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

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...

AZPaul3:

---

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.

---

Silly boy, you left out the vanity journal part of your claim.

AZPaul3:

---

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/cUFAn6vukD4
​
You're a failed star on both forums.

---

You are talking about an atheist physician that runs studies for the World Health Organisation searching for a durable treatment for malaria and couldn't figure out why his two-drug combination therapy failed. It was his failure that inspired the writing of this paper:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Too bad biologists failed to explain to him how drug resistance evolves.

AZPaul3:

---

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?

---

I've already given you positive responses, pay attention. It takes time to explain why universal common descent is not true for biologists that are poorly trained in mathematics and physics. That's why biologists have failed to correctly explain why drug resistance evolves and cancer treatments fail. Biologists don't understand how descent with modification works.

AZPaul3:

---

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/cUFAn6vukD4

nwr:

---

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.

---

---

So, the mathematician that doesn't do the mathematics of biology thinks that Joshua Swamidass's claim that humans and chimps are related using the mathematics of neutral evolution and Joe Felsenstein does his mathematics of inferential phylogenetics by nonrandom sampling of his data is the way to prove universal common descent? Try doing the math nwr. if you can.

AZPaul3:

---

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/cUFAn6vukD4

nwr:

---

Good find.

Tanypteryx:

---

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.

---

---

---

Don't blame me if biologists are slow learning why drug resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail. If biologists had some descent training in math and physics, they could explain how descent with modification works. At least Taq now understands, you, Tany is quite a bit slower. You know Tany, I wrote a couple of paragraphs to help novices like you to understand how descent with modification works. Here it is:

Kleinman:

---

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 wins 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.

---

Understand rubberband?

nwr:

---

It seems to be widely recognized that he is a crank. Nobody (except creationists) takes him seriously.

Tanypteryx:

---

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.

---

---

While you are mulling, why don't you mull over how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail? You might actually learn how descent with modification works. Taq finally understands. When are the rest of you biologists going to figure it out?

Theodoric:

---

Evaluating Alan Kleinman's arguments

---

Felsenstein booted me from his forum because I told him he was going to be held accountable for his blunders. Felsenstein doesn't like hearing that. Felsenstein refuses to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. He says it would take too long. Doing the mathematics of those two experiments is not much more than homework problems. If you don't correlate your mathematical models with experimental evidence is the formula for GIGO and that's what Felsenstein is doing. His biggest mathematical blunder is not random sampling his data when doing his inferential phylogenetics. If nwr is really a mathematician, he should understand that is a beginner student type blunder. But nwr doesn't do the mathematics of biology.

Kleinman:

---

Felsenstein refuses to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

AZPaul3:

---

Obsessed Johnny Onenote.

---

---

At least I have a note, biologists don't. And I don't blame biologists for not doing the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Why would they want to produce evidence that universal common descent is not possible? Of course, if you think that universal common descent is possible, present the mathematical and experimental evidence for your belief. You won't and Taq knows why.

Kleinman:

---

I've already given you positive responses, pay attention.

AZPaul3:

---

No you haven't. All you have given us is disingenuous excuses and lies.
​
You cannot provide any positive feedback from the science community on your drivel. The community has rejected your analysis and has ignored you since.

---

---

It doesn't help if I repeat myself to you, you are just to slow a learner. Just because biologists don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution doesn't make my mathematical explanation of experiments such as Kishony's and Lenski's wrong. They (and you) just refuse to accept the mathematical and physical facts of life. You need to take a course in introductory probability theory and learn what the effect of the multiplication rule is on joint random adaptive mutations. It's really not that difficult. Even Taq understands this.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists don't understand how descent with modification works.

AZPaul3:

---

Of course that makes you a martyr and a hero. The know-nothing world-wide discipline of thousands of biologists are all wrong. Only you are right.
​
You're an idiot. No one accepts your crap. You are reduced to shouting silently into the void. How many forums have rejected your presence? Include EvC.​

---

---

AZPaul3, you can believe that the earth is flat but don't teach that to naive school children as scientific fact. And I'm not the martyr, it's those dying of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments, a phenomenon caused by descent with modification, a subject that biologists fail to teach properly to naive school children.

Kleinman:

---

So, the mathematician that doesn't do the mathematics of biology thinks that Joshua Swamidass's claim that humans and chimps are related using the mathematics of neutral evolution and Joe Felsenstein does his mathematics of inferential phylogenetics by nonrandom sampling of his data is the way to prove universal common descent?

nwr:

---

Stop trying to tell me what I think. Your incompetence at mind reading is exceeded only by your incompetence at understanding evolution.

---

---

I don't have to read your mind on that one, you told us you don't do the mathematics of biology. Obviously, the math is too difficult for you. Let's try this one again and take the simplest example of descent with modification. What is the mathematical explanation for the reason that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment? At least Tany can answer that one, his problem is that he thinks DNA evolution works differently for viruses, bacteria, and yeasts than for complex, multicellular sexually replicating organisms. I wonder if all biologists agree on that?

AZPaul3:

---

I thought I heard some shouting coming thru the void. No, Just Kleinman again.

---

You might as well get used to it, somebody has to teach novices, laymen, and biologists how descent with modification works.

Kleinman:

---

... somebody has to teach novices, laymen, and biologists how descent with modification works.

AZPaul3:

---

And it sure ain't going to be you. You have shown yourself to be incompetent.

---

---

AZPaul3 has made some progress, he now knows that biologists don't know how to explain descent with modification.

Tanypteryx:

---

Pure Bullshit Gold is your theme song.

---

Does that mean that you aren't going to explain why DNA evolution for viruses, bacteria, and yeast is different for complex, multicellular, sexually replicating organisms? That as good as Taq's claim that multiple alleles can fix simultaneously. Do you have anything else to throw up against the wall and see if it will stick? And sooner or later, you will have to face the music.

Tanypteryx:

---

You're such a Bullshit Peddler.

---

You wish I was peddling bullshit. You just haven't ever experienced hard mathematical science being applied to biological evolution. You came in late in the discussion. Do you even know what physical processes Darwin described and which laws of physics (thermodynamics) applies to these processes?

Tanypteryx:

---

Pink Floyd is my favorite.

---

Are you really that old? The only song I remember from that group is "Money".

AZPaul3:

---

Regardless, your god is a fraud born from the darkest hate of men's minds.

---

And there is no hate in your mind?

AZPaul3:

---

The idea of gods, your god especially, has poisoned the mind of the entire species. Substituting fantasy for reality has let the warlords and the priests subjugate whole societies and make war with impunity. Your god is the bloodiest most hateful evil conception ever to enter the human mind.
​
My “hate” for theism is mild in comparison to what has been practiced and perpetrate by religion’s faithful over millennia. Intellectual opposition only incents theists to greater violence. Having no hold on reality allows them to justify their evil through their fantasy. Hate is in your god. Evil is Her name.

---

Do atheists have a perfect understanding of reality and never sin?

AZPaul3:

---

What sin?

---

What you call evil.

Theodoric:

---

Sin ≠ Evil. Sin is a religious construct with little relation to reality. Yes murder is considered a sin, but so are things like blasphemy, masturbation and homosexuality. None of those are evil.
So please try to define sin again.

---

Why do you get the right to define what is evil and what isn't?