Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

So let's see you use mathematics and physics to confirm the Bible story.

Maybe Kleinman can explain the math.

Kleinman:

---

Perhaps you want to explain to us this finding from the Desai yeast experiment

Tanypteryx:

---

Why would I want to?

Kleinman:

---

Because the Desai experiment is similiar to the Lenski experiment except using yeast, some of which are diploid sexual replicators. Don't you have any interest in descent with modification?

Tanypteryx:

---

Nope, I'm not interested in experiments with yeast or bacteria. The Desai and Lenski bacteria and yeast experiments don't tell me anything about descent with modification of Calopteryx aequabilis or Hetaerina americana.

---

---

---

---

My, my, Tany thinks that DNA evolution works differently for insects than it does for yeast.

Tanypteryx:

---

Perhaps you can explain the patterns of endogenous retroviral insertions in human and chimp genomes.

Kleinman:

---

Why, is that an example of descent with modification? I could speculate like the fossil tea-leaf readers and say that perhaps humans and chimps can be infected by the same retroviruses.

Tanypteryx:

---

I didn't say anything about descent with modification in Message 427. Apparently you are confused about the patterns of ERVs. Chimps and humans have some ERVs that are in identical points in both species' genomes even though the points endogenous retroviruses insert are random, so they must have been inherited from a common ancestor. Both genomes also have sets of ERVs that do not match, so they were obviously inserted after the two lineages separated. I am saying the matching ERVs in the 2 species are evidence of descent from a common ancestor, and the non-matching ERVs are evidence of descent with modification.

---

---

---

What's the matter Tany, have you run out of all 1 of your so-called transitional fossils? Do you want to explain to us how a retrovirus in a somatic cell gets into a gamete? Do you have any idea what a virus does to the early differentiation of a stem cell line? And are you claiming that these retroviruses somehow alter the reproductive fitness of either humans or chimpanzees? Do you know that humans and chimpanzees produce identical insulin?

Dredge:

---

... a vain attempt to dodge the question.

ringo:

---

Kleinman asked me a question that made no sense and I explained why it made no sense. How is that dodging?

---

---

If you don't understand the math, I'll try to explain it so a layman or biologist can understand.

Kleinman:

---

How do you know that the differences in phenotype you are seeing are due to recombination rather than DNA evolution?

ringo:

---

Ask a biologist. Thousands of them have been working for centuries fitting every living thing into a nested hierarchy. They started doing that long before they knew much about DNA. FYI, the nested hierarchy demonstrates who is related to whom.

---

---

ringo, we are in the era of DNA identification. Try and keep up.

Kleinman:

---

The point is that you can't use gross anatomy to explain descent with modification.

ringo:

---

Tell it to a biologist. They were doing it long before they know much about DNA.

---

---

That's like using phrenology to determine mental traits. But if you think you can explain the Kishony, Lenski, or Desai experiments using gross anatomy, amuse yourself.

Kleinman:

---

That process has to be measured at the molecular level by DNA sequencing.

ringo:

---

And yet they did it without knowing much about DNA. You might as well be saying that you can't fly an airplane without understanding jet propulsion.

---

---

So explain to us DNA evolution using gross anatomy. I like hearing a good fairytale.

Kleinman:

---

Sadly, those examples are the results of real-world experiments.

ringo:

---

Sadly for YOU, yes, because those seem to be the only experiments you know about. Somebody - it might have been Jed Clampett - used to say, "When he tells you howdy, he's told you everything he knows."

---

---

Do you want me to put the link to the Desai yeast descent with modification experiment? Why not?
Phenotypic and molecular evolution across 10,000 generations in laboratory budding yeast (with asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction) populations
You asked for a biological evolutionary experiment with sexual replicators, so don't ignore it.

ringo:

---

I asked you for an alternative explanation. Are you saying that evolution only happens within "kinds"?

Kleinman:

---

Whether you want to use the word "species" or "kind", you have a mathematical and empirical problem with your idea of universal common descent.

ringo:

---

1. "I" or "we" do not have a mathematical problem. YOU have a mathematical problem.
2. "I" or "we" do not have an empirical problem. YOU have a problem understanding that the Kishony and Lenski experiments do not define all of biology. (Do Kishony and Lenski even agree with your claims about them?)
3. It isn't "my" idea of universal common descent. It's the idea of practically every biol;ogist on earth. (And the alien biologists whose Petrie dishes we occupy agree with us too.)
4. It's becoming fairly clear that you ARE trying to push that evolution-only-within-kinds crap. It has no basis in biology (which is why you denigrate biologists) and it has no basis in the Bible either.​

---

---

---

I keep forgetting that I'm debating with the mathematically challenged who can't figure out the relationship between mutation rate, population size and the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring. If the math doesn't make sense to you, I'll make it simple enought for a layman or biologist to understand.

Kleinman:

---

At least I understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution...

ringo:

---

And you claim that biologists don't. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ability to repeat "Kishony and Lenski" in every sentence.

---

---

It's Kishony, Lenski, and Desai now. When are biologists going to post their mathematical explanation of these experiments? We are waiting.

Kleinman:

---

Perhaps in a couple more generations biologists will figure this out....

ringo:

---

Don't be too optimistic about how soon they will catch up with you.

---

---

Just change the curriculum for biologists from the survey of math and the survey of physics to mathematics and physics for science majors and it might happen sooner.

Dredge:

---

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

ringo:

---

You could have stopped at, "I don't know." That summarizes everything you've posted here.

---

---

We are all impressed with how clever you are. Now, why don't you apply some of that cleverness and learn some physics and mathematics and give us a correct explanation for descent with modification? There is no social promotion here.

Dredge:

---

I prefer to believe that humans did not evolve but were created as per Genesis 2:7, about 10,000 years ago.

ringo:

---

You can prefer whatever flavor of ice cream you want. Just don't pretend that science confirms your preference.
​
ABE:
​
And you just admitted to being a YEC.

---

---

Tell us how life started in the primordial soup. Never mind, you can't even explain how descent with modification works. And that's a real thing.

Kleinman:

---

I think the Biblical creation story is far more reasonable than the primordial soup to the nuts we see today that biologists like to tell.

ringo:

---

So let's see you use mathematics and physics to confirm the Bible story.

---

---

That's an easy one. You have three possibilities, 1. panspermia, 2. abiogenesis then descent with modification, and 3. We were created.
1. panspermia-still have a problem with how life arose on the planet Krypton and how did that life get to earth.
2. abiogenesis then descent with modification-chemistry, physics, and math doesn't work
3. we were created-only possibility remaining and can't be disprovedAny other mathematical questions?

You're missing the whole point: Your math doesn't matter.In Message 404, you asked, "Where are all the fossils that demonstrate the next transitional mutation?" and I pointed out that fossils don't demonstrate mutations. None of that has anything to do with your math either.You're clearly trying to claim that there aren't "enough" transitional fossils, according to your bogus calculations. It hasn't worked. You haven't convinced anybody, here or anywhere else.If you want to argue that the transitional fossils aren't transitional, then argue that directly.Don't pretend that you can calculate how many there "should" be. Next you'll be calculating how high Mt. Everest "should" be if continental drift is correct.

AZPaul3:

---

Since the covid vax is all of 3 years old you might want to look to some other cause of your decades long health problems.

ringo:

---

Maybe Kleinman can explain the math.

---

---

Again, that's an easy one. In this case, it is a statistical problem. Data is now being collected, for example:
Cardiac complications following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review of case reports and case series

quote:

---

We found that myocarditis was the most commonly reported adverse cardiac event associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which presented as chest pain with a rise in cardiac biomarkers. Further large-scale observational studies are recommended.

---

But universal common descent was well understood since long before we knoew anything about DNA. And DNA has only confirmed universal common descent. Not at all. Phrenology has been discredited scientifically; universal common descent has not. (You can't cherry-pick one scientific conclusion to deny another.) If Kishony, Lenski or Desai agree with your conclusions, go ahead and show us. No need. DNA has confirmed the nested hierarchy that was initially determined using gross anatomy. Then you should stick to listening and not try to tell your own. No I didn't. I asked for the second-and-third-best experimental examples that confirm your conclusion. I've told you repeatedly that your math is irrelevant.I know you're trying to steer the discussion back toward your math but we're past that now. You might think you've invented the best mousetrap ever but nobody is buying it, so we're not interested in discussing your design. I'm sure Desai is tickled pink to be included. I'm on pins and needles waiting for biologists to confirm your conclusions. When thet do, I'll take you seriously. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

It's nice to be appreciated. Because your math is irrelevant. It can't undo reality. I thought I had mentioned that before. Anyway, I've mentioned it now, so you can stop asking.

That's a different topic. Are you starting to run scared?

I don't see where you mentioned the Bible at all. Readong comprehension eludes you again.

Once again, you misunderstood the assignment. I wanted you to show how Dredge could have decades of symptoms in 3 years.