|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Raindrops are random micro-water. They can't add up to macro-water (rivers, lakes, oceans)? Mathematically, microevolutionary events don't add up. They are random events so the joint probability of microevolutionary events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Good. Then I'm likely to be right.
ringo, you are making the same logical inconsistency that Taq makes.... =Kleinman writes:
It doesn't matter which raindrops you add. The sum is the same. The correct analogy for your raindrop concept would be, what is the probability of two particular raindrops ending up in the same body of water?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
When somebody pays you for your biological skills, let us know. my employer in the aerospace industry that paid me a lot of money for that skill."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Good for you. I have the Loch Ness Monster in my bathtub.
You see ringo, I'm licensed in both engineering and medicine. Kleinman writes:
It's true that scientists are often not good explainers. That's why I sometimes stick my oar in to explain my kindergarten-level take on science. Maybe once in a while I help somebody up to a kindergarten-level understanding.
And biologists suck at explaining the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Kleinman writes:
Aren't you the guy that was talking about tea-leaf reading? Message 147, Message 158, Message 160 Biologists just don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. That suggests to me that you don't accept evolution. And that suggests to me that you're a lying, science-denying creationist bastard. "Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Then we can be the first Kleinmanists. why aren't you the new Darwin?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
What does "Department of Medicine, USA" mean?
"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Your math has been done to death. I'm more interested in your disdain for science and your unwillingness to discuss it. Let's see if you can do that as well on the math."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Yes. You've mentioned it several times in a perjorative sense but you seem to be afraid to discuss it. What science could ringo want to talk about, fossil tea-leaf reading?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
You have neglected to consider the rate of fossilization. I mentioned that a long time ago. Compared to the vast number of organisms that have lived, the number that have been preserved is vanishingly small. You should be drowning in transitional fossils. I also mentioned that, strictly speaking, ALL fossils are transitional, not just the obvious ones like archaeopteryx. And I also mentioned that even ONE transitional fossil would be sufficient to demonstrate that there was a transition. So your calculations about mutation rates are not really relevant to the supposed scarcity of fossils. Even IF your calculations are correct, you still lose."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Quite a few and not very many.
How many T Rex has ever lived and how many fossil specimens exist of T Rex? Kleinman writes:
The number of adaptive steps is irrelevant. Do you think every T. Rex fossil ever found is at the same stage of adaptation?
Then consider that each adaptive step (mutation) in a lineage requires 1/(mutation rate) replication, for a mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a billion replications. Kleinman writes:
"Species" is already singular. Removing the "s" doesn't make it more singular.
a bird specie Kleinman writes:
Not at all. The mutations in the individuals produce diversity among their offspring but we're looking at many, many generations here. Every diverse form may be a transitional on the way to a new species.
ringo writes:
You are confusing the concept of diversity with a transition. I also mentioned that, strictly speaking, ALL fossils are transitional, not just the obvious ones like archaeopteryx. Kleinman writes:
If no archaeopteryx ever had offspring, it is still a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Even if that particular line died out, there could be other transitions that didn't fossilize. In other words, we KNOW that species transition into other species, even if we don't have fossils for every transition.
And fossils are a snapshot of the dead, you don't know whether they had offspring or not. Kleinman writes:
Of course. How many pigs do you need to convince you that pigs exist?
... one fossil of some strange extinct life form out of the multiple billions of replications for adaptive evolution to operate is enough to convince you that a reptile lineage can evolve into birds? Kleinman writes:
I will gladly agree with the biologists on that one. (Did you really think that denigrating biologists would help your argument?)
Save that argument for naive schoolchildren and biologists that haven't studied introductory probability theory. Kleinman writes:
If Kishony and Lenski replicate their experiments with archaeopteryx and T. Rex, the significance of your calculations will be demonstrated.
ringo, you still aren't getting the significance of these calculations and the results of the Kishony and Lenski experiments that substantiate these calculations. Kleinman writes:
You have it backwards. You calculate the number of transitionals that there "should" be and try to warp reality to fit your idea. Science looks at reality and adjusts the theory to fit the facts. You must interpret the fossil record in the context of these mathematical facts...."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Again, how many pigs do you need to convince you the pigs exist? Answer the question.
You can't even explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments correctly. Yet you know that species transition into other species based on a single fossil of an extinct creature. Kleinman writes:
Wrong. I couldn't care less which answer is true. All I care about is where the evidence leads. You believe this because you want to believe this. FYI, I have considered switching sides - i.e. trying to argue the creationist side. I'd get a lot more action. But the crestionist positions, including yours, are so god-dammed stupid that I couldn't think of a single positive thing to say about them.
Kleinman writes:
No, I'm saying that if I see a pig I know that pigs exist - and if I see a transitional fossil I know that transitional fossils exist. I don't need to see x number of transitional fossils that you claim "should" exist. I don't need to see x number of pigs. One is enough to demonstrate that it exists.
I'm not denying that you don't have a fossil of a strange extinct creature. It's your claim that the creature is a transition step between a reptile and a bird. You might as well say that pigs are transitioning into birds. Kleinman writes:
YOU stop whining and learn introductory evolutionary theory. And learn that you can't calculate reality away. Mathematics describes reality; it doesn't define reality.
Stop whining and learn introductory probability theory. Kleinman writes:
Chimpanzees aren't the worst relatives I have. I don't brag about being related to you.
Why is it so important to you to think that you are related to chimpanzees? Kleinman writes:
I didn't say you were. (I guess reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in college either.) I don't have to warp the numbers that Kishony and Lenski report. I said that your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils.
Kleinman writes:
Why is gravity so important? Why is universal common descent so important to you? *shrug* It's a fact. We might as well get used to it."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
No. I think it exists. Don't you? ringo thinks this is a pig How many transitionals have to exist to convince you that transitionals exist?
Kleinman writes:
Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.
Opinions aren't evidence. Kleinman writes:
"We" aren't waiting. Only YOU are waiting. WE are way past your miscalculations. How long do we have to wait for your physical and mathematical explanation of descent with modification for the Kishony and Lenski experiments? It took a while to pry you away from your fixation on Kishony and Lenski (are you physically capable of writing a sentence without the words "Kishony and Lenski"?) - but we're talking about transitional fossils now. Try to keep up.
Kleinman writes:
Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.
You can have whatever opinion you want.... Kleinman writes:
Your first lesson is: The Kishony and Lenski experiments are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.
OK ringo, here's your big chance to teach introductory evolutionary theory. Teach us the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. Kleinman writes:
Maybe they are but they have nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
These are two very simple experimental examples of evolutionary theory. Kleinman writes:
That's pretty much exactly what you're doing.
At least I don't do this to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgsBHbW3Og&ab_channel=Da... Kleinman writes:
Not at all. Read what I said: "... your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils." Are you now claiming that descent with modification works differently for reptiles or humans and chimps than demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? I'm saying that you have misused the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
Kleinman writes:
On the contrary, it seems to have gone very well, since nobody disagrees with it but you.
Taq tried to make a case for sexual reproduction and recombination but that didn't go so well. Kleinman writes:
Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.
Too bad your opinion ... Kleinman writes:
You have it backwards, again. The flat-earthers are trying to overturn the accepted paradigm and YOU are trying to overthrow the accepted paradigm. I'm just going with what practically every scientist on earth thinks.
You have gotten used to your opinion just like many people got used to the opinion that the earth is flat. Kleinman writes:
I'll admit to being biased in favor of science - but go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence. ... not your highly biased opinions."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Did I say you could? i said that one transitional fossil is enough to demonstrate that transitional fossils exist.
Why do you think you can explain descent with modification with a single fossil specimen? Kleinman writes:
Another thing I didn't say. (You won't hear me talking about "proof".)
ringo writes:
How about taking a single fossil and claiming this proof of reptiles evolving into birds? Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence. Kleinman writes:
Because there's a whole world out there. You're wasting your time trying to use Kishony and Lenski as a silver bullet to kill evolution when the rest of the world disagrees with you.
And why not be fixated on the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Kleinman writes:
Another thing I didn't say. Feel free to repeat yourself while stamping your feet, "I have a fossil of a reptile evolving into a bird and that's scientific evidence because it is a pig". Learn to read."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
A different species.
ringo writes:
A transition to what? i said that one transitional fossil is enough to demonstrate that transitional fossils exist. Kleinman writes:
Dictionaries are like mathematics. They describe. They do not prescribe.
Evidence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Kleinman writes:
So give us the second-best and third-best, just for variety. Stop being such a one-trick pony.
All the empirical evidence of descent with modification behaves like the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It just happens that the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate this the best. Kleinman writes:
But what's your goal in killing universal common descent if not to kill evolution? Do you have an alternative idea that includes evolution but NOT universal common descent? (Let me guess: evolution limitied to within "kinds".)
And this evidence doesn't kill evolution, it kills the notion of universal common descent. Kleinman writes:
I'm not going to try to use mathematics to try to show that the biologists are wrong. And I'm not going to use mathematics to show that bumble-bees can't fly.
So, when are you going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and how this proves (or is evidence of) universal common descent? Kleinman writes:
You need to learn some respect for biologists. Thinking they're all wrong and you're right is just crazy. Biologists really need help on this."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Fossils don't demonstrate mutations. They demonstrate physical changes that may have been caused by a long chain of mutations.
Where are all the fossils that demonstrate the next transitional mutation? Kleinman writes:
Read. We're talking about EXPERIMENTS here. Give us examples of EXPERIMENTS, besides Kishony and Lenski, that confirm your claims.
I've already mentioned many examples how the multiplication rule affects descent with modification (adaptation). Kleinman writes:
Read. I asked you for an alternative explanation. Are you saying that evolution only happens within "kinds"?
Descent with modification occurs, biological competition occurs, recombination occurs, selection pressures exist, and universal common descent is mathematically irrational and should not be taught as scientific fact to naive school children. Kleinman writes:
There you go again, claiming that you know better than every biologist. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously. ... biologists have failed to give a correct explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024