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

AZPaul3:

---

I wasn't talking to you, fraud. I was talking to the gallery.
​
And thank you, vimesey.

---

AZPaul3 will now give a mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments based on vimesey's link. Now that's a dream. That paper explains nothing about biological evolution. And I hope you like it dry, real dry.

Vimsey:

---

It's also a very useful run-through of how the second law of thermodynamics does indeed support the evolution of life

AZPaul3:

---

I liked Jeremy England's work.
​
Under a thermodynamic excess more complex chemical reactions occur spontaneously. Statistically, says England, the emergence of life on this planet was inevitable.
​
Jeremy England - Wikipedia

---

---

Sure, just like the fossil record supports your garbage. Maybe Jeremy England can explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments since biologists can't. Perhaps he is too busy making up stories for the mathematically incompetent. Or perhaps he can put some water in Lake Mead? He certainly doesn't understand descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists have no idea what the second law of thermodynamics is or does.

vimesey:

---

Oh but they do. Millions and millions of them understand how it applies to life and to evolution. And they have access to data, experiments, fossils, museums, and mountains of data which support evolution.
​
You're a mathematician - you must have studied probability. What are the odds that millions and millions of scientists are all wrong, and the vast mountains of evidence are all invalid, and only you and some text written by a goathearder, high on some wackie baccie 3 or 4 thousand years ago, are right ?
​
I know where I'm placing my bet.

---

---

Sure, we can tell by all the biologists' explanations of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. And let us not forget their explanations of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That explains their level of understanding of biological evolution. Millions and millions of biologists that don't understand thermodynamics. They just didn't get it in their survey courses. Of course, with your understanding of probability theory, you can explain descent with modification. Yeah, right. How long have you had your gambling addiction?

AZPaul3:

---

Wasn't talking to you, skank.

---

Oh, your stupid conversation was private? Now that you understand the second law of thermodynamics, you will explain to us the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Not from a dim bulb like you. You are too busy drying out like Lake Mead.

vimesey:

---

That looks interesting - I'll see if I can find his work online. Thanks Paul.
​
No day is wasted when you learn something new.

---

Now that you are an expert in the second law of thermodynamics, could you explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail? While you are at it, explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments since biologists seem to have trouble with those. See if you can find it online.

Kleinman:

---

They are your imaginary links, you post them.

ringo:

---

Tell it to Google.

---

---

You're the one not posting your imaginary links.

ringo:

---

Do you understand yet that A → B and A → C are NOT the same as B → C ?

ringo:

---

My silliness is entertaining. My redundancy is about the same as yours (Kishoni, Lenski, Desai, oh my!)
​
What's worse is your evasion. Do you understand yet that A → B and A → C are NOT the same as B → C ? Unless you understand that, there's no point in you even mentioning anything about evolution.

---

---

My redundancy is about real, measureable, and repeatable examples of biological evolution. And you don't know anything about biological evolution.
Message 2230

Kleinman:

---

They might get all confused!

ringo:

---

There is no room for confusion because they have no idea where evolution is taking them (their descendants) or even that evolution is taking them anywhere.

---

---

The Kishony and Lenski bacteria are going someplace but it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step.
Message 2231

Kleinman:

---

The laws of thermodynamics apply in open and closed systems.

ringo:

---

The lawS, plural. The increase in energy when an organism eats accounts for the increase in entropy. You can't have one law without the other.

---

---

Just think how much Weight Watchers have reduce entropy.
Message 2232

Kleinman:

---

Tell us why the laws of thermodynamics don't apply in an open system.

ringo:

---

They don't apply the way you want them to because they work in combination. A process proceeds if the net free energy is positive.

---

---

Now that you are an expert in the thermodynamics of evolution, could you explain to us the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. What should we Google?

Kleinman:

---

Felsenstein banned me because I told him he would be held accountable for his blunders.

dwise1:

---

No, obviously he had banned you from Panda's Thumb for being a troll, just as you are doing here.
​
It currently shows that you have posted 1420 messages. Feeling very charitable at the moment, I would estimate that about twenty (20) of those message contained actual content, actually said something that might contribute to discussion. The remaining one thousand four hundred (1400) have been nothing more than garbage trolling.
​
Troll.

---

---

Wrong again, ye of little understanding. But since you have become an expert on the second law of thermodynamics, could you explain to us why drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail? While you are at it, give us a mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. If you have trouble with that, AZPaul3 and vimesey can explain it to you, they are super duper experts on the second law of thermodynamics.

vimesey:

---

Nope - not an expert, but an intelligent man who trusts the theories and the mountains of evidence of a huge number of highly intelligent scientists, rather than the religiously driven drivel of a single voice, gnashing his teeth in the wilderness.

---

Of course, you are not an expert and neither is the guy that wrote that paper on the second law of thermodynamics. Otherwise, he could explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. In addition, he could do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. He doesn't know anything about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

ringo:

---

(Kishoni, Lenski, Desai, oh my!)

AZPaul3:

---

I have just shamelessly stolen this for my own use.

---

---

Too bad you don't know how any of those experiments work even though you are an expert in the second law of thermodynamics. I hope you like it dry, real dry.

Kleinman:

---

You're the one not posting your imaginary links.

ringo:

---

I'm not posting a link to Google, either. You should be able to find it yourself.

---

---

That's silly. How do you find a paper written by a biologist that explains how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail? That's only in your imagination, otherwise you would have posted those links long ago.

Kleinman:

---

How do you find a paper written by a biologist that explains how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

ringo:

---

I googled "how drug resistance evolves" (15,800,000 hits) and "why cancer treatments fail" (108,000,000 hits).

---

---

All you have to do is post one and you can't even do that because biologists are still trying to figure it out.

dwise1:

---

Yet again your only response is to spew yet more troll garbage.

---

All I have to do is ask you to explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail and ask you to do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You fail and you can't hide it with smilies. You don't know how biological evolution works and your posts reveal that.

AZPaul3 tries to cover up the fact that he has no idea how drug resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail. And he certainly can't do the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments no matter how many photos he posts. He is totally ignorant of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution and everyone knows it. And I hope he likes it dry, real dry.

Phat:

---

Before we go any further, I want to know about your beliefs. No math is needed for this one except for perhaps 1x1x1.
​
Do you believe in a higher power?
​
Are you aware of how Christians (myself included) sometimes conflate Gods omniscience with their own ideas and need to prop themselves up by visiting many forums, publishing a few papers, and feeling like legends in their own minds simply because nobody allows themselves to be set up to be knocked down by forcing themselves to agree with your theories? I know I do it. The day the peanut gallery agrees with me is the day I would question my own sanity.
​
But I DO believe in God, known through Jesus Christ and alive today. My simple question is whether you believe in Him.

---

I don't know how that makes any difference in a debate about how evolution works. The laws of physics and mathematics are the same for everyone. It isn't easy to debate these physical laws with people that don't know the least thing about them. But in answer to your question, I'm a Messianic Jew (for AZPaul3 sake about me being a Catholic). He really grovels around looking for an insult. By the way, those few papers explain how descent with modification and recombination works. It also explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why 3 drug combination therapy works for treating HIV and why combination selection pressures work for treating weeds and insects. It's all about the multiplication rule of probabilities (which Edward Tatum wrote about in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture).

Kleinman:

---

All I have to do is ask you to explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail and ask you to do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You fail and you can't hide it with smilies. You don't know how biological evolution works and your posts reveal that.

Phat:

---

As I said in the last post, you seem to feel better (smarter? Validated as a man with God's special and unique intelligence?) Is this why you justify not being mainstream science (some claim you are not truly in the same camp as scientists) Is this because you yourself are wrong or is it because an ever-growing list of critics are all wrong for failing to do your math the way that you want them to do/understand it?
​
Some honesty would be appreciated in your reply.

---

---

I have a God-given gift. He gave me the gift to do applied mathematics. You don't have to be smarter than these people. You just have to explain the fundamentals of biological evolution which they can't. Drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments have been around for more than 60 years and they have made no headway in explaining how this happens. Like I said in my last post, Edward Tatum gives an important clue about how this works in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. They can refuse to read and understand what he said but the price is paid by those with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. There is no good excuse for this taking so many years to solve. They have plenty of experimental data (the Kishony and Lenski experiments) and empirical data. This is a failure on the part of biologists. I will not let their stubbornness stop me from explaining this and I will continue to remind them that they have failed to explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. This list of critics needs to explain that but they fail.