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

"They" didn't peer review your work. It was vanity published, as you know well, and no peer review was done.

Kleinman:

---

They know my math is correct, that's why they published it.

AZPaul3:

---

"They" didn't peer review your work. It was vanity published, as you know well, and no peer review was done.

---

---

So, John Wiley & Sons, is a vanity publisher, and Statistics in Medicine doesn't peer review the papers published in their journal? I guess that's why three of my papers are in the National Library of Medicine. Two of those papers explain adaptive DNA evolution and the other random recombination. Laymen, novices, and biologists (that includes you AZPaul3, you are a novice layman) don't have the training or experience to do this kind of scientific analysis. That's why you don't see DNA evolutionary adaptation explained correctly in any journals other than Statistics in Medicine.

John Wiley & Sons is a book seller and does not publish an independent peer reviewed scientific journal. They publish hundreds of journals as as service available to the independent journals. They do not have their own journal. They are a publishing house, not a journal. You're trying to hide the weenie again.

AZPaul3:

---

John Wiley & Sons is a book seller and does not publish an independent peer reviewed scientific journal.

---

So, Tany isn't the only poster on this forum that doesn't do their homework.
Here's the Wiley page for Statistics in Medicine
https://www.wiley.com/...tistics+in+Medicine-p-9780JNRL02161
And here's a list of over 1600 scientific journals that John C. Wiley & Sons publishes:
Just a moment...

You didn't have to prove me right so quickly. I thought you might want to hide more weenies first.Yes, as i said, they are a publishing house. They publish journals. They do not create them, edit them or review them.You also have a group of detractors over at Google Groups, talk.origins. They know your math is erroneous, your observations bogus, just as we concluded. They didn't like your personality either.https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cUFAn6vukD4You're a failed star on both forums.Do you have any positive responses to any of your papers? Where are the glowing reviews of your genius breakthroughs? As staggeringly brilliant as you say your work is, redirecting all of science onto the proper probability models, there should be legions of testimonials. Where are they? You hide those weenies too?

You seem to have ignored the part that says,
"Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument."
Forbidden - Stack Exchange.
In other words, since the probabilty of the same person winning the lottery 1000 times in a row is much much less than 10^-50 (cf. 2.414×10^-8000)
, "the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument."But if you want to push an irrational, unreasonable argument, be my guest ... I know La La Land has a special place in your heart.

Okay, thanx for the tip.

Good find.He has also tried at discourse.peacefulscience.org and a post at Pandas Thumb was opened to allow him to argue in the comments there.It seems to be widely recognized that he is a crank. Nobody (except creationists) takes him seriously.

Damn. He is full of shit all over the place.

Good to know, indeed.I think this is his third pass through EvC and as I remember now his message and manner hasn't changed. It doesn't surprise me that there are other forums where his work has earned skepticism rather than serious consideration.When he said "National Library of Medicine", a light went off and had kind of a deja vu flash. I had looked at info about the library and there were some interesting critical reviews of the library's poor quality vetting, in recent years, because they're overwhelmed with submissions. The NLM is the world's largest repository of medical information, and Kleinman's 3 articles are mostly unnoticed amidst millions of others. That seems like what happened on his prior visits here. This time it took me a while remember him from earlier, and he seems a lot more pissed at biologists because we all think he's a crank.ABE: This will give me something to mull over on the road tomorrow and when I get home I want to go read about their interactions with him at other discussion groups.

Evaluating Alan Kleinman's arguments

So if God performed abiogenesis through natural processes, what then?Do you still deny it vehemently?Of course you do, because you are nothing more than a fake creationist!An actual creationist would believe that The Creator created The Creation as it is and as it works. Since The Creator created those very physical processes producing life from non-life, then abiogenesis would actually serve as witness for The Creator.But willfully stupid fake creationists like you insist that abiogenesis through natural processes disprove God. Such fucking stupid idiots you are! 
Learn the difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection -- refer to my pages starting at MONKEY for a more complete explanation (which I have absolutely no doubt that you are too afraid of to read).Creating something slightly complex and ordered (eg, the alphabet in alphabetical order) entirely at random through a series of single attempts to produce that string would, using a supercomputer fare more powerful than anybody's PC, require thousands of times more time that the universe is even estimated by exist (c. 13 billion years, not the stupid YEC 10,000 years). But then cumulative selection which consists of multiple attempts each being a small step from a previous next-best result accomplishes the task in seconds -- repeatedly, reliably, without fail. Cumulative selection is based on evolution, which is why it works so well. In my examination of the probabilities involved (see MPROBS) I arrived at the conclusion that, as improbable as it was for any one advancement to work, the probability that all attempts in the population would fail consistently and repeatedly over all the generations just became far more vanishingly improbably, virtually impossible if you would, that those other improbabilities, so eventual advancement of at least one individual became inevitable, like a single individual in an entire large population playing the lottery eventually winning the jackpot.In contrast, single-step selection is much more modeled on creation ex nihilo, so the only way that that sorry approach could ever work would have to be through Divine Intervention.Ironically, creationists keep trying to saddle evolution with their own stupid single-step selection which only serves to show that they have no understanding of evolution at all.Chemistry is chemistry. The gods do not interfere with that, nor with any other aspect of science. That is why science (and mathematics) works regardless of which gods you pray to. 
I really do wish, though, that you fucking willfully stupid creationists will one day finally pull your collective heads out and wake up.

Moot point. I'll address your question when you can demonstrate that abiogenesis was the result of natural processes ... which will never happen. Not in a million years will your dumb god of science be able to demonstrate abiogenesis.

So then you are defining "the mathematics of God" as complete and utter bullshit which is not only utterly false but also completely useless.That's how you want to define "the mathematics of God" (which reflects on God Herself) then fine! Go right ahead! Knock yourself out! If you know nothing about what you are fighting against, then how could you ever possibly hope to fight against it?That makes you nothing more than the most incredibly stupid fucking idiot of all time.Just roll over and let your enemy disembowel you right on the spot. And rightfully so!You have absolutely no desire to oppose any opponent! You just want to be killed off!Pathetic!

YOU FUCKING STUPID IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!Abiogenesis HAPPENED!How?YOU want to claim that it could not have been through natural processes. WHY NOT? You APOSTATE HERETICAL PIECE OF SHIT!If GOD created those natural processes, then anything that HE/SHE did through those natural processes WAS DONE BY GOD!!!!!!, you vile less-than-a-worm!That is why you are nothing more than a fake creationist who wants to denigrate The Creation as some kind of "proof against God". HERETIC!So would you want to get on board with Actual Creationism, or remain a heretical fake creationist?Your choice, but I have no doubt that you will make the decidedly wrong decision, stupid as you repeatedly prove to be.