/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13286471

104KiB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Biologists are really bad at math

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 00:55:27 2021 No.13286471 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13286719 >>13286810 >>13286820 >>13286897 >>13287025 >>13287215 >>13287219 >>13287955 >>13290441 >>13292207

Are you telling me the head researcher really thought that the frequency of mutations was asymptotic when the growth rate was exponential? Holy shit.
Do you think that maybe having a mathematician or a physicist aid in the room would help make this mistakes less frequent?
>hurr durr biologists are fine as is
May I remind you that Kary Mullis was told the PCR mechanism was useless mental masturbation by biologists?

https://youtu.be/w4sLAQvEH-M

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 01:50:35 No.13286719 Report

Quoted By: >>13286766 >>13286784

>>13286471
The red head grad student is cute :3

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 01:59:11 No.13286766 Report

Quoted By: >>13290614

>>13286719
I love those guys, they’re like glorified mcdonalds workers except lonelier and they get paid less

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO a1.png, 65KiB, 222x308

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:05:26 No.13286784 Report

Quoted By: >>13290710

>>13286719
Have a Soviet ESP researcher from days past.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:10:30 No.13286810 Report

Quoted By: >>13286879

>>13286471
It's not mutational frequency that was believed to be asymptotic - it was relative fitness. Be less retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:12:23 No.13286820 Report

Quoted By: >>13286879

>>13286471
>Are you telling me the head researcher really thought that the frequency of mutations was asymptotic when the growth rate was exponential? Holy shit.
The frequency of BENEFICIAL mutations, you fucking idiot.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.jpg, 6KiB, 224x225

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:22:45 No.13286879 Report

Quoted By: >>13287021

>>13286810
>>13286820
Which are both proportional to the frequency of the mutations. Your point, dear faggotoids?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:27:17 No.13286897 Report

Quoted By: >>13286907 >>13287575 >>13287868

>>13286471
Are you saying that there is supposed to be an exponential number of mutant humans? Where are all my qt mutant gf's anon!?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:29:55 No.13286907 Report

Quoted By: >>13286921 >>13286929 >>13287575

>>13286897
No, the frequency is logarithmic. Your mutant gf is trillions of years away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:31:59 No.13286921 Report

Quoted By: >>13287575

>>13286907
And her mutation will allow her to make condoms useless and shit out 5 kids per sperm every 3 days so good luck with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:33:44 No.13286929 Report

Quoted By: >>13287575 >>13287994

>>13286907
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! My sweet mutant babe, I shall wait for you, my queen!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:56:20 No.13287021 Report

Quoted By: >>13287031 >>13287866

>>13286879
>Which are both proportional to the frequency of the mutations. Your point, dear faggotoids?
I'm going to assume you're not intentionally being stupid.

The fraction of beneficial single nucleotide mutations in a given population is proportional to the ancestor's position within a fitness landscape. A bug at the peak of a static fitness landscape, by definition, cannot have beneficial mutations.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8374283432.jpg, 57KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:58:09 No.13287025 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286471

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 02:59:27 No.13287031 Report

Quoted By: >>13287042

>>13287021
You're missing the point, if the bugs keep growing then you can't have a peak in fitness ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 03:06:05 No.13287042 Report

Quoted By: >>13287063

>>13287031
You're right. Eventually bacteria will become so fit, they'll start violating conservation of mass and energy and ecological carrying capacities will be a thing of the past. Thanks for changing my mind.

You should learn the difference between a subculture and relative fitness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 03:16:04 No.13287063 Report

Quoted By: >>13287140

>>13287042
It's not that. I'll ELY5 ok? The bug growth isn't just exponential, it's exponential with an added fudge factor because they grow faster than $ln(a)a^{t}$ with each evolution, that's why it's not asymptotic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 03:42:34 No.13287140 Report

Quoted By: >>13287567

>>13287063
You're confusing metabolic rates, generation times, and fitness.

Here's the LTEE paper that initially called the asymptotic fitness hypothesis into question.

http://umich.edu/~zhanglab/clubPaper/08_21_2014.pdf

The reason why you think these findings are obvious is because you watched a 10 minute video on a multi-decade experiment and don't understand the biological processes that you're trying to model. Physicists and mathematicians are even worse biologists than actual biologists, who are still laughably bad at biology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 04:07:40 No.13287215 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286471
Why don't they use bigger volume? If they used something like a 100m^3 pool of water it would go orders of magnitude faster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 04:09:25 No.13287219 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286471
Why don't they use a bigger volume? If they used something like a 100m^3 pool of water it would go orders of magnitude faster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 06:36:51 No.13287567 Report

Quoted By: >>13287644

>>13287140
>The reason why you think these findings are obvious is because you watched a 10 minute video on a multi-decade experiment and don't understand the biological processes that you're trying to model.
Might be, but I'm also not retarded enough to assume that the change in mutations with time is inversely proportional to population growth just because the only fact I knew for sure about it was that it had to be greater than 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 06:43:40 No.13287575 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286897
>>13286907
>>13286921
>>13286929
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 07:20:15 No.13287644 Report

Quoted By: >>13287740 >>13288016

>>13287567
Moreover, the change in mutations with time has to be such that $M(t_{n+1})>M(t_{n})$ so we have that $\frac{dM}{dt} = \frac{dM}{dP} \frac{dP}{dt} > 0$ . We know that the growth rate is positive because of our setup so $\frac{dM}{dP} >0$ , which leaves us with a handful of options, most of wich get swept under the rug (including the model they used previously) if you manage to prove that $\frac{d^{2} M}{d t^{2}}= \frac{d^{2} M}{d P^{2}} \frac{dP}{t} + \frac{d^{2} P}{d t^{2}} \frac{d M}{d P} > 0$ which shouldn't be too difficult if you make reasonable assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 07:49:50 No.13287740 Report

Quoted By: >>13287759

>>13287644
>>13287644
>Moreover, the change in mutations with time has to be such that M(tn+1)>M(tn)
>which shouldn't be too difficult if you make reasonable assumptions.

Choose one and only one.

The state space of genome is finite. Each state has an associated relative fitness. A finite set of numbers necessarily has at least 1 maximum. These analyses of the LTEE are looking at the change in relative fitness through the traversal of the genomic state space over time. Run the LTEE until the heat death of the universe and keep running it. Eventually, the state space will be exhaustively traversed, and you'll have found your asymptote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 07:57:13 No.13287759 Report

Quoted By: >>13287789

>>13287740
But that's only if you don't account for repeated mutations, no?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 08:07:44 No.13287789 Report

Quoted By: >>13287815

>>13287759
Even when accounting for revertants to previously explored states, the entire state space will eventually have been traversed, just not very efficiently.

In reality, revertants to ancestral states are practically necessary to escape local maxima within the fitness landscape. There are many other factors that influence the trajectories through the fitness landscape (epistasis, accumulation of error rates in DNA proofreading machinery, etc.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 08:19:45 No.13287815 Report

Quoted By: >>13287870

>>13287789
I get that but there is also the issue that a mutation can make the chains longer. That would mean that you could indeed have infinite non repeating mutations, this would mean that there is no upper bound to mutations and therefore beneficial mutations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 08:49:24 No.13287866 Report

Quoted By:

>>13287021
e^x/1.000.000.000 is still exponential

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 08:50:56 No.13287868 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286897
Yes
Most mutations are highly detrimental tho, like autism, down syndrome, midgetry, introvertism and homosexuality, and by letting them reproduce (while shunning benefitial mutations) we degenerated humanity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 08:51:45 No.13287870 Report

Quoted By: >>13287928

>>13287815
You can't have a genome of infinite length. Instead explaining why a genome of infinite length is a retarded assumption to include in a biological model, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:14:46 No.13287928 Report

Quoted By: >>13287951

>>13287870
>You can't have a genome of infinite length
Well no, but it doesn't have a forseable upper bound unless the chains start collapsing. Assuming infinite possible length in this case is a better approximation than many others which biologists use on the regular.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:24:07 No.13287951 Report

Quoted By: >>13287961

>>13287928
You're missing the point. Assume an upper bound of length 10^100 for all I care. The size of the set of possible strings is going to 4^(10^100). That's a big fucking number. But it's still finite.

Think of 3 reasons why it would be dumb to include the assumption of boundless genome length. I'll start you off. How long would it take to replicate an infinite string?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:26:39 No.13287955 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286471
ORDO FLAMMAE AETERNAE

At the ORDO we discuss various topics such as:

- Philosophy
- Theology
- History
- Politics
- Art
- Etc

We maintain active casual conversation and dialogue

We uphold the principle of free speech;
We believe that people should able to voice their thoughts without fear of penalty or censorship

All are welcome to join the ORDO

See you there

https://discord.gg/ 9jxG5u5ZNB

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:28:49 No.13287961 Report

Quoted By: >>13287972 >>13288016

>>13287951
If assuming infinite possible genome length wasn't reasonable then the experiment would've been right and they would've had an asymptote. Think of it like restricted population growth where exponentials are a good approximation for the first few generations even though exponential growth is impossible in an arbitrary closed environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:34:23 No.13287972 Report

Quoted By: >>13287985

>>13287961
What i mean by this is that you would indeed get an asymptote but the frequency of mutations would've been predicted by the log well enough before the bugs started getting collapsed by their own weight. You could run the experiment a stupidly long amount of times (enough to let a fraction of the k-th generation evolve into dogs by cherry picking) and the infinite genome approximation would still be allright.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:39:39 No.13287982 Report

Quoted By:

Unironically just don't post, you are wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:42:29 No.13287985 Report

Quoted By: >>13288016

>>13287972
This is where failure to understand what you're modeling leads to worthless extrapolation. There are constraints to genome architecture at every level you can think of: mechanical, chemical, steric. The list goes on. Not forever, but for while. To answer my question that you failed to answer, a genome of infinite length would never finish replicating. Not good news for that bug's fitness.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who claims to be a physicist or mathematician but doesn't understand physics or combinatorics. You must be in college.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:47:04 No.13287994 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286929
I can create her with fasta file haxor skillz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:03:10 No.13288016 Report

Quoted By: >>13288049 >>13288231

>>13287985
To be fair I posted this when I was drunk and I've been trying to sober up to keep up with you, my ego is too large to face defeat like this.
>You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who claims to be a physicist or mathematician but doesn't understand physics or combinatorics.
Everything I've said follows naturally from my assumptions, nothing has been irredeemably wrong.
>There are constraints to genome architecture at every level you can think of: mechanical, chemical, steric.
I'm just setting the upper bound on genome length at a hair past human's. It might be wrong but it's still feaseable, as I said, if the approximation is wrong then their data would fit the previous model.
>Think of 3 reasons why it would be dumb to include the assumption of boundless genome length
It's only as dumb as statisticians taking 30 to be infinity and it's still a good enough approximation for them. Anon what the fuck do you want me to say to convince you it's a good enough assumption for the model's sake in this context? I already gave an example of impossible assumptions being useful to model shit in the short term in >>13287961. I don't know how we even got to this, my main complaint was that the solution of the last inequality in >>13287644 (which was derived by the outrageous assupmtion that both the number bugs and total mutations increase with time) would've discarded the previous model.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 10:17:14 No.13288049 Report

Quoted By: >>13288223 >>13290146

>>13288016
I already told you they're subculturing. They pull out the bugs out of depleted growth medium everyday and then passage them to fresh media. Your assumptions include immortal bacteria that all contribute to subsequent generations. Stop being a lazy cunt and actually read what the LTEE protocol was. The wikipedia article is simple enough that even you can understand it once you pull your head out of your ass.

The only reason why you've heard of this experiment is because it had unexpected findings significant enough to warrant coverage from pop-sci bullshit on YouTube. There's a reason why the media coverage exists: the empirical data diverges from well grounded theory and we don't know why. That's why it's interesting.

If you're going to be this much of a dipshit for the rest of your time in undergrad, you aren't going to learn jack shit, and you're sure as hell not going to make it to grad school. This wasn't an argument - this was your first biology lecture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 11:40:57 No.13288223 Report

Quoted By: >>13288254

>>13288049
you sure do insult and talk about the media a lot for a discussion that's supposed to be about science. idk if the other guy is a retard or not, desu you arent very convincing yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 11:46:07 No.13288231 Report

Quoted By: >>13292241

>>13288016
>Everything I've said follows naturally from my assumptions, nothing has been irredeemably wrong.
/sci/ in a nutshell

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 11:59:30 No.13288254 Report

Quoted By:

>>13288223
OP takes his info from media so that guy is rightfully insulting him for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 21:02:43 No.13290146 Report

Quoted By:

>>13288049
>I already told you they're subculturing
The mutations increase with each generation, P(t) could mean the number of generations and the equations would be valid, it's a minor detail.
>Your assumptions include immortal bacteria that all contribute to subsequent generations.
They contribute because they are the ones that increase the number of generations.
>The wikipedia article is simple enough that even you can understand it once you pull your head out of your ass.
We'll se about that, the air is thining in here, I might pass out.
>If you're going to be this much of a dipshit for the rest of your time in undergrad, you aren't going to learn jack shit, and you're sure as hell not going to make it to grad school. This wasn't an argument - this was your first biology lecture.
Thank you for your time, professor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 22:34:47 No.13290441 Report

Quoted By: >>13290446 >>13290614 >>13290685

>>13286471
That's not an evolution experiment, it's an adaptation experiment. Even with all those years and generations, those are still the same organism(E.Coli or w/e it was).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 22:36:16 No.13290446 Report

Quoted By:

>>13290441
Evolution reflects adaptation

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Jun 2021 23:48:36 No.13290614 Report

Quoted By: >>13290685

>>13286766
Hard truth about lab technicians.

>>13290441
Adaptation could be termed as a form of evolution. But you're right in that this experiment doesn't prove at all the evolution from one organism from another (utter extrapolation crap), and we could even say it somewhat disproves it, seeing that both fitness adaptation and hypermutation rate slow down with time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Jun 2021 00:11:28 No.13290685 Report

Quoted By:

>>13290614
>>13290441

Speciation is a specific phenomenon in evolution. Evolution is just a change in frequency of alleles in population over time. Speciation is a fuzzier concept for bacteria where more or less arbitrary thresholds are set for nucleotide differences in homologous genes. Give this experiment enough time and enough variation will accumulate (from both drift and selection) and that 'speciation threshold' will eventually be met.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Jun 2021 00:16:54 No.13290710 Report

Quoted By: >>13290751

>>13286784
It was a guy though

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Jun 2021 00:26:04 No.13290751 Report

Quoted By:

>>13290710
Lol, didn't watch it.

El Arcón

El Arcón Fri 18 Jun 2021 00:33:49 No.13290772 Report

Quoted By:

The Truth About Evolution
https://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

The purpose of this report is to debunk Darwin's theory of evolution and any variant theory that relies on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes. We construct a model of DNA and show that the minimum rate of mutation needed to produce humans within the geological age of the Earth is too high. It is much higher than any realistic model of random mutations. The calculation presented here should end the evolution debate, at least in its Darwinian limit. Other problems with evolution are discussed.

In the paper, I have dismissed the relevance of "coding for a protein" by dismissing it as purely a contemporary fascination. However, under the parameters of the protein coding model, it has been argued that random mutations in the proteins that code the DNA can account for the end product mutated DNA as well as my own model of DNA mutations. Due to the much smaller number of atoms in the coding proteins compared to the DNA molecule itself, one could construct a realistic model of DNA mutation with much lower mega-byte (Mb) quantities than I have used in the tables. Therefore, in that model accounting for variations in the DNA through mutations in the coding proteins rather than the totally simplistic thermodynamic fluctuation model which I have motivated using physics, it might not be possible to immediately reject the theory based on the required inter-generational mutation rate. However, I have no knowledge of any means by which mutations in the coding proteins of a species with N chromosomes can result in a superior species with N+M chromosomes.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1620169970915.jpg, 4KiB, 182x250

Anonymous Fri 18 Jun 2021 10:08:00 No.13292207 Report

Quoted By:

>>13286471
How do normies watch videos like this and not automatically relate it to the races of man?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 18 Jun 2021 10:30:41 No.13292241 Report

Quoted By:

>>13288231
delete this

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches