@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
@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)
#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