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

The Lawof Thermodynamics has nothing to with the TOE. TOE does not go counterproductive the law.
Do you even know what scientific laws and theories are?

Kleinman:

---

You have no way of explaining that different species are related.

Taq:

---

Sure I do. In fact, I have a proposed new topic on that very subject.

---

---

Good for you, I hope your readers are convinced. You certainly haven't convinced anyone here except for Tany who spends all his time chasing bugs.

The goalposts are no longer on the field of play.

Kleinman:

---

A is at one locus and B is at a second locus.

Taq:

---

If they are at different genes then they are no longer mutually exclusive.

---

---

They are until an adaptive recombination event occurs or a mutation gives an A or B allele where none existed. You are a dummy.

Any relationships that do exist are rather mundane. Even Darwin recognized the impact limited resources would have on evolution, and one could say that is tied to the 1LoT. It's not that earth shattering, though.What would be interesting is to see where the 2LoT is supposed to fit into the theory of evolution, according to Kleinman. We often see the faulty conflation of entropy and Shannon information. Those are analogous processes, not homologous. Others try to say that species should "breakdown" over time because the 2LoT demands it. These are the types of people who don't understand that negative entropy is a thing. If it weren't, their refrigerators wouldn't work. They seem to forget that an input of energy into a system can reduce entropy.There really isn't any solid tie between 2LoT and genome sequences. The replication of DNA itself requires a net reduction in entropy to start with, so I really don't see how the order of bases really matters with respect to 2LoT. I mean, heat moves from hot things to cold things . . . therefore DNA . . . what?

Then your addition rule doesn't apply to any variants in the human genome. A recombination event will put any de novo beneficial mutation into the same genome that contains many, many already existing beneficial variants, and those recombination events occur with every single offspring.You do understand that in sexual species there is a recombination event for every single individual, right?

When faced with evidence, this is the best you can do. Go figure.

And the earth is not a closed system.

Funny how creationists can never understand this simple concept.The best is when they claim that humans couldn't have evolved from a single cell to a complex, multicellular organism because that would violate the 2LoT. You then remind them of how babies are made. You remind them that at one point in time they were a single cell. The responses I have heard after this bit of creationist theatre still make me chuckle. It ranges from "DNA has instructions that allow violations of the 2LoT" to "the womb is protected from thermodynamics". Cheap laughs, but still laughs.

Of course that's what he did. He's a creationist! Applying valid tests in an abusive manner (eg, applying the wrong test) is baked into his DNA.The same way that he constantly abuses mathematics by choosing the wrong math models.Show me an honest creationist and I'll show you the personification of an oxymoron. In popular parlance, he would be called a "unicorn", something that shouldn't exist.

Nor is any living organism that inhabits the earth.In trying to explain evolution to creationists, I've taken to using a simple operational definition: Evolution and how it works is tied inexorably to Life and how life works.Therefore, for evolution to violate the laws of thermodynamics, it must be true that life itself also violates the laws of thermodynamics and hence, according to the creationists, life itself could not possibly exist. "Epur si muove." ("And yet it does move." -- Galileo).Life clearly does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, therefore evolution also does not. Every single one of us reduces entropy every second of our lives, until we die at which point entropy catches up again very rapidly.How is that possible? Because none of us is a closed system. Rather, we are all open systems constantly taking in energy to work against entropy.

And he keeps trying to imply that there is something morally repugnant about being an entomologist, when everyone knows it's those arachnologist mathematicians.

My introduction to retroviruses and their significance was about 35 years ago in Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (by Edward E. Max, Creation/Evolution, Issue XIX, WInter 1986-1987 -- link is to the online copy at NCSE). That article also introduced me to a directory publisher's trick to protect their copyright:

quote:

---

A Possible Way to Resolve the Deadlock

​

One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following true cases from the legal literature. In 1941, the author of a chemistry textbook was the plaintiff in a suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook. In 1946, the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher. In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge and both directories listed members of the same industry, so substantial similarity would be expected even if no copying had occurred. However, in both cases errors present in the "originals" appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers now routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.)

​

Can "errors" in modern species be used as evidence of "copying" from ancient ancestors? In fact, the answer to this question appears to be "yes," since recent molecular genetics investigations have uncovered some examples of the same "errors" present in the genetic material of humans and apes.

---

The point was that for the exact-same errors due to ERVs to show up in the exact-same place in the genome is highly improbable. And applying the multiplication rule to all those independent errors is far more improbable. The only reasonable explanation is that those embedded ERVs show up because they were copied from ancestors to descendents, which is evidence for different species to be on a common tree of descent. In the election deniers' complaints of election rigging in the 2020 election, they loudly proclaimed having hard evidence of massive voter fraud in Edison County. The problem was that Edison County does not exist. That was almost as good as their claims of election fraud in Wisconsin using videos from election offices in Detroit ... which I had always thought was in Michigan.So to double-check I turned to Wikipedia to verify what said about Edison County not existing (I'm ever the skeptic). At the time, Wikipedia redirected me to this article, Fictitious entry:

quote:

---

Fictitious or fake entries are deliberately incorrect entries in reference works such as dictionaries, encyclopedias (including Wikipedia), maps, and directories. There are more specific terms for particular kinds of fictitious entry, such as Mountweazel, trap street, paper town, phantom settlement, and nihilartikel.

​

Fictitious entries are added by the editors as a copyright trap to reveal subsequent plagiarism or copyright infringement.

---

Mountweazel refers to fountain designer turned photographer, Lillian Virginia Mountweazel, who died in an explosion while on assignment for Combustibles magazine. She never existed but rather was a fake biographical article.It's a fun Wikipedia article to read because of its many examples.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? "do an example of biological evolution"? If English is a foreign language for you, would you prefer using a different one? Man kann „do“ nicht genau benutzen, als man „machen“ kann, stimmt's? Wakirimasen ka?I do however understand a lot of biological evolution and how it works. And you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.How much biology did you take pre-med? Sadly, according to Dr. Eugenie Scott (PhD Biological Anthropology), it turns out that many universities leave out evolution in their undergraduate biology classes, creating a huge gap in their students' education.From when she taught physical anthropology, she tells the story of biology majors, mostly seniors, needing one more science class to meet their general-ed requirements, so they took her class "for an easy A" (the poor fools!). Their own biology classes hadn't covered evolution, but she most definitely did cover it in her class. During the semester, she would watch the light suddenly going on in each of those bio majors' heads: "So that's why ... !" Suddenly, that massive body of isolated and completely unrelated facts all fit together and finally made sense!The key role that evolution plays in understanding biology is expressed in this well-known quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky's article, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129):

quote:

---

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole. . . . Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

---

Evolution's role as the cornerstone of biology played a part in the creation of the revived creationist movement in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansa (1968). In the post-Sputnik knee-jerk reaction to advance US science and math education, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) formed in 1958 and developed a biology curriculum in which, being actual biologists and not mere professional textbook writers, they applied what they knew, that evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Susan Epperson was a biology teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas. Arkansas had passed a "monkey law" in the 1920's which would destroy her teaching career just by ever mentioning the "e-word" in class. Her school adopted the BSCS textbook which she was required to use. If she used it then she'd lose her teaching license, but if she refused she'd be fired. So she sued, the case went up to the US Supreme Court, and the "monkey laws" were struck down. That woke up the anti-evolution movement that had lain dormant after its victories in the 20's and which led to the current creationist movement.From the Wikipedia article on the BSCS:

quote:

---

Evolution controversy

​

During the Cold War, in 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first Earth orbiting artificial satellite, Sputnik I. The event triggered alarm in United States by heightening fears there that the Soviet Union were achieving technological and strategic superiority. One response to what the Americans termed the Sputnik crisis was to invest money and expertise towards a re-invigoration of the country's science and technological educational system. It was during this period that the BSCS was engaged to develop updated high school biology textbooks. The biology texts they developed covered evolutionary theory, which was by this time overwhelmingly accepted as biology's central organizing principle.

​

These books became widely used in the nation's high schools, and as a consequence, the public controversy about the teaching of evolution in public schools re-ignited. After a 1968 Supreme Court decision nullified decades-old laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in many places of the country, some evolution opponents turned their efforts against the public funding of evolutionary teaching, including publicly funded textbooks. The BSCS textbooks were featured in the 1973 case Willoughby v. Stever, a suit filed by an evangelical opponent of evolution who attempted, and failed, to have the evolution instruction in the textbook legally recognized as an unconstitutional establishment of religious secularism. The case was dismissed as meritless, and was cited as legal precedent in other groundbreaking decisions in the American cultural battle over evolution in the schools.

---

 
So then it is sadly obvious that your own pre-med biology education was impoverished by having leaving out evolution, thus leaving you abjectly ignorant of it. Your religious dedication to the false theology of creationism only makes your affliction even worse.Please learn something about that which you would wish to oppose.

quote:

---

They are until an adaptive recombination event occurs or a mutation gives an A or B allele where none existed. You are a dummy.

---

First, adding up the frequencies of different things makes no mathematical sense. The sum of the frequencies of the alleles for any locus will be 1. Adding in the frequencies for another is pointless as any contribution must be cancelled.Second, in the situation you describe, the “overlap” will be total for the rarer allele. So it will - unsurprisingly - contribute nothing to the total.