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

Sounds like "or" (add) verses "and" (multiply).

Er ... no, I didn't. No wonder you don't understand what Kleinman says ... you don't even understand what I say!

Biologists understand biology. YOU claim they don't. Nobody believes you. By reading fossils. You're just making yourself look foolish by talking about tea-leaves. Biologists have figured out biology. YOU claim they haven't. Nobody believes you. There may be no papers that agree with YOU. That would be because YOUR explanation is wrong. If they think they need one, they'll make one. Yes, you're the only one who understands. We heard you. We don't believe you. No, that isn't how it works. YOU show us that they agree with your math. It doesn't help your case either. We've dealt with creationists before who thought that the scientists didn't understand their own experiments. Birds. We can tell a bird from a cow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a crow and an eagle are both birds by gross anatomy.Mammals. We can tell a cow from a crow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a cow and a whale are both mammals by gross anatomy.And we can tell that birds and mammals are all vertebrates by gross anatomy. I think your criticisms of evolution are fairy tales. You seem to forget that biologists are the ones who do the basic research that makes medical treatments possible. I doubt that many physicians share your contempt for biologists. You haven't said much about the Desai experiment, YOU ignored it for most of this discussion. Eventually, you tacked it on the end of your "Kishony and Lenski" mantra.So is it Kishony best, Lenski second-best and Desai third-best? Then give us your fourth-best and fifth-best. On the contrary, my idea of science is that math and physics are inextricable intertwined with biology and chemistry and geology and.... YOU are the one who is trying to do biology without biology. Fool. And you understand more than he does. We've heard you. We don't believe you. Fool. Why don't I fly around the world? Because I'm not a pilot.Why don't I do biology? because I'm not a biologist.But I do respect biologists. If it needs doing, they'll do it. You seem to forget that creationism has already been selected OUT by ALL sciences, along with astrology, alchemy and flat-earthism. Even if you could destroy evolution, creationism isn't even NEAR to second place.

Clearly you ARE shaking in your boots, trying to divert attention from your ignorance by changing to an unrelated subject. (Abiogenesis is NOT biology, by the way. Look up "A".)Go ahead and start a topic about abiogenesis. I dare ya, dumbest.

Funny how you talk about probability and yet you don't understand the difference between "improbable" and "false". (And you don't understand that science doesn't deal in proof.)

Is an atheist Darwinist qualified to define "reality"? I have my doubts.

Comforting bedtime stories for atheists masquerading as science.

Who are you to determine how dumb somebody is? Who's dumber than you? Luck doesn't enter into it. Chemistry doesn't happen by chance. There are reasons why we have H₂O and not H₉O. Living organisms are made of chemicals. 1. Show us your calculations. (You can't, can you, idiot?)
2. Small does not mean zero. If the probability is not zero, it CAN happen.
3. The probabilities that creationist idiots are touting - and that you are stupid enough to believe - are for a living organism to pop into being from a pile of random atoms. That's not how chemistry works. It happens stepwise. Two atoms combine to form a molecule, then two molecules combine to form a larger molecule and so on. It might take thousands of steps to make a complex molecule, adding one piece at a time. (Think of a jigsaw puzzle: you don't put a thousand pieces together in one step.) But you don't have an ounce of common sense. It's entirely scientific, whether you understand it or not. (As I've demonstrated above, you don't.) You should be embarassed. Even creationists are saying, "Please get off our side." Not as dumb as you, idiot.

It is, but you keep doing it. Your contempt for biologists isn't even veiled. Luckily, it fits everything else pretty well. Your idea of what is "irrational" has no effect on reality.

Er... yes, you did. In Message 439 you said, "I prefer to believe that humans did not evolve but were created as per Genesis 2:7, about 10,000 years ago."There is no significant difference between young earth and young humans. You are denying the science of dating.

Get out of the nineteenth century. I don't try to define reality but I can see it. Your doubts are as worthless as your beliefs.

Wait till you see my persistence.

quote:

---

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.

-- Woody Guthrie

---

I'm still waiting for you to show how Dredge could have decades of symptoms in 3 years.

Kleinman:

---

The joint probability of random adaptive evolutionary events doesn't add, you must multiply their probabilities

Dredge:

---

Sounds like "or" (add) verses "and" (multiply).

---

---

Here's a simple analogy to understand natural selection in an adaptation process.Consider if for your family to survive that your family needs to win two lotteries. And the probability of winning one lottery is 1 in a million, and the probability of winning the other lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability is 1 in a million times 1 in a million equals 1 in a trillion, a very low probability indeed. But let's say, you win one of those lotteries. And because of this, you are a very wealthy man and you can raise a very large family. And all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, there will be a high probability that one of your descendants will win that second lottery for your family.The probability of an adaptive mutation occurring on some variant in a population depends on the number of replications that variant does and the mutation rate, nothing else. There are lots of factors that affect that variant from doing the necessary number of replications for the next adaptive mutation. Competition is one of those factors. It is also possible that a single adaptive mutation does not exist for the given selection conditions. But it all comes down to the fact that the number of replications and the mutation rate determine that probability. And adaptive evolutionary events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule as are your chances of winning two lotteries.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists understand that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational transition?

ringo:

---

Biologists understand biology. YOU claim they don't. Nobody believes you.

---

---

Where's the biologists' explanation of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony, Lenski, and Desai experiments? Biologists don't even understand how biological competition affects descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

How did biologists figure that out by reading fossil tea leaves?

ringo:

---

By reading fossils. You're just making yourself look foolish by talking about tea-leaves.

---

---

Where did you read in your fossils that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Kleinman:

---

Biologists have not figured out why biological competition slows descent with modification.

ringo:

---

Biologists have figured out biology. YOU claim they haven't. Nobody believes you.

---

---

Take a math and physics class and then you might believe me.

Kleinman:

---

That's why there are no papers by biologists that correctly explain the Kishony, Lenski, or Desai experiments.

ringo:

---

There may be no papers that agree with YOU. That would be because YOUR explanation is wrong.

---

---

My papers agree with the numbers given by Kishony and Lenski. And these papers show you how to derive the equations from first principles. Biologists have yet to publish a paper that does that.

Kleinman:

---

Where's the biologist's mathematical model of random recombination?

ringo:

---

If they think they need one, they'll make one.

---

---

Don't worry ringo, the paper has already been written and Taq knows it is correct.

Kleinman:

---

I have the whole tree, I have all the cherries.

ringo:

---

Yes, you're the only one who understands. We heard you. We don't believe you.

---

---

I'm not the only one that understands. The peer-reviewers of my papers also understand. The reason why they understand is they know how to do the mathematics of a stochastic process. Biologists are so poorly trained in mathematics, they can't do a simple probability problem. Ask nwr, he understands how simple the math is and it works correctly to predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Sadly, nwr doesn't do the mathematics of biological evolution.

ringo:

---

If Kishony, Lenski or Desai agree with your conclusions, go ahead and show us.

Kleinman:

---

You ask them if my math is correct or not.

ringo:

---

No, that isn't how it works. YOU show us that they agree with your math.

---

---

---

You are just being silly now. It isn't my choice whether they comment on my work or not. What we do know is that my math predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before it was performed and it explains why competition slows adaptation in the Lenski experiment. Neither Kishony nor Lenski have explained this.

Kleinman:

---

If they won't admit it publicly whether I'm correct or not is not my choice.

ringo:

---

It doesn't help your case either. We've dealt with creationists before who thought that the scientists didn't understand their own experiments.

---

---

Try dealing with the math and physics (if you can).

ringo:

---

DNA has confirmed the nested hierarchy that was initially determined using gross anatomy.

Kleinman:

---

Oh really? Post a few examples of how that has been done.

ringo:

---

Birds. We can tell a bird from a cow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a crow and an eagle are both birds by gross anatomy.
​
Mammals. We can tell a cow from a crow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a cow and a whale are both mammals by gross anatomy.
​
And we can tell that birds and mammals are all vertebrates by gross anatomy.

---

---

---

But you can't tell whether birds are related to mammals or any other vertebrate by gross anatomy. You must use DNA analysis, determine the genetic differences and calculate whether it is possible for such a genetic transformation to occur. Taq couldn't do it with humans and chimpanzees because he doesn't have a sufficient number of replications to do the math. It takes extremely large populations to do descent with modification under the best of circumstances. Bacteria, viruses, cancer cells, plants, insects, and other populations that can achieve large numbers with rapid recovery can do limited adaptive evolution. The Lenski experiment has gone about 80,000 generations with about 5 trillion replications and has gotten a lineage with about 100 adaptive mutations. And that's with only a single selection pressure acting on the population.

Kleinman:

---

So you think that drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are fairytales?

ringo:

---

I think your criticisms of evolution are fairy tales.

---

---

Pay attention, I'm criticizing biologists' failure to understand the mathematics of descent with modification and the concept of universal common descent. Biologists will not understand biological evolution until they correctly formulate the mathematics for descent with modification. That's why biologists fail to correctly explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Kleinman:

---

Is it the intent of biologists to give sad endings to those stories? It certainly seems so.

ringo:

---

You seem to forget that biologists are the ones who do the basic research that makes medical treatments possible. I doubt that many physicians share your contempt for biologists.

---

---

Biologists' explanation of the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail sucks.

ringo:

---

I asked for the second-and-third-best experimental examples that confirm your conclusion.

Kleinman:

---

Why are you ignoring the Desai experiment?

ringo:

---

You haven't said much about the Desai experiment, YOU ignored it for most of this discussion. Eventually, you tacked it on the end of your "Kishony and Lenski" mantra.
​
So is it Kishony best, Lenski second-best and Desai third-best? Then give us your fourth-best and fifth-best.

---

---

---

ringo, you argue about the stupidist things. The Lenski experiment has been going on for decades, the Kishony experiment published in 2016, the Desai paper was just published at the beginning of 2021. Have you even tried to read the Desai paper?

Kleinman:

---

There you go! Your idea of science is no math, no physics.

ringo:

---

On the contrary, my idea of science is that math and physics are inextricable intertwined with biology and chemistry and geology and.... YOU are the one who is trying to do biology without biology.

---

---

I forgot to mention that your idea of science also doesn't include experimentation.

Kleinman:

---

The reading of fossil tea-leaves tells it all.

ringo:

---

Fool.

---

---

I'm not the one taking something equivalent to phrenology and thinking that I can explain the physics and mathematics of biology.

ringo:

---

I'm sure Desai is tickled pink to be included.

Kleinman:

---

He should be if he actually wants to understand how biological evolution works.

ringo:

---

And you understand more than he does. We've heard you. We don't believe you.

---

---

---

Why don't you read his paper and find out? You won't because you will find out that the math I've presented is correct.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you solve this problem with your fossil tea-leaf reading?

ringo:

---

Fool.

---

---

We'll take that as an admission that you can't. No surprise.

ringo:

---

I'm on pins and needles waiting for biologists to confirm your conclusions. When thet do, I'll take you seriously.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you get off your pins and needles and do it yourself?

ringo:

---

Why don't I fly around the world? Because I'm not a pilot.
​
Why don't I do biology? because I'm not a biologist.
​
But I do respect biologists. If it needs doing, they'll do it.

---

---

---

Biologists haven't explained the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. What's their excuse?

Kleinman:

---

Just imagine what those two selection pressures would do to the population of biology students.

ringo:

---

You seem to forget that creationism has already been selected OUT by ALL sciences, along with astrology, alchemy and flat-earthism. Even if you could destroy evolution, creationism isn't even NEAR to second place.

---

---

Tell that to the people with antimicrobial-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

Kleinman:

---

Abiogenesis and universal common descent, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. Yeah, I'm quaking in my boots.

ringo:

---

Clearly you ARE shaking in your boots, trying to divert attention from your ignorance by changing to an unrelated subject. (Abiogenesis is NOT biology, by the way. Look up "A".)
​
Go ahead and start a topic about abiogenesis. I dare ya, dumbest.

---

---

Shaking in my boots, that's hilarious! And I know why you won't read the Desai paper. It might as well be written in hieroglyphics without the rosetta stone for what you would understand.Are any varsity player's left out there? Or just the C- team?