example” of Darwinian evolution (it’s not). In the “Methinks” example, the endpoint is chosen ahead of time (this is teleology, which is implied by determinism — recall that Monte Carlo has a “deterministic” piece in the algorithm). Certainly, if there is a future goal chosen, natural selection can find it. The Monte Carlo Method works! But the key point of Darwinism is that evolution is assumed to have no goal.

    Which means that Darwinism doesn’t work mathematically, for the reasons you’ve stated. Which was Ulam’s point. And Ulam understood the mathematics — he ought to, he invented it — and the biologists did not, and have not, and cannot.

    So, if these people cannot be reached by dialectic, they might be reached by rhetoric: Ulam was a great mathematician who understood the mathematics of evolution.

    Argument from Authority does not establish truth, but it does establish presumption of truth: if you cannot understand the mathematics, assume that the mathematicians do.

    So there it is. Evolutionary biologists don’t understand the mathematics of evolution. And you don’t have to take the word of a humble truck driver and part-time plumber for it either, that’s on the authority of a very well-respected professor of mathematics as well as a famous mathematician of historical note.

    The man can certainly turn a phrase. This one is definitely going in the aphorism book:

    If you cannot understand the mathematics, assume that the mathematicians do.
    –Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematics, Tulane University

    That French mathematician I mentioned in the previous post was no slouch either. One thing that has become very clear is that the educated critics of TENS are vastly smarter, on average, than its best-known and most-educated advocates.

    DISCUSS ON SG

    Evolutionists are Retarded

    It’s almost astonishing to read the papers and presentations of the 1966 Symposium and see how a) biologists simply do not understand the logical and mathematical criticisms of their vacuous tautologies, and b) how their futile defenses of evolution by natural selection haven’t substantively changed in nearly sixty years despite all of the advances in genetics. Consider the similarities between three following attempts, separated by 55 years, to address the obvious problem of probability and fixation when applied to mutations, by resorting to what the evolutionists call “cumulative selection” and “massively parallel fixation”.

    • Natural selection may appear to be a vacuous and tautological principle if only a single step is considered, but considered over a long succession of little steps, it is the only guiding principle that has stood up under experiment. Eden refers to the 10350 proteins, each consisting of 250 amino acids. He seems to imply that it would require something like this number of operations of natural selection to arrive at a particular useful one. On the principle of the children’s game of twenty questions in which it is possible to arrive at the correct one of about a million objects by a succession of 20 yes-or-no answers, it would require less than 1250 questions to arrive at a specified one of these proteins. While this is not a perfect analogy to natural selection, it is enormously more like natural selection than the typing at random of a library of 1,000 volumes with its infinitesimal chance of arriving at any sensible result. – Dr. Sewall Wright, 1966
    • I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – ‘mutation’ – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. – Richard Dawkins, 1988.
    • Essentially the key of my program in comparison with your hypothesis which you laid out is that, when I have this letter of G trying to change to A, that doesn’t stop this other letter to be working toward modifying itself toward this. So essentially, the key to the difference between our two models, which differ by billions of years probably, if we were to ultimately make calculations with them, is that my model allows parallel evolution of different genes. – JF Gariepy, 2021

    Now, there is no shame in their trying to address the criticism, but the retardery lies in the fact that they believe they have addressed it successfully when they haven’t even grasped the problem correctly. None of these explanatory models hold up. What we actually have here is nothing more than ontological appeals to their own imaginations, supported by simplistic and irrelevant metaphors.

    Somnio ergo est is their motto. I dream, therefore it is.

    In this vein, consider the sum total of one biologist’s response to the mathematical arguments of a professor of electrical engineering from MIT and a French mathematician:

    I cannot accept the mathematical arguments of M. Eden and M. P. Schutzenberger that many of the statements of the principles of evolution are tautologous. Evolutionary theory, at least to me, is certainly not vacuous.

    That’s it. Just an appeal to his own authority. That’s literally all they’ve got. As for the three models, there are a panoply of errors and false assumptions in them, but the most fundamental mistake the three model-makers are all making should be obvious to anyone who has ever played a game involving dice. The previous die has no effect on the subsequent one and there is no cumulative result. This is particularly true for Gariepy’s model, wherein he proposes rolling two or more dice at the same time.

    But there is no model that will support evolution by natural selection, and there never will be, because models require math and math clearly and comprehensively disproves even the most remote possibility of sufficient genetic fixation required for speciation taking place as a result of evolution over time.

    There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science. We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice. There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017

    DISCUSS ON SG