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

Says the bullshit peddler who's only citations are his own.

You stupid creationist!Your brain is broken; it keeps skipping. It's unable to engage in any kind of actual thought.Counter-challenges: Of course you can't. Why should you? Has nothing to do with the fact that you are a creationist using dishonest creationist tactics.So respond to your being a stupid creationist instead of constantly trying to change the subject like a typical stupid creationist.

Me thinks Kleinman’s mind is more broken than I thought. Kleinman’s math was shown to be wrong. His analyses have been shown to be wrong. His pronouncements on evolution, genetics, biology, humanity, religion have all been shown to be wrong. With the scaffolding of his ego crumbling, I think he has to retreat into this safe place of his own misconceptions. Always the same misconceptions. It's like his mind cannot handle the disconnects between his ego and how he is perceived, which is poorly, deservedly, imho.

quote:

---

You fail to do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments and you don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

---

I see whenever he is challenged and knows he has lost there seems only the one thought process - run home to mama. Speak the invective. Recite the mantra.

quote:

---

You fail to do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments and you don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

---

I think his mind cannot function without the constant use of the crutch. Notice how often and how verbatim throughout this thread. He seems mentally stuck in a very deep deflection of reality. He has developed this into a mental tic.Yeah, Taq was right. Kleinman is broken.

At least he recognizes a world class bug chaser when he sees one.

Taq doesn't understand that a phage is not an example of descent with modification. His Lederberg example is not an example of descent with modification. And he can't explain his own example. His example of a retrovirus in koalas driving them to extinction is not an example of 200k harmless retroviral infections in a germ line cell. A constant environment with a single constant selection pressure does not model a real environment so any conclusion you try to draw from these experimental examples has to be interpreted in this context. It still gives an accurate way of identifying the number of replications needed in order for descent with modification to have an adaptive mutation occur on some variant. However, a variable environment with multiple selection pressures behaves in a totally different manner than a constant single selection pressure environment when demonstrating biological competition and recombination. In a constant selection pressure environment, the most fit variants will increase in number improving the biological competition (fixation) and recombination (an adaptive event) for those variants. In a multiple selection pressure, changing environment, the most fit variant will be changing as the environment changes which will slow, the increase in frequencies of any variants in that environment that is continually changing, reducing the probabilities of fixation and an adaptive recombination event occurring. That is why, in the real situation, combination therapy works. It takes a larger population for descent with modification to adapt to two or more selection conditions than to one selection condition. It is the multiplication rule. That's why 3-drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy works for the control of weeds and insects. Taq can look for exceptions to these rules but that is what they are, exceptions. He has less than a weak argument to claim that UCD is possible based on these exceptions to the rule, but that is what his position is. Of course, he doesn't know the rules, otherwise, he could explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. He says he gives that explanation but where it is, nobody knows.Tany's record speaks for itself. He chases bugs but knows nothing about biological evolution. He doesn't know how many citations my papers get and he doesn't know how many people read my papers. He doesn't understand the difference between biological competition and descent with modification, an elementary principle that every biologist should know, but he doesn't know.dwise1 tries to change the subject to computer minutiae which has nothing to do with biological evolution. He should stick with smilie faces, that has more pertinence to biological evolution (which is none). But what can he do when his delusions burst?AZPaul3's understanding of biological evolution is limited to reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals but he can't explain the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. He might as well read fairy tales for what he has learned. And I hope he likes it dry, real dry.And I want to thank you, you have increased the number of reads of my papers and citations as well. Keep up the good work.

Fraud.

AZPaul3:

---

Fraud.

---

Succinct but wrong. Aren't you going to explain to us the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail? If we can't get that, tell us how reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. We won't get that from this C- team member.

Before you came in did you let mama know you were home?

AZPaul3:

---

Before you came in did you let mama know you were home?

---

Is that all you can come up with? You won't be explaining how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. If you can't do that, tell us how reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. We want a good science fiction story.

Read your own catechism.

The reads were us, so those were also rejections. The citation authors will be embarrassed when they find out your papers are bullshit, but I think you are exaggerating.

Kleinman:

---

We want a good science fiction story.

AZPaul3:

---

Read your own catechism.

---

---

What's the matter, are tired of telling naive children that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? Of course, explaining the evolution of drug resistance and explaining why cancer treatments fail, that's reality which you can't explain and everyone knows it.

Kleinman:

---

you have increased the number of reads of my papers and citations as well

Tanypteryx:

---

The reads were us, so those were also rejections. The citation authors will be embarrassed when they find out your papers are bullshit, but I think you are exaggerating.

---

---

There must be thousands of you reading my papers and that's just the reads from ResearchGate. That doesn't include those reading directly from the publishers' website or the National Library of Medicine. And don't worry about the authors citing my papers, they got it right, something which you don't get. Why don't you tell us about all your papers chasing bugs which explain how biological evolution works, all zero of them.

No. You need to understand the biology first. I don't see where he mentions you in that.