The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations

@brunoQuarantuno @RaskolnikovXP Questo video invece è di 18 minuti, molto interessante https://t.co/M76t69jVcL Il prof. John C. Sanford ha scritto 1 https://t.co/lzxDhZwW3J 2 https://t.co/0ChYYTp2MV 3 https://t.co/WlIjYTJojU .

@Scylaxx @JongGerdien De paper waar op gereageerd wordt is eveneens verschenen in Journal of Mathematical Biology. Voor de volledigheid: https://t.co/uUls41rNtM.

@ALNYJD https://t.co/gcxtOsA7F3 وممكن ترفق لنا كيف استحالة التطور رياضيا ؟ لأن المبادئ الأساسية كلها مفسرة رياضيا ومرفق لك معادلاتها -مع العلم اننا ما نحتاج لدليل رياضي على أن الطيارة تطير- ومرة أخرى اقولك لا تنقل شيء ما تفهمه . https://t.co/TtpDoUBbPm

創造論者によるフィッシャーの基本定理に対する誤読による批判論文（https://t.co/9xQFrAv8FB）への反論/Fisher, Fitness, and the Fundamentals of Population Genetics -Panda'sThumb-https://t.co/UOZ7wVWnnO

Ostensibly, this paper is a response to B&S (2018), which claims to overturn Fisher's theorem by incorporating "realistic" distributions of mutational effects. They claim that, in opposition to Fisher, fitness is expected to perpetually decline. http

RT @BorgerPieter: Hierbij nog de mathematische basis: https://t.co/0FYfLpttl7

RT @BorgerPieter: Hierbij nog de mathematische basis: https://t.co/0FYfLpttl7

Hierbij nog de mathematische basis: https://t.co/0FYfLpttl7

RT @BorgerPieter: Natuurlijke selectie als drijvende kracht voor een informatietoename werd in 2018 wetenschappelijk weerlegd. Dat betekent…

Natuurlijke selectie als drijvende kracht voor een informatietoename werd in 2018 wetenschappelijk weerlegd. Dat betekent niet dat NS niet bestaat. Natuurlijk bestaat NS & in mijn boek TndO leg ik uit wat het is: een reproductieverschil tussen organism

https://t.co/hqLLWLGoHZ

@locolupus @jeremielouis3 @Eniotna33287582 @BFMTV https://t.co/0AjRoqCEYa Le théorème de Fisher, qui a démontré en 1935 que les mutations+sélections amenaient une population a créer des caractéres génétiques favorables, a été revisité pour remplacer le mod

The study of genetics and the emerging concept of entropy is fascinating! Check this... William F. Basener / John C. Sanford The Journal of Mathematical Biology https://t.co/LK1vUMZGGI #Genetics #ScienceTwitter #sciencefactsamazing

"What we have discovered is that, contrary to Fisher’s claim, continuously increasing population fitness is not an inherent property of life. Mutations by themselves drive fitness down." https://t.co/6lwQ1uZR7e

@Dp3ll_ اذا سيكون عليك نقض هذا البرهان الرياضي الذي يثبت التطور وقد نشر في سنة 2017 https://t.co/PobyTWNWs8

@AlthalamQaher علميا هذا هو البرهان الرياضي الذي يثبت ان التطور حقيقة لا مفر منها ولا يمكن لها الا ان تحدث https://t.co/PobyTWNWs8 اخجلوا على انفسكم وكفاكم تجني على العلم من اجل اساطير ابائكم.

سؤالك غير واضح عزيزي اكو تساؤلات متخص نظرية التطور واكو تساؤلات فلسفية واكو تساؤلات علمية. بس اللي لفت انتباهي هو قولك تريد جواب يقبله العقل؟ شنو تقصد بكلمة "العقل" وشنو تعريفه عندك؟ وشنو معايير قبوله؟ حسب طلبك فالاثبات الرياضي كافي وهذا هو https://t.co/

@albynn2 @mizzati21 @SVimaire Pardon pour le retard, les aléas de la vie... Je l'ai trouvé : https://t.co/4twMOBZpb3 Via cette article https://t.co/6ClWSJlwfb

@Viktor_shinski @cobbo3 As science advanced, mathematicians found the maths inadequate and have since written to expose the weakness in the theorem. Science is not a religion. Things change. Some know earlier than others and pass it on. https://t.co/a8aws

@Viktor_shinski @cobbo3 Evolution assumes adaptation through the mutation-selection process and was mathematically supported by Fisher's theorem of natural selection. the theorem was debunked https://t.co/a8aws8knXw and the math does not add up. https://t

RT @1ofmanyhumans: @RussellPundit @Franky_Banky @THE_DAILY_BLEAT @wiII_the_chiII @nailedvision @sapinker @Quillette R. A. Fishers fundament…

@JamesonCal After we re-formulated Fisher’s model...with a more realistic distribution of mutations the population often undergoes perpetual fitness decline. https://t.co/A8dDeNURD4

@EdDarrell You can't even have evolution until you solve abiogenesis. Now Basener & Sanford 2017 show mutations quantitatively degrade, not increase fitness. You bear the scientific burden of proof to overcome those barriers https://t.co/sMuIR2FpNm

Yes Basener & Sanford 2017 falsify & flip Fisher's evolution theorem, showing mutations in real populations cause decreasing fitness. https://t.co/lv7DTJpLWA Michael J Behe cites & published peer reviewed literature. See Scholar https://t.co/uk

RT @bjenquist: "We build on Fisher's Fundamental theorem & prove that the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus…

RT @bjenquist: "We build on Fisher's Fundamental theorem & prove that the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus…

"We build on Fisher's Fundamental theorem & prove that the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection w mutations" https:/

@LiLoPlanet @vader614 @InTheist @AndyBuzz72 @AiG Here is an expert on genetic professor on why you are wrong . https://t.co/eVHiw2TnvX

@CloneSkeptic @RabMelv @Phoenix42505497 @AiG Here is a genetic professor who knows more about mutations than you , have a read you might learn something . https://t.co/eVHiw2TnvX

@054durin @RealDCEric @AStratelates @EveKeneinan @Moerae1 @joandarc33 @ctlansdown @radiusblue @OdaStOda For example, in October of last year the Fisher theorem was refuted, this was published in the Journal of Mathematical Biology: https://t.co/xpCIe2i0En

@MgS_2011 @HanlonMike @According2Luke @johnwtomkinson @JustinTrudeau @ATASciCouncil #ableg #abed Here is the PubMed link https://t.co/WDjdY3vhx8

Returning to my occasional theme of young earth creationists who get papers published, recently two authors had a paper in a prestigious journal that apparently overturns the efficacy of natural selection https://t.co/s3UL6HzQHK

RT @logos_instituut: Het menselijk genoom in verval? Creationisten publiceren in een vaktijdschrift: https://t.co/WN7BxcmUZT

Het menselijk genoom in verval? Creationisten publiceren in een vaktijdschrift: https://t.co/WN7BxcmUZT

In ieder geval een boeiend paper, zo op het eerste gezicht. https://t.co/sOvW6rOb2a

RT @logos_instituut: Hoezo, creationisten schrijven nooit in naturalistische vaktijdschriften? Een standaard (maar foutief) argument van AE…

RT @logos_instituut: Hoezo, creationisten schrijven nooit in naturalistische vaktijdschriften? Een standaard (maar foutief) argument van AE…

Hoezo, creationisten schrijven nooit in naturalistische vaktijdschriften? Een standaard (maar foutief) argument van AE'ers en TE'ers (zoals @cees_dekker en @Fransen_R) ontkracht: https://t.co/kBZpSoRQbx. (JvM)

@MorganeOgerNDP @BanGendrUnicorn @LauraLynnTT @pauldirks @CultureGuard @LifeSite @BarbaraRKay @jordanbpeterson @ABDanielleSmith @ryanjespersen @RobBreakenridge @RubinReport @ACSTANews @atypicalalbertn @oessta1 @ATASciCouncil @RoyalABMuseum https://t.co/j5t

#ableg #abed Here is John C Sanford's latest peer reviewed paper. Notice this distinguished PhD has 52 citations at PubMed https://t.co/wXzrzwhmQa https://t.co/LKD5FIxmSm

Tässä olisi darwinisteille taas vähän pureskeltavaa, jos vaan jaksatte lukea. #ahdistusvaroitus 😎 https://t.co/MqJkNuGo5I

A cornerstone of “mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution” is now falsified. After this peer-reviewed scientific paper no-one is able to plead to the mathematics as a friend of evolution theory. I REST MY CASE. 😎 https://t.co/MqJkNuGo5I

”Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.” https

@ElizabethLidd seen this? https://t.co/VDBST0UcRn

RT @BobOHara: Oh bloody hell. Creationists have got some of their stuff into a proper journal: https://t.co/qROQ0JiVsv anyone know what the…

RT @BobOHara: Oh bloody hell. Creationists have got some of their stuff into a proper journal: https://t.co/qROQ0JiVsv anyone know what the…

Oh bloody hell. Creationists have got some of their stuff into a proper journal: https://t.co/qROQ0JiVsv anyone know what the mutation rate in §5.4 is?

Creationists sneak in another paper to a scientific journal, and once again, it’s fatally flawed. https://t.co/HsgOutXMi7

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. https://t.co/4Gk6oaiy2D