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

Dredge:

---

How can you criticise Kleinman when you don't even understand the basics of probability maths?

ringo:

---

How can YOU side with Kleinman when you admit to being an idiot?

---

---

It's not that complicated ringo, I know how to use the addition rule. It's clear that you and Taq have taken the same survey of math course based on the way you both use the addition rule. This is why social promotion is not a good idea in our educational system.

Troll.

Thank you. I'm glad to be included with Taq, though I don't think I deserve it.

Kleinman:

---

It's clear that you and Taq have taken the same survey of math course based on the way you both use the addition rule.

ringo:

---

Thank you. I'm glad to be included with Taq, though I don't think I deserve it.

---

---

I expect you to make a highschool level mathematical blunder, but Taq? I thought Taq had a little bit better understanding of introductory probability theory. No wonder Taq is having so much difficulty figuring out how random recombination works.

Yup. He is one of the worst we have had in a long time. He aspires to be a world class crank, but he is reduced to trolling our humble little forum.

I don't recall ever offering winning the lottery many times in a row as a model for abiogenesis. Please show me where I did that. I don't know anyone who knows what process produced the history of life on earth. Do you? I don't know anyone who knows how life started. Do you?

The word, "mathematics", is plural, so why do you Americanos call it "math", which is singular?Everytime you use "math", you should follow it with "(sic)".If "Sleepy Joe" Biden wants to be remembered as a great President who achieved great things, the first thing he should do is sign an Executive Order that declares the word "math" illegal, to be replaced by the word, "maths". Your comment demonstrates how stupid and deluded abiogenesis researches are. Pray tell, O Wise One, how can anyone calculate a probability for abiogenesis when no one knows how it happened? To be fair, for an idiot with a fragile, eggshell mind and an IQ of only 9, I think I'm doing OK.

Have you worked out yet that the probability of finding a cetacean with a fused sacrum is zero(0)?

Join the club: Someone who doesn't even understand highschool maths but sees fit to criticise Kleinman's work qualifies as an idiot.

Your constant idiotic blather does make it difficult to figure out just what the hell you're talking about. And my standard question for all creationists, "What the hell are you talking about?", has had no effect.However, the question under discussion was your stupidly ignorant assertion violating even the laws of mathematics that the probability of abiogenesis was so low as to be less than zero. Then from there you immediately veered off to a scenario of winning the lottery several times in a row. That was the only justification that you offered for your remark about the probability of abiogenesis, which is why any thinking person (which obviously excludes you) could only assume that that was your proposed model for abiogenesis probability.So then what? You were just lying, being a typical evil lying creationist? You were just jerking us around, being a typical evil lying troll? You yourself are a lost cause. You will never even try to learn anything; you will always be a eunuch your entire life (Marcus Lykus). But there are the lurkers (called "visitors" on this forum; right now there are only 5 members present, but 148 visitors) so while explanations are totally lost on you, visitors will still be able to learn from them.So then, if "winning the lottery many times in a row as a model for abiogenesis" is actually not your model, then just exactly what is your actual model? IOW, that constant question for creationists which they can never answer and which terrifies them to no end: What the hell are you talking about?Yes, of course! Evolution, which is an integral part of how life works. As long as there is life doing what life does, there will be evolution. Nobody can separate the two, so inextricably linked together they are.Just because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about doesn't mean that the rest of us are similarly afflicted.Of course, if you have some bizarrely aberrant definition of "evolution" which is completely different from actual biological evolution, then do please present it to us for our examination. No creationist has ever done that; honesty and truthfulness are completely beyond their grasp. First, how life started has absolutely no effect on evolution. All evolution requires is that life exists. Life exists. Life does what life does. The net result of life doing what life does is evolution.If you got life, then you got evolution. The two cannot be separated. You want to eliminate evolution by eliminating abiogenesis (as if you ever could)? Doesn't work that way. Quibbling over how life could have gotten here has absolutely no effect on the glaringly obvious fact that LIFE DOES EXIST! And once life exists, we immediately have evolution.So, yet again, What the hell are you talking about?Second, if life started through natural processes, then even if we don't know all the details we are at least able to identify the kinds of processes that would have had to have been involved, processes that we know a lot about, including how they work.In another thread, there's a subtitle like "Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything". Now that is just downright braindead stupidity. Knowing how natural processes work, we can reconstruct an overall framework for something like abiogenesis, basing it on what needs to be done and how natural processes work -- maybe you are abjectly ignorant of how Nature works, but the rest of us are not.At the very least, we can figure out enough about the natural processes involved to know how any probability math models would be needed to describe them. Your own offering of winning the lottery many times in a row is a splendidly complete failure. My complementary events model makes immensely more sense.

??? I have no idea what you talking about.

and that is why you should slink away back under your rock. You have a propensity not to know what people are talking about.

"immediately"? No "only justification"? No.
"thinking person"? No.After giving your excuses fair and due consideration, I have reached the conclusion that they are devoid of merit.The discussion about the odds of winning the lottery originated in Message 580, which I mentioned in an example of "ringo logic", which in turn arose from an discussion about "statistical impossibility".In some fit of discombobulation, you somehow concluded that I was using the lottery example as a model for abiogenesis. Your error can only be attributed to a lack of intelligence. Sorry. You want me to provide a model for an event that no one understands and no one will never understand? Golly.All I know is, according to the mathematics of God,
the probability of natural abiogenesis occurring is less than zero.

No one knows how "Evolution" produced the changes evident in the history of life on earth.For example, you don't know what process resulted in cetaceans lacking the fused sacrum that was present in their alleged evolutionary ancestors.

So we all can agree that NONE of us knows everything. But let's discuss not only the science but the research scientists. Do you have a preference?