Biologic Drift – Another Failed Theory

We keep hearing that Darwin is obsolete and “evolution” has turned into a real science lately. Apparently not. Here is why this relatively new theory – that was supposed to rescue “evolution” – is in fact demonstrably incorrect.

  1. Drift in biology is “evolution by randomness”.  The ‘drift’ idea was championed by Motoo Kimura as “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution”. Kimura was motivated by JBS Haldane’s dilemma: too much polymorphism exists for “natural selection” to be able to pick and chose “beneficial” genes due to gene colocation in the genome and to the propagation time in the population. Of course, Haldane’s dilemma is only due to the conflict between his nonnegotiable assumptions that “natural selection”, “fitness” and “beneficial mutations” are all real and the observable realities of biology. The ‘drift’ idea claims that random events cause allele frequencies to change over time and in extreme cases, ‘drift’ is seen eliminating or fixing certain alleles in the whole population. Drift is supposed to operate independent of “natural selection” to the extent the allele is not strongly “beneficial” or “detrimental” for its frequency to be primarily a product of “natural selection”.
  2. Outside of “evolution”, drift adds to nothing or is aimlessly carried by known forces. In the first case it has no effect on anything either in the short or the long term. In the second case it is explained by the carrying force and therefore is itself not an explanation of anything. Examples of driven drifts are driftwood, wind-driven snow, rain, cloud, dust, or smoke as well as aircraft moved by air currents (all these driven). Inconsequential drift examples include aimless course or random movement. In biology too, genetic drift should either be inconsequential or, if lasting changes are observed, not drift but the real driving forces behind this drift should be held responsible.
  3. A fair coin is a good model for inconsequential biologic drift. But how can that be, given mutations can take the population in a myriad directions, not just two (head and tails)? The fair coin model works because from a starting population, there are only two mutually exclusive directions possible on any of the myriad dimensions: towards or away from the initial value. For instance, mutations can make a second generation taller, greener, heavier, etc. But the third generation can only be even more tall, green, heavy, etc. than the original population, or less so than the second generation and therefore more like the original population. Just as with a fair coin, the output is binary: further away (call it ‘tails’) or closer to (call it ‘heads’). To prove random drift irrelevant in biology, let us consider the statistical case for drift by using a fair coin sequence. Yes, there is a statistical probability however small to see a series however large of tails (or heads), but eventually that series must end. As the chart shows, the probability of a sustained random drift decreases exponentially to nil. And over a much longer time, the realized events still sum up to an average of “no change”. This is easily verifiable experimentally. And if a significant bias persists over the long term, then the coin cannot possibly be ‘fair’.
  4. Population bottleneck cannot lead to “evolution”. Populations sometimes decrease dramatically due to competition, disease, predation or natural catastrophes. But killing the majority of one allele while sparing most of another is either a non random scenario or not possible except in the tiniest of populations and thus inconsequential. Post bottleneck, mutations occur and are claimed to further cause the strain to diverge from the original. But if no driving force is involved, there is no reason to believe mutations would work in a diverging direction only as the statistics discussion proves. Therefore, only a driving force, not drift can be responsible for long term changes following a bottleneck event. Alleles could indeed disappear from a population due to a series of random events, but either the population is small hence the loss is irrelevant; or, if that small population grows, a mutation will likely reintroduce the allele; or, in an already large population, the allele loss is highly unlikely due to random events not scaling up with the population size. Either way, random allele loss cannot possibly drive “evolution”.
  5. Founder effect also cannot lead to “evolution”. Many islands contain unique species due to having been populated by only a few organisms. Similar to bottlenecks, founder effect reduces the amount of genetic diversity in a population, meaning certain biological characteristics are overrepresented and these individuals are hypothesized to form new populations with different gene pools from the original population. But the same problem arises: the sum of mutations cannot be divergent unless a force other than drift itself causes that. If the environment weren’t drastically different, rather than diverge one would expect the new population to converge to the old strain instead given that at least that strain is known to be viable. Furthermore, if one small group found its way to the island, what prevents other small groups from repeating the trip and cancelling any such founder effect? The best explanation for the founder effect is thus that it is an ephemeral artifact and that all lasting differences are just adaptations unrelated to any random drift.
  6. There is more to the “dilemma” than Haldane’s take, and it’s all bad for “evolution”. A few things we know for sure: a) bottleneck populations are much more homogeneous as observed in the northern elephant seal, European bison, domestic animals, etc.; b) unique founder features (including injurious ones) persist for a long time in the founded population c) established populations (no bottleneck) are likely to be polymorphic with morphs in long term equilibrium. The theory of “evolution” predicts “beneficial” mutations taking over the population resulting in an “evolved”, better population over time. This is inconsistent with polymorphism and with the propagation of the founder’s features (some seeming “deleterious”) over time. Not only that, but normal population variability argues against “natural selection”. Because “fitness” functions cannot be calculated even in principle, let alone forecasted for any of the morphs, a hypothesized “natural selection” cannot possibly operate in biology. Furthermore, newfound populations, while adapted to their new environment, are in no way superior to their mainland cousins, even after the longest time from the split. This clearly shows “beneficial mutations” impossible. Thus, Haldane’s dilemma can easily be solved by removing his prejudiced, hopeless and disproved assumptions of “natural selection”, “fitness” and “beneficial mutations”.
  7. Balancing selection, an alternative to drift, fails to solve Haldane’s dilemma. The big idea of “balancing selection” is that the “fitness” of an organism with two alleles (heterozygote) is higher than the “fitness” of either allele (homozygote). Perhaps “fitness” changes in time from young to adult. Or “fitness” of a phenotype is dependent on its frequency relative to other phenotypes – rare morphs of prey are actually “fitter” due to predators concentrating on the more frequent morphs. However, there is no way to forecast anything of this sort or even to explain with any confidence the frequencies of these alleles. An elusive, fluid “fitness” attempting to explain all ends up explaining nothing, therefore it is a redundant hypothesis. And why would “fitness” changes in time? Why wouldn’t a morph “evolve” to do away with this temporal weakness? And what should the frequency and number of alleles be? Again, no rhyme or reason. Take ABO blood system. Why not more or fewer types? Why these frequencies? And why the current distribution? These are not just unanswered; they are unanswerable question with any degree of confidence.
  8. In conclusion, both drift and “natural selection” are disproven by polymorphism. As seen, drift in itself is not an explanation. All bottleneck drift “examples” are of theoretical cartoonish type (colored balls/ rabbits/ bugs). Some founder effect examples are real but inconsequential (northern elephant seal and Amish polydactyly) as clearly none of these leads to any “evolution”. Meanwhile, “natural selection” is perplexed and for sure inexistent as “fitness” is nowhere observable let alone quantifiable, therefore also a chimera.

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_divergence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_selection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polymorphisms#Ants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage#Cystic_fibrosis

https://sciencing.com/difference-between-natural-selection-descent-modification-17942.html

189 thoughts on “Biologic Drift – Another Failed Theory

  1. Entropy,

    Now, since you call it Nuttypedia, and eight of the nine “references” in your OP are to that very resource, what does that make you?

    🤣

    As I am forever telling my kids, “It’s OK when I do it”.

    Nonlin will reject any source linking genetics and evolution as an “argument from authority”. Thereby pretty much excluding everyone who knows anything about it.

  2. Mung: Still trying to grok “Biologic Drift” Theory.

    It’s real simple. “Evolution” by drift is a desperate attempt to hide the real flaws or “natural selection”. And it doesn’t work.

    Joe Felsenstein: If you disagree with Entropy’s interpretation of what nonlin meas by it, let us know why.

    You’re hiding behind a monkey-ese translation. But you’re better than that. For once, I think you fully understand why allele frequency cannot possibly have anything to do with “evolution”. Think ABO.

    Allan Miller: As I am forever telling my kids, “It’s OK when I do it”.

    You do know the difference between quoting something uncontroversial and a partisan opinion, don’t you?

  3. Nonlin.org:
    You’re hiding behind a monkey-ese translation.

    Let’s just remember that you’re still on the floor in tantrums, rather than checking carefully the stepwise examination I wrote, mostly because you’re too much of an illiterate, and let that sink in.

    In conclusion: you don’t remember what you wrote, to the point that you get angry when I just repeat it, and you don’t understand the implications of your own “model”, or the meaning of the words “random” and “neutral.”

    With that, it’s easy to understand that if there’s any monkey here, that’s undoubtedly you. If only you learned to read, instead of trying to hide your incompetence behind childish insults …

    Nonlin.org:
    For once, I think you fully understand why allele frequency cannot possibly have anything to do with “evolution”. Think ABO.

    Leaving aside that evolution and allele frequencies are intimately related by definition, what becomes immediately obvious here is that you imagine that the existence of different alleles within a population is somehow “forbidden” by neutral theory, genetic drift, and/or some other phenomenon related to evolution, like natural selection, or just by evolution as such.

    How you’d arrive at such ridiculous notion is unclear. This time, instead of venturing into guessing from your comments, I’ll let you explain. If explaining is possible for you. I think that, if you answer (who the hell knows, maybe you’re too frightened by me to answer honestly and directly), I’ll get insults and incoherence from you, instead of a clear and reasonable explanation.

    So. Can you explain, clearly, directly, and honestly at all?

  4. Entropy:
    Leaving aside that evolution and allele frequencies are intimately related by definition,

    So. Can you explain, clearly, directly, and honestly at all?

    Would you consider this an honest and clear explanation — that evolution does not happen by definition, as a matter of non-negotiable policy, and therefore nothing that DOES exist can possibly be intimately related. Clearly, since evolution does not exist, things that result in or help explain evolution (such as genetic drift, neutral theory, natural selection, etc.) ALSO do not exist, except as meaningless words unattached to reality.

    I suspect that nonlin would allow that changes in allele distributions can result in changes to phenomes, and even that such changes can be cumulative and directional. But that is NOT evolution, which doesn’t exist.

  5. Entropy: I suspect that Nonlin doesn’t actually acknowledge the usefulness of genetics.

    and

    Allan Miller: My own impression is that nonlin appears to know very little about genetics.

    I promised some quote demonstrating that Nonlin is quite favorably disposed towards genetics. Here is one I managed to unearth from Nonlin’s prolific output:

    1. Hard sciences like physics and chemistry (includes genetics/biochemistry) are clearly defined, precise, measurable, and repeatable (this may exclude some cutting edge research areas). Soft sciences like economics and sociology are iffy but still clearly defined even if not too repeatable. Fake sciences like “evolution” and astrology are just stories that can never be verified or pinned down. If you claim to be a “real science” then you need to be clearly defined, measurable, repeatable, etc.
    2. Genetics /heredity. Genetics is science while “natural selection” is not – this is what I am demonstrating here.

    To me, this explains Nonlin’s repeated attempts to deny a link between genetics and evolutionary biology.

  6. Flint: Would you consider this an honest and clear explanation — that evolution does not happen by definition, as a matter of non-negotiable policy, and therefore nothing that DOES exist can possibly be intimately related.

    This is an accurate representation of Nonlin’s modus operandi. It’s classical reasoning backwards from a preferred conclusion.

    I have never seen anyone do it so badly before, though. It’s like watching a plane crash into a train wreck.

  7. Flint:
    Would you consider this an honest and clear explanation — that evolution does not happen by definition, as a matter of non-negotiable policy, and therefore nothing that DOES exist can possibly be intimately related.

    I hope you’re not saying that’s the same thing as what I said. I didn’t say that evolution happens by definition, I said that evolution and alleles are intimately related by definition. One of the definitions of evolution is changes in allele frequency in a population. By that definition, evolution and alleles are intimately related. That doesn’t mean that evolution is true by definition, or that it happens by definition. Nonlin might disagree with that definition and imagine evolution as something completely unrelated to inheritance. I suspect that’s one of the main problems with the discussion. Nonlin has something in mind that’s not precisely what everybody else has in mind when we talk about evolution, yet Nonlin imagines we have the very same thing in mind.

    Flint:
    Clearly, since evolution does not exist, things that result in or help explain evolution (such as genetic drift, neutral theory, natural selection, etc.) ALSO do not exist, except as meaningless words unattached to reality.

    Yep. Pretty much that seems to be Nonlin’s position.

    Flint:
    I suspect that nonlin would allow that changes in allele distributions can result in changes to phenomes, and even that such changes can be cumulative and directional. But that is NOT evolution, which doesn’t exist.

    I suspect Nonlin wouldn’t allow that. Just check the purpose of Nonlin’s coin “model.” (ETA: Only problem being that Nonlin’s coin “model” does allow for changes in allele frequency, not just because it allows for mutations to happen, but because it implies that whole populations get a mutation each generation, but either Nonlin doesn’t notice the implication, or Nonlin has been avoiding that conversation to avoid admitting mistakes.)

    So far Nonlin hasn’t divided evolution into micro and macro. I suspect that’s because even microevolution would allow for too much of what Nonlin rejects altogether. Since Nonlin cannot be wrong about absolutely anything, then not even microevolution can pass muster. If it did, it would stop happening by the power of Nonlin’s words.

  8. Flint: I suspect that nonlin would allow that changes in allele distributions can result in changes to phenomes, and even that such changes can be cumulative and directional.

    I am confident that nonlin’s thesis is that such changes do occur, but that they are CANNOT be cumulative and directional, allowing him to reach his quod erat demonstrandum*, which was “evolution is impossible”.
    *QED translates to “that which was to be demonstrated”, rather than the ever-popular “yaa boo sucks”.

  9. Flint: Would you consider this an honest and clear explanation — that evolution does not happen by definition, as a matter of non-negotiable policy, and therefore nothing that DOES exist can possibly be intimately related.

    Are you saying “defining your way into existence is silly”? Because that’s exactly what Corneel is trying.

    Flint: I suspect that nonlin would allow that changes in allele distributions can result in changes to phenomes, and even that such changes can be cumulative and directional.

    Let’s not speak for others. Do you want to express your own thoughts?

    Corneel: To me, this explains Nonlin’s repeated attempts to deny a link between genetics and evolutionary biology.

    No, it’s not “repeated attempts to deny…”
    It’s a very transparent “denial of a link between genetics and evolutionary biology”. With evidence.

    Corneel: This is an accurate representation of Nonlin’s modus operandi. It’s classical reasoning backwards from a preferred conclusion.

    You better be looking in the mirror. At yourself. Haha.

    Corneel: I have never seen anyone do it so badly before, though. It’s like watching a plane crash into a train wreck.

    That’s why you quit so often when presented with hard questions? Such as: “why obsess about allele frequency when that is NOT what separates different organisms”?

    Entropy: I hope you’re not saying that’s the same thing as what I said. I didn’t say that evolution happens by definition, I said that evolution and alleles are intimately related by definition. One of the definitions of evolution is changes in allele frequency in a population. By that definition, evolution and alleles are intimately related. That doesn’t mean that evolution is true by definition, or that it happens by definition. Nonlin might disagree with that definition and imagine evolution as something completely unrelated to inheritance. I suspect that’s one of the main problems with the discussion. Nonlin has something in mind that’s not precisely what everybody else has in mind when we talk about evolution, yet Nonlin imagines we have the very same thing in mind.

    Crystal clear in 126 words (instead of 5): “evolution is true by definition”. If we let little monkeys define as they please, that is.

    Entropy: So far Nonlin hasn’t divided evolution into micro and macro.

    Actually, it’s pico, mini, mega and ginormous. All fake for sure.

    DNA_Jock: I am confident that nonlin’s thesis is that such changes do occur, but that they are CANNOT be cumulative and directional, allowing him to reach his quod erat demonstrandum*, which was “evolution is impossible”.

    Like I said, let’s not speak for others. Do you want to express your own thoughts? Conversely, you can read what I said and comment on that instead of [badly] guessing.

  10. Nonlin.org:
    Crystal clear in 126 words (instead of 5): “evolution is true by definition”. If we let little monkeys define as they please, that is.

    Crystal clear that 126 words are way above your limits in reading for comprehension, and that you cannot have an honest and direct conversation. You’re just too mentally immature.

  11. Nonlin.org to DNA_Jock:
    Like I said, let’s not speak for others. Do you want to express your own thoughts? Conversely, you can read what I said and comment on that instead of [badly] guessing.

    You didn’t even try and tell DNA_Jock what was right and what was wrong in what he wrote. Guessing is all we have left since, rather than offering clarifications, you drop to the floor in tantrums.

  12. Nonlin.org:
    Crystal clear in 126 words (instead of 5): “evolution is true by definition”.

    What’s confusing things here is that “evolution” is being overloaded. It has two meanings — the observation that life forms change over time (this is fact), and proposed explanations of how and why life forms change over time (this is theory).

    My reading of what you write is that you deny the observation of change, which renders any proposals of change mechanisms moot. If nothing ever changes, asking why things change is meaningless.

  13. Nonlin.org,
    There is a very useful active listening technique that consists of paraphrasing the original speaker’s statements, saying “What I understand you to be saying is X.” The original speaker can then confirm, or clarify.
    Flint and I offered two mutually exclusive versions of what we understand your thesis to be. Instead of clarifying, which is what anyone would do if they wished to communicate, you choose to obfuscate with “let’s not speak for others”.
    That’s a shibboleth, right there.
    Now, there is the superficially similar rhetorical technique of parodying your opponents’ position, the “So what you’re saying is [<insert non-sequitur here>]” stunt, which is very popular with IDists, and which serves quite handily to reveal their misconceptions.

  14. Flint: What’s confusing things here is that “evolution” is being overloaded. It has two meanings — the observation that life forms change over time (this is fact), and proposed explanations of how and why life forms change over time (this is theory).

    “Life forms change” is DEFINITELY NOT “evolution”. Are you evolving when you get a suntan? Because you’re definitely changing.

    And naming different things the same to cause confusion is a very DIRTY TRICK.

    Flint: My reading of what you write is that you deny the observation of change, which renders any proposals of change mechanisms moot.

    In this OP? Where do you see that? Anyway, you don’t understand if this is your conclusion.

    DNA_Jock: There is a very useful active listening technique that consists of paraphrasing the original speaker’s statements, saying “What I understand you to be saying is X.” The original speaker can then confirm, or clarify.

    Like this:

    DNA_Jock: I am confident that nonlin’s thesis is that such changes do occur, but that they are CANNOT be cumulative and directional, allowing him to reach his quod erat demonstrandum*, which was “evolution is impossible”.

    ?!?

    That doesn’t look like “What I understand you to be saying is X.” Instead, you “KNOW” for sure and better than me what I intended. And let’s not bring up little monkeys in this discussion. But at least they’re mad because other little monkeys got grapes while they got cucumbers. So cute!

    DNA_Jock: Now, there is the superficially similar rhetorical technique of parodying your opponents’ position,

    And now you contradict yourself in the same comment?!? Make up your mind.

    Now, to clarify the confusion, changes do occur as long as prompted by environmental factors (so no “neutral” read random “evolution”). But, when the environmental stimulus is removed, the changes do revert (see peppered moth, feral dogs, cats, etc.)

  15. Nonlin.org to DNA_Jock:
    And now you contradict yourself in the same comment?!? Make up your mind.

    Always on the ready to demonstrate your illiteracy Nonlin. It’s infallible. You always fail to understand some basic words. Hint: I’m giving you no hints, it would be a waste of time because of your illiteracy.

    🤣

  16. So where do we stand?

    Here’s the summary:

    Con: Some people did an experiment that got exactly what was expected from “genetic drift”. That proves it.
    Pro: Whatever they did, there is no way to prove genetic drift, let alone biologic drift. That is because the null hypothesis “outcome non-random” cannot possibly be rejected. IOW, randomness cannot be ever proven. But it can be disproven if pattern is highly unlikely to be random (see chart).

    Con: It is “genetic drift”, not “biologic drift”.
    Pro: “Genetic drift” is meaningless to “evolution”. As defined, “genetic drift” is allele frequency drift. But allele frequency is not what separates different organisms. Therefore, “evolution-by-drift” cannot happen through “genetic drift” defined as “alleles frequency change”.

    Con: We model genetic drift in a population of finite size, say 1000 diploid individuals and adjust probability based on previous results. The resulting gene frequency will wander up and down until it ends up at 0 or at 1. It does not tend to head back.
    Pro: Yet the continuous existence of polymorphs disputes this model. 1000 individuals is a small population. Perhaps Critically Endangered in the Extreme. Large populations (millions and more) and with mutations will not settle at 0 or 1. Just as we see in real life.

    Con: Over time, with enough tosses, two things happen: the total count difference between heads and tails will increase, and the percentage difference will decrease.
    Pro: Looking forward at any moment, the count difference is forecasted to stay the same (with a statistical distribution around that value). Therefore, the percentage difference will indeed decrease statistically.

    Con: The population is moving on many dimensions simultaneously. But if dimensions are not independent, they can be transformed to be.
    Pro: True. But I just focus on one dimension for simplicity. I assume independent dimensions also for simplicity.

    Con: As N increases, the expected distance from the origin keeps increasing.
    Pro: Not so. The ‘expected’ distance is a constant (assuming a fair coin). But the statistical distribution around it increases in the absolute although it decreases as a percentage of N.

    Note: “Pro” is me. “Con” is my opponent.

  17. Nonlin.org:
    So where do we stand?

    You? In a pile of bullshit of your own making. As shown ad nauseam.

    Nonlin.org:
    Con: Some people did an experiment that got exactly what was expected from “genetic drift”. That proves it.

    The proper wording here is: “that’s evidence for it.” Not “that proves it.”

    Nonlin.org:
    Pro: Whatever they did, there is no way to prove genetic drift

    Whatever they did? So, you made up a “Pro” without even checking what the experiments were about? No wonder you’re such a failure. Again, it’s evidence for it. I suspect this “prove” thinking is one of the things that gets you in trouble.

    Nonlin.org:
    let alone biologic drift.

    There’s no “biologic” drift theory, so whatever you’re talking about, nobody has ever proposed it.

    Nonlin.org:
    That is because the null hypothesis “outcome non-random” cannot possibly be rejected. IOW, randomness cannot be ever proven. But it can be disproven if pattern is highly unlikely to be random (see chart).

    This is why it’s important to understand what they did, rather than assume as you do. The contrasting hypotheses would be:

    (a) allele frequencies will go up and down until one prevails (gets fixed in the population), vs

    (b) will go up and down indefinitely.

    There’s two distinctive outcomes. Sure, one fixation can be taken as an accident, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight … Eventually, the scientists would have to conclude that fixation does happen as predicted by the theory, and thus decide that the experiments offer evidence for it.

    Same thing the other way around. No fixation in one experiment, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight … could be excused saying “we haven’t left them running enough time”, but the results could not possibly be evidence for genetic drift. The excuse could also be dismissed on the grounds of the experimental trials were run for more than some reasonable time as suggested by the theory.

    Nonlin.org:
    Con: It is “genetic drift”, not “biologic drift”.

    That’s not a “con” you fool. That’s a correction so that you might at least use the proper vocabulary, specifically since you’re referring to Kimura and such.

    Nonlin.org:
    Pro: “Genetic drift” is meaningless to “evolution”.

    Wrong. However, even if you were right, that’s no excuse to reject a simple and harmless correction. Learn at least one thing: it’s genetic drift, not biologic drift. Is that really too hard for you?

    Nonlin.org:
    As defined, “genetic drift” is allele frequency drift. But allele frequency is not what separates different organisms.

    You’re immersed in a conceptual mess. Genetic drift is about explaining the fates of alleles that have little to no selective effects, not about whether allele frequencies “separate organisms,” which I’m kindly taking to mean “separate species.” (hoping that you won’t yell at me if you really meant “separate individual organisms.”)

    Nonlin.org:
    Therefore, “evolution-by-drift” cannot happen through “genetic drift” defined as “alleles frequency change”.

    Genetic drift refers to allele frequency changes, whether you want to link it to “evolution” (whatever you might mean) or not, it would still be linked to the evolution the authors of the theory meant: the evolution of the molecules being studied: genes and proteins. It explains the differences found between molecules whose functions remain the same across species.

    Nonlin.org:
    Con: We model genetic drift in a population of finite size, say 1000 diploid individuals and adjust probability based on previous results. The resulting gene frequency will wander up and down until it ends up at 0 or at 1. It does not tend to head back.

    Every population has a finite size.

    Nonlin.org:
    Pro: Yet the continuous existence of polymorphs disputes this model.

    It doesn’t. The model doesn’t say that no new variants will ever appear. There’s something called mutations. Maybe you should read about those. Even you have differences in your genome compared to the parts you inherited from your parents. Genetic drift doesn’t say anything against you carrying those mutations.

    Nonlin.org:
    1000 individuals is a small population. Perhaps Critically Endangered in the Extreme. Large populations (millions and more) and with mutations will not settle at 0 or 1. Just as we see in real life.

    In real life we see lots of cases of fixed mutations. Just look at the differences between human genomes and chimp genomes. You were yourself laughing hysterically about the 98% identity estimate, implying that you think it’s much lower. So, you laugh “triumphantly” because of data that contradicts your stand that fixation never happens in real populations, and that allele frequencies do not separate organisms. Go figure.

    Nonlin.org:
    Con: Over time, with enough tosses, two things happen: the total count difference between heads and tails will increase, and the percentage difference will decrease.

    Tosses? Are you mistaking your phenotypic cartoon of a model for a genotype model again? Because I certainly don’t. Your model assumes that a single mutation is immediately present in a whole population in just one generation. Your model implies allele fixation on steroids you idiot!

    After this you seem to be discussing “Cons” against your “model” brought about by imaginary “opponents,” rather than by ourselves. You don’t show any understanding of the difference between “modeling” phenotypes and genotypes, or of the problem you have mistaking neutral for non-neutral, or random for non-random.

    Not too surprising, since you want to look like a winner, even if only to your own eyes. Why talk about your “model”‘s real problems when you can make them up and easily deal with that instead.

  18. Little monkey flings more poo… mostly at himself but he’s already covered in it.

    Outcomes cannot ever be either proof or evidence for randomness. People get it, monkeys don’t.

    Even if alleles were to randomly fix in some small populations,
    1. fixation is not happening in large populations for whatever reasons, and large populations are the only ones that matter
    2. ongoing polymorphism disproves “natural selection” because morphs are mostly inherited and not mutated and because morphs cannot be ranked by “fitness”
    3. more importantly, allele frequency is not “evolution”
    4. drift doesn’t solve Kimura and Haldane’s rightful concerns about “evolution” by “natural selection”
    5. Kimura and Haldane didn’t care on bit about some bullshit “fate of molecules”… and neither does anyone else

  19. Nonlin.org: Con: As N increases, the expected distance from the origin keeps increasing.
    Pro: Not so. The ‘expected’ distance is a constant (assuming a fair coin). But the statistical distribution around it increases in the absolute although it decreases as a percentage of N.

    nonlin’s ability to contradict himself is impressive.
    The expected position is a constant (for a fair coin). However, as you correctly note, the statistical distribution around that position increases as N increases. Thus “As N increases, the expected distance from the origin keeps increasing”.
    The first half of Flint’s intuition.
    Your desire to divide this distance by N is just confused thinking on your part, probably of the form “I need to divide by N to get the average”.
    N in your model is the number of steps taken to date. It is the clock. So, let’s call it “t” instead. Thinking about a continuous distribution might help you see your error.
    I doubt it, but here goes nothing:

    Con: As t increases, the expected distance from the origin keeps increasing.
    Pro: Not so [?!?]. The ‘expected’ distance position is a constant (assuming a fair coin). But the statistical distribution around it increases in the absolute although it decreases as a percentage of t.

    In other words, the expected distance from the starting point always increases as time passes. The average speed of the walk does decline. That’s the second half of Flint’s intuition.

  20. Nonlin.org:
    Little monkey flings more poo… mostly at himself but he’s already covered in it.

    Yep. You don’t get tired from flinging poo.

    Nonlin.org:
    Outcomes cannot ever be either proof or evidence for randomness. People get it, monkeys don’t.

    What you, little monkey, fail to get is that it’s not randomness that’s been tested, but whether fixation happens or not for alleles that confer no advantage/disadvantage under the conditions tested. If only you weren’t an illiterate monkey you would have gotten that.

    Nonlin.org:
    Even if alleles were to randomly fix in some small populations,

    Oh! So you got that? Then why were you stupid enough to say that randomness is what was tested little monkey? Oh! Right! You were just flinging poo.

    Nonlin.org:
    1. fixation is not happening in large populations for whatever reasons, and large populations are the only ones that matter

    Fly populations can be pretty large. What changes is times to fixation. Fixation still happens. Chimps and humans, remember little monkey? Lots of differences, meaning lots of fixed alleles.

    Nonlin.org:
    2. ongoing polymorphism disproves “natural selection” because morphs are mostly inherited and not mutated and because morphs cannot be ranked by “fitness”

    It doesn’t “disprove” natural selection, it’s just evidence that not every polymorphism has a strongly selectable phenotype little monkey. We’ve been explaining this to you for a long while. You know that the theory you’re “fighting” here is called neutral theory, right? What do you think the word “neutral” means little monkey?

    Nonlin.org:
    3. more importantly, allele frequency is not “evolution”

    Of course not. Allele frequency is just allele frequency. Evolution is changes in allele frequencies in populations, at least by one definition. Under your definition, nobody knows because you don’t want to tell.

    Nonlin.org:
    4. drift doesn’t solve Kimura and Haldane’s rightful concerns about “evolution” by “natural selection”

    Nicely done little monkey! Concentrating that much misconception in that tiny sentence! Haldane just pointed out that the molecules had too many differences to be attributable to natural selection alone. Kimura, who didn’t seem to be worried, just pointed out that, of course, not every molecular difference meant a difference in fitness. That explained what Haldane was missing: a simple fact, that not every difference in molecules are due to natural selection. Simple. Straightforward. Elegant.

    Nonlin.org:
    5. Kimura and Haldane didn’t care on bit about some bullshit “fate of molecules”… and neither does anyone else

    Seems like you missed the whole context under which neutral theory was proposed. Haldane’s “polymorphisms” refer to different versions of enzymes. The following is from your main source of information, hoping that it’s not too advanced for you:

    … alloenzymes (variant forms of an enzyme which differ structurally but not functionally from other allozymes coded for by different alleles …

    Enzymes are proteins, proteins are macromolecules. Alleles are genes, parts of another type of macromolecules. The context of neutral theory is, therefore, molecular. Drift is about fixation/elimination of selectively neutral alleles, thereby being about their “fate.”

    You truly need to learn to read carefully little monkey. I have no intention to deceive you. All I need to laugh at you is point at your petulant incompetence. No need to make a fool out of you. You do that all right on your own.

  21. Nonlin.org:
    5. Kimura and Haldane didn’t care on bit about some bullshit “fate of molecules”… and neither does anyone else

    Maybe we can also quote the little monkey who wrote the OP (with some highlighting to help you out, given your illiteracy):

    1. Drift in biology is “evolution by randomness”. The ‘drift’ idea was championed by Motoo Kimura as “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution”. Kimura was motivated by JBS Haldane’s dilemma: too much polymorphism exists for “natural selection” to be able to pick and chose “beneficial” genes due to gene colocation in the genome and to the propagation time in the population. Of course, Haldane’s dilemma is only due to the conflict between his nonnegotiable assumptions that “natural selection”, “fitness” and “beneficial mutations” are all real and the observable realities of biology. The ‘drift’ idea claims that random events cause allele frequencies to change over time and in extreme cases, ‘drift’ is seen eliminating or fixing certain alleles in the whole population. Drift is supposed to operate independent of “natural selection” to the extent the allele is not strongly “beneficial” or “detrimental” for its frequency to be primarily a product of “natural selection”.

    See? Despite rhetorically-inspired misconceptions, the little monkey who wrote the OP agrees that drift is about the fates of alleles that have little to no selective effects. Maybe you should take it with that little monkey and come back once you two little monkeys agree?

    🤣

    ——————

    Corneel:
    To be fair, Nonlin claims a lot of things, many of which are contradicting each other.

    Nonlin.org:
    Such as…?

    🤣

  22. DNA_Jock: The expected position is a constant (for a fair coin). However, as you correctly note, the statistical distribution around that position increases as N increases. Thus “As N increases, the expected distance from the origin keeps increasing”.

    So now it’s ‘position’ and ‘distance’? You try sowing confusion intentionally or that’s just the way you are?

    And when will you acknowledge your double error? http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/biologic-drift-another-failed-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-283386

    DNA_Jock: Your desire to divide this distance by N is just confused thinking on your part, probably of the form “I need to divide by N to get the average”.

    Are you thinking? If we’re talking “evolution” you need to get from A to B in N steps (generations). If B = A-plus-one, then who the fuck cares? But you’re ambitious and think snail-to-little-monkey or something. As such, you have a long way and (assuming “evolution”) it’s only natural to normalize by N. How else could you gauge what’s possible?

    DNA_Jock: In other words, the expected distance from the starting point always increases as time passes.

    This is blatantly false. Just look at your own chart: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/biologic-drift-another-failed-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-283254
    Are those distances always increasing?!? Heck NO!

    The problem with “neutral theory” is that it’s one failure trying to cover for other failures that were in turn generated to cover for more bullshit all the way to the pathetic Darwin that knew nothing about nothing, did no experiments whatsoever, and misinterpreted everything.

    Polymorphism fails “natural selection” that cannot select among morphs which obviously cannot be perfectly “fit” whatever that nonsense even means. Yes, those morphs would coexist in a transitional (“evolving”) state, but we would see one going out and others rising. But there’s no trend! No trend = no “natural selection”.

    Now comes this Kimura guy with his Hail Mary theory where he tries to get randomness to do that which “natural selection” cannot do (because there is no “natural selection”, that’s why).

    But randomness doesn’t do shit for “evolution” as it doesn’t do anything for the market speculators as it doesn’t do anything for others. You just can’t harness randomness as you please.

    Now come the modelers with their puny populations and “allele frequency”. But who cares about those anyway? That’s not “evolution”. At least not how Darwin intended. Little monkey is not just a snail with different alleles and isolated populations are absorbed into big ones where randomness fades away. It’s not that “it takes longer”. Fixation never happens in large populations! As we observe!

    Think. If we have a 1 mil population, of 50% A and 50% B, a 60-40 draw is much less probable than in a population of 1000. Now add mutation at say 1% and neither allele goes away ever. The more A you have, the more can mutate into B. So B doesn’t drop below 1% in this scenario.

    And hearing these guys talk about genetics, you’d get the false impression they actually create something. Maybe solve the cancer problem. Malnutrition. Whatever. But NO! All this talk about molecular genetics in “evolution” is sterile. There’s no link. Never was, never will be. As we have seen from the “allele frequency” fiasco.

  23. Nonlin.org,

    It has been a good day for people collecting examples of the laws of the internet.

    After phoodoo did a damn fine Godwin, you decided to perform the perfect Poe.

    I am afraid your comment doesn’t qualify for Sturgeon’s law, because you are about 10% in excess but I am still hoping for another instance of Danth’s Law from you.

  24. Nonlin.org:
    Little monkey is not just a snail with different alleles

    Of course not. If you were “just a snail” you’d have a lot more alleles in common with the snail. You’re a little monkey because you have very different alleles compared to the snail. But feel free to demonstrate that your alleles and those of the snail are the very same.

    Nonlin.org:
    and isolated populations are absorbed into big ones where randomness fades away

    All isolated populations get absorbed into big ones Nonlin? You’re obviously desperate. Randomness fades away? What does that even mean?

    Either way, your little monkey alleles are different to my human ones. Reality has this curious stubbornness of being what it is, regardless of your little monkey tantrums.

    🤣

    P.S. Have you already agreed with the little monkey who wrote the OP? Do you two little monkeys even talk to each other?

  25. Nonlin.org: And when will you acknowledge your double error? [nonlin links to here.]

    I explained your errors here. You did not appear to understand. Happens a lot.

    Nonlin.org:

    [quotes DNA_Jock] : In other words, the expected distance from the starting point always increases as time passes.

    This is blatantly false. Just look at your own chart: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/biologic-drift-another-failed-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-283254
    Are those distances always increasing?!? Heck NO!

    Well, they are not *always* increasing, silly, it is after all a *random* walk. But, as I wrote, the expected distance from the start point is always increasing. If you took a lot of such walks, and averaged the distance from the start point (not the position, these are two different things…), then the walks would, on average, continue to move further and further away from the start point.
    I fully understand that you seem unable to wrap your brain around this well-known math result.
    But, since you brought it up, let’s take another look at my chart. To help you out, I have added a black line that plots the average distance from the start point over time. There’s a bit of noise, but the ever-increasing trend is clearly visible. So your “blatantly false” claim is wrong.
    In an attempt to forestall your next round of confusion, the final distances on my chart are, from the top down, 203, 115, 71, 17, and 57. Average = 92.6
    Why do you have so much difficulty with High School math?

  26. Nonlin.org:
    Think. If we have a 1 mil population, of 50% A and 50% B, a 60-40 draw is much less probable than in a population of 1000. Now add mutation at say 1% and neither allele goes away ever. The more A you have, the more can mutate into B. So B doesn’t drop below 1% in this scenario.

    I think this “A mutates into B” should become the exemplar for the definition of grasping at straws.

    🤣

  27. Entropy:

    Nonlin.org:
    and isolated populations are absorbed into big ones where randomness fades away

    All isolated populations get absorbed into big ones Nonlin? You’re obviously desperate. Randomness fades away? What does that even mean?

    Amazing. I confess to not making it through much of what Nonlin writes these days. Such a massive misconception of how evolution works is hard to comprehend.

  28. Nonlin.org,

    Think. If we have a 1 mil population, of 50% A and 50% B, a 60-40 draw is much less probable than in a population of 1000. Now add mutation at say 1% and neither allele goes away ever. The more A you have, the more can mutate into B. So B doesn’t drop below 1% in this scenario.

    I wonder if there are any situations in which A can mutate into something other than B?🤔

    Anyhoo, here’s something else to ponder. If you put bacteria in their trillions into a vessel, then continuously remove a small fraction while topping up the medium to retain constant volume, you end up with a pure strain descended from just one original cell. Even if you started with (for example) 50% Strain A and 50% Strain B. This is essentially a practical application of Drift, the thing you say doesn’t happen. It happens every time. What you say happens, that B never drops below 1%, does not, in fact, happen ever.

    Now you may think a collection of bacteria isn’t really a population, or that asexual strains aren’t alleles. But you’d be wrong. What, in real ‘populations’, prevents the above ‘allele purification process’ from occurring when there is random removal of individuals, and random replication of the remainder?

  29. DNA_Jock: Nonlin.org: And when will you acknowledge your double error? [nonlin links to here.]

    I explained your errors here.

    You’re always blaming someone else for your errors?

    DNA_Jock: Well, they are not *always* increasing, silly, it is after all a *random* walk.

    At least you acknowledge this blatant error of yours.

    DNA_Jock: So your “blatantly false” claim is wrong.

    But then you renege on what you just admitted?!? I see you’re having a stupid day. Too much alcohol this weekend?

    DNA_Jock: In an attempt to forestall your next round of confusion, the final distances on my chart are, from the top down, 203, 115, 71, 17, and 57. Average = 92.6

    So that’s the answer to the meaning of “evolution” then? Magic number 92.6? Very interesting. Or is that just the proof of the “neutral theory”?

    Let’s have fun. Tell me more about this magic number. For instance, tell me what that number would be if you ran a very large number of simulations instead of a handful? How about if you shifted the origin to N = 250, 500, 750 and recalculated? Or is your start point also magic? Better yet, why don’t you forecast that number beforehand? What would your estimate be for your next set? But try to do it on a non-stupid day if at all possible. Oh, wait. Don’t forget to check your computer too. They’ve known to play with unfair coins. Tricky little devils… Haha, magic 92.6. Btw, is that your radio station? http://best926.gr/?

    Alan Fox: Amazing. I confess to not making it through much of what Nonlin writes these days.

    Don’t be alarmed yet, but losing interest in challenging tasks can be a sign of severe mental conditions.

    In other news, little monkey disavows his heritage and now thinks he “evolved” out of his family of little monkeys. So sad.

    Allan Miller: Why, those frequencies sum to 100%!

    Because I willed so to illustrate a case. Wait. You don’t think… Is “magic numbers” the theme of the day? Haha.

    Allan Miller: I wonder if there are any situations in which A can mutate into something other than B?

    Maybe in your movie. In this one no. The focus is elsewhere. And you completely missed the point.

    Allan Miller: This is essentially a practical application of Drift, the thing you say doesn’t happen.

    Interesting. If you do this experiment in identical vessels under identical conditions, could it be that in one vessel you end up with A and the other with B? And how do you know for sure this is drift and not something else? It could be some form of “majority rule”.

    And let’s not forget the most important part: allele frequency is not “evolution”. You know? The way it was intended before this mix-up with genetics. Which is really totally unrelated to “evolution”. Remember now?

    Allan Miller: What you say happens, that B never drops below 1%, does not, in fact, happen ever.

    Dude, that is only in my scenario. Which I created. With the rules I wanted. To show something else. Something you completely missed. I wonder if anyone else got the point.

  30. Nonlin.org: So that’s the answer to the meaning of “evolution” then? Magic number 92.6? Very interesting. Or is that just the proof of the “neutral theory”?

    Oh Lordy, no. This conversation has nothing to do with evolution. I am merely pointing out that your attempts to model a random walk in one dimension are hopelessly wrong. We are talking High School math; your profound ignorance of biology is beside the point.

    Let’s have fun. Tell me more about this magic number. For instance, tell me what that number would be if you ran a very large number of simulations instead of a handful? How about if you shifted the origin to N = 250, 500, 750 and recalculated? Or is your start point also magic? Better yet, why don’t you forecast that number beforehand? What would your estimate be for your next set?

    with a very large number of simulations, the average distance would equal (2n/π)0.5 where n is the number of steps. You will notice that this always increases with increasing n. 🙂
    I explained this already, but you always ask for experimental verification, so I ran a few sims.
    If you shifted the origin to 250, 500, 750 and recalculated, there would be absolutely no difference: you are measuring differences from the origin, so the value you assign to the origin is immaterial.
    But hey, at least you accepted that we need to use |x| to measure the distances from the origin. That’s a start.
    Or you didn’t notice the bit about 17 and 57.
    Naaah, you are smarter than that.

  31. Nonlin.org:
    In other news, little monkey disavows his heritage and now thinks he “evolved” out of his family of little monkeys. So sad.

    You deny your own family? Well, I’m not too surprised, after all, you two little monkeys, the Nonlin commenting and the Nonlin who wrote the OP, cannot agree on what neutral theory and genetic drift are about.

    Nonlin.org to Alan:
    Don’t be alarmed yet, but losing interest in challenging tasks can be a sign of severe mental conditions.

    Don’t worry Nonlin. Alan’s situation is not like yours at all. Go get that mental help you need.

    🤣

    (Is Nonlin the ultimate irony champion or what?)

  32. Nonlin.org:

    Alan Fox [to Entropy]: Amazing. I confess to not making it through much of what Nonlin writes these days.

    Don’t be alarmed yet, but losing interest in challenging tasks can be a sign of severe mental conditions.

    Well, I can’t rule that out of course but I would then expect the loss of interest to be more general than in just your comments.

    Anyway, it occurs to me that Lenski’s LTEE would be a great teaching aid for you. Thinking about it certainly helped clarify my understanding on genetic drift. As I remarked elsewhere, I’ll put up an OP hoping that some useful exchanges of view will ensue. I’m ever the optimist!

  33. We got from…

    DNA_Jock: In other words, the expected distance from the starting point always increases as time passes.

    …to…

    DNA_Jock: To help you out, I have added a black line that plots the average distance from the start point over time. There’s a bit of noise, but the ever-increasing trend is clearly visible. So your “blatantly false” claim is wrong.

    …to…

    DNA_Jock: with a very large number of simulations, the average distance would equal (2n/π)0.5 where n is the number of steps. You will notice that this always increases with increasing n.

    And poof. The blatant error is whitewashed.

    And I’m just curious. What are you averaging over? Snails, monkeys, and trilobites? Or when you’re averaging populations decreasing in size with populations increasing in size, are you passing them through an “absolutizer”?

    DNA_Jock: Or you didn’t notice the bit about 17 and 57.

    I notice that you added the black line to your chart but forgot to change the title or add the proper label.

    Allan Miller: If you put bacteria in their trillions into a vessel, then continuously remove a small fraction while topping up the medium to retain constant volume, you end up with a pure strain descended from just one original cell. Even if you started with (for example) 50% Strain A and 50% Strain B. This is essentially a practical application of Drift, the thing you say doesn’t happen. It happens every time. What you say happens, that B never drops below 1%, does not, in fact, happen ever.

    Nonlin.org: Interesting. If you do this experiment in identical vessels under identical conditions, could it be that in one vessel you end up with A and the other with B? And how do you know for sure this is drift and not something else? It could be some form of “majority rule”.

    Right after replying to this, I came to the conclusion that this IS IMPOSSIBLE to be due to random drift. Does anyone know why? Hint: https://byjus.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator/ Maybe someone that claims to understand statistics can figure this out?

    Alan Fox: Thinking about it certainly helped clarify my understanding on genetic drift.

    Then this above is the perfect riddle for you. Now that you have such a “clear understanding” of drift.

  34. I thought this might be one of the causes of nonlin’s confusion. I think we actually saw the same thing with phoodoo. Here goes.
    nonlin, the word “expected” has a specific meaning in probability and statistics. Look it up. IDists seem to have problems with this mathematical term, conflating the “expected value” with “the kind of value I might expect”, or “a typical value”. Here’s an example: if I roll a fair die, the expected value of the number rolled is 3.5. Which, you may notice, is also impossible. No inconsistency here, the expected value is impossible. For our random walk here, the expected {distance from the origin after N steps} is the average {distance after N steps} over a very large number of runs. So there is no inconsistency in what I have been telling you. No error either.

    Nonlin.org: Right after replying to this, I came to the conclusion that this IS IMPOSSIBLE to be due to random drift. Does anyone know why? Hint: https://byjus.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator/ Maybe someone that claims to understand statistics can figure this out?

    I know why. Because you don’t understand statistics. At all. That’s why.
    Revisit the M&M threads here to understand how.

  35. Alan Fox,

    Never mind, I used a VPN. It’s a very basic probability counter intended for kids. I assume that was the intended message..

  36. DNA_Jock: IDists seem to have problems with this mathematical term, conflating the “expected value” with “the kind of value I might expect”, or “a typical value”.

    Before speculating on others’ imaginary problems, the gentleman thing to do would be to admit your blatant errors.

    DNA_Jock: I know why. Because you don’t understand statistics. At all. That’s why.
    Revisit the M&M threads here to understand how.

    If this were true, you wouldn’t have a problem disproving my “error”, would you? Instead of pointing to some irrelevant but lovable candy that is. Now, will you try again? Why don’t you use the magic powers of elementary statistics you’re so fond of?

    Alan Fox: Never mind, I used a VPN.

    Now that you solved your VPN problem, your computer has the right plug, and your slippers are warm, would get to work and solve the riddle?

    OK. I’ll give another hint: “it is STATISTICALLY impossible”.

  37. Nonlin.org: Now that you solved your VPN problem…

    Not a problem. I’m mildly curious why Byju’s is unavailable in France. No matter. What riddle?

  38. Alan Fox: I’m mildly curious why Byju’s is unavailable in France.

    It’s because of the General Data Protection Regulation. I get:

    Service Unavailable in EU region

    As a result of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
    We are not permitting internet traffic to Byju’s website from countries within European Union at this time.

  39. Corneel,

    Thanks, Corneel. Who’s “we” in this case, I wonder. EU based service providers, I guess.

    ETA I see this legislation has been in force for a couple of years. First time I’ve noticed it in action.

  40. Nonlin.org: Before speculating on others’ imaginary problems, the gentleman thing to do would be to admit your blatant errors.

    Well, if you understand what the word “expected” means in math, I am at a loss as to how you think that this

    DNA_Jock: with a very large number of simulations, the average distance would equal (2n/π)^0.5 where n is the number of steps. You will notice that this always increases with increasing n.

    is somehow a “whitewash” of the “blatant error” in

    DNA_Jock: In other words, the expected distance from the starting point always increases as time passes.

    The kindest, site-compliant explanation is that you don’t understand what “expected” means.
    Here’s something that will further confuse you: If you and phoodoo each set off on random walks from the same spot, the distance between your expected positions is always zero, but the expected distance between your positions always increases as time passes.
    Okay, that was mean.

    Nonlin.org: If this were true, you wouldn’t have a problem disproving my “error”, would you? Instead of pointing to some irrelevant but lovable candy that is

    I am sorry. I was referring to this result:

    Here’s a simple experiment one can actually try. Take a bag of M&M’s, and without peeking reach in and grab one. Eat it. Then grab another and return it to the bag with another one, from a separate bag, of the same colour. Give it a shake. I guarantee (and if you tell me how big your bag is I’ll have a bet on how long it’ll take) that your bag will end up containing only one colour. Every time. I can’t tell you which colour it will be, but fixation will happen.

    which numerous commenters here have verified for themselves. Try it out yourself.

  41. Nonlin.org:
    Before speculating on others’ imaginary problems, the gentleman thing to do would be to admit your blatant errors.

    Do you mean like admitting the blatant error that you two little monkeys, the Nonlin who wrote the OP and you, cannot agree on what neutral theory and genetic drift are about? Like that?

    Like admitting the blatant error of ignoring 490 pages of text to claim that Darwin did nothing but “challenge” others to falsify his theory in a single way? Like that?

    Irony of The Year Award: Nonlin for the win!

    🤣

  42. DNA_Jock,

    There’s so much good stuff in TSZ. I wonder if it’s worth featuring Allan Miller’s thread for a few days. This GIF from Lizzie…

    Hypnotic!

  43. DNA_Jock: Well, if you understand what the word “expected” means in math, I am at a loss as to how you think that this

    is somehow a “whitewash” of the “blatant error” in

    The kindest, site-compliant explanation is that you don’t understand what “expected” means.

    What’s funny is that YOUR “expected” result can vary drastically from an observed result. And similarly, nonlin’s “expected” explanation (goddidit) always varies drastically from the “best fit” explanation (reality).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.