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

Kleinman:

---

C is any allele that is not A or B. C doesn't have to be all the same allele, they just have to be different than A and B.

PaulK:

---

Then I suggest that you use less obfuscatory terminology.

---

---

I'm sorry that this simple concept confuses you. I wrote the following in the published paper: It couldn't be simpler. Try careful reading.

Kleinman:

---

Sure you do. You do that when you say one locus has A and C alleles and a second locus has B and D alleles.

PaulK:

---

In the same way that you “assume heterozygosity” when you say that the first locus can have A or C. I.e not at all.
​
And it should be perfectly clear that nothing in the following text supported your misinterpretation at all. It was just a straightforward explanation of the rule of 1.

---

---

I'm not misinterpreting anything. You just don't read very carefully. That's why you screw up such a simple concept.

Kleinman:

---

I'm sorry that this simple concept confuses you. I wrote the following in the published paper

PaulK:

---

Since the explanation is rather critical to understanding it, leaving it out is your failure,

---

---

Don't blame your confusion on me. Your confusion is your problem.

Kleinman:

---

I'm not misinterpreting anything

PaulK:

---

So you really do think that the rule of 1 only applies if we assume heterozygosity.

---

---

You are still confused.

Kleinman:

---

You just don't read very carefully

PaulK:

---

Oh, I get it. This is where you attribute your faults to others. You didn’t read carefully and misunderstood so you have to pretend that the writer didn’t read carefully.

---

---

You are the one blaming me for your confusion. Why don't you take responsibility for your own confusion?

Kleinman:

---

That's why you screw up such a simple concept.

PaulK:

---

I’m not the one that screwed up. But again, you have to attribute your faults to others.

---

---

You are confused so you blame me. No wonder you have such difficulty understanding such a simple topic.

Kleinman:

---

You can cherry-pick data all you want, it doesn't impress me. Anyone that thinks that 8% of the human genome consists of viral DNA has no idea what a virus does to a cell.

Tanypteryx:

---

Demonstrating your scientific rigor by denying that evidence exists is a good look for you.

---

---

You think that chasing bugs around demonstrates your scientific rigor. No wonder you can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Physics and mathematics are foreign subjects to you. Go chase some bugs, that's all you are good for.

Tanypteryx:

---

Demonstrating your scientific rigor by denying that evidence exists is a good look for you.

PaulK:

---

Apparently Kleinman doesn’t know what a retrovirus does to a cell.

---

---

Still confused, aren't you?

PaulK:

---

Apparently Kleinman doesn’t know what a retrovirus does to a cell.

Stile:

---

It's obvious that Kleinman doesn't know what he's talking about in any way. Even the basic math.

---

---

Yeah, right. Like you know how to do the mathematics of descent with modification and recombination. Why don't you explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? We won't hold our breath for that one.

Theodoric:

---

But, but, but...
He's a medical doctor and an engineer. But, but...

---

Yep, licensed in both fields. Why don't you file a complaint with the medical or engineering boards or both if you think I'm wrong? You won't because you are filled with hot air.

Tanypteryx:

---

So, still denying evidence, what a surprise. The only thing you have accomplished in your life is peddling bullshit.

---

Too bad you are too stupid to understand this concept.
Statistics for Dummies

quote:

---

How do you select a statistical sample in a way that avoids bias? The key word is random. A random sample is a sample selected by equal opportunity; that is, every possible sample of the same size as yours had an equal chance to be selected from the population. What random really means is that no subset of the population is favored in or excluded from the selection process.

​

Non-random (in other words bad) samples are samples that were selected in such a way that some type of favoritism and/or automatic exclusion of a part of the population was involved, whether intentional or not.

---

You didn't learn this chasing bugs.

Tanypteryx:

---

What does this have to do with whole genome sampling?

---

You are an idiot. Go chase bugs.

Kleinman:

---

You think that chasing bugs around demonstrates your scientific rigor.

Tanypteryx:

---

Well, you are not qualified to judge that, but I think it's fun and it taught me to identify thousands of species by sight. Plus I have supplied thousands of specimens for molecular sequencing.

---

---

You have absolutely no understanding of the laws of physics or mathematics. You only chase bugs.

Kleinman:

---

No wonder you can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Tanypteryx:

---

I have no reason to explain them, they are irrelevant to everyone but you, and apparently you can't explain them either.

---

---

These are the simplest examples of biological evolution and you have no idea how they work. That's because you are completely ignorant of the laws of physics and mathematics.

Kleinman:

---

Physics and mathematics are foreign subjects to you.

Tanypteryx:

---

If I can't figure a subject out, luckily I have smart friends who can explain it to me.

---

---

Your friends can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiment either. They don't understand the laws of physics and mathematics either.

Kleinman:

---

Go chase some bugs, that's all you are good for.

Tanypteryx:

---

At least I know how sex works and that it doesn't violate 2LoT.

---

---

Yeah right, you understand the second law of thermodynamics like you understand how biological evolution works and that is no understanding. Go chase some bugs, that's all you are good for.

Tanypteryx:

---

You are an idiot. Go chase bugs.

AZPaul3:

---

At least he's chasing something real not the bs fantasy you are fumbling all over.

---

---

Now, AZPaul3 is going to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Now that is a real fantasy.

AZPaul3:

---

At least he's chasing something real not the bs fantasy you are fumbling all over.

Tanypteryx:

---

And he still has no chance of explaining the patterns of ERVs, because he can't even figure out how to search for patterns in large data sets. He even thinks fossils are the work of Gypsies.

---

---

You are too stupid to realize you are not random sampling.

AZPaul3:

---

A good thing here is Taq has him fumbling over his own incompetent math which is fun to watch.

---

Taq is so poorly trained in mathematics that he doesn't know how to use the addition rule. He doesn't know when events are mutually exclusive or not.

Tanypteryx:

---

It has been entertaining.

---

Why would a dope like you find it entertaining not to do the physics and mathematics of biological evolution? You are a failure in your own subject. Go chase some bugs, that's all you are good for.

Theodoric:

---

Why would I file a complaint for you expressing a dumbass opinion? Neither board is interested in or has jurisdiction over you being a lying POS.You want to threaten me or just make attacks?

---

Oh really? You don't think the medical board has an interest in the correct description of the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. You are just an idiot full of hot air.

Kleinman:

---

Don't blame your confusion on me. Your confusion is your problem.

PaulK:

---

Your unclear writing is your problem. If A and B are alleles then the natural readings is that C is also an allele.

---

---

The peer reviewers had no trouble understanding my meaning and they published this work. You just don't read very carefully.

Kleinman:

---

You are still confused.

PaulK:

---

You object to a simple example of the rule of 1 on the grounds that it supposedly assumes heterozygosity (even though it doesn’t) You claim to understand what you are saying. The implication is obvious.

---

---

You assumed heterozygosity, I didn't. If I had, I would have done the problem as a multinomial distribution problem. There was no need since I was doing the simplest case first. Assuming heterozygosity reduces the probability of an adaptive recombination event occurring.

Kleinman:

---

You are the one blaming me for your confusion. Why don't you take responsibility for your own confusion?

PaulK:

---

You claimed that a simpler application of the rule of 1 assumed heterozygosity when it did not. That is your problem, not mine.

---

---

I didn't claim heterozygosity, you did. Why don't you accept the blame for your own blunders?