Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Kleinman:

---

The same way that the koala population may go extinct?

Taq:

---

Your claim is that there shouldn't even be new koala offspring. There is.

---

---

I realize that you are trying to support an irrational idea but this single retrovirus is killing koalas and MAY cause the extinction of that lineage. Why won't you acknowledge the lethality of retroviruses and that insertion of the virus into the host genome is only one part of the viruses' life cycle? And then you extrapolate this single event and claim that it can happen 203,000 times and the germ cell line does just fine. You aren't making sense.

Kleinman:

---

Why would you claim that koalas don't have their own DNA that controls transcription?

Taq:

---

That's completely irrelevant. We are talking about the viral genomes that have been inserted into the koala genome.

---

---

You are talking about a single virus with koalas and then trying to extrapolate that result to 203,000 viral infections of a germ cell lineage. Why do you refuse to see what is happening to the koala population from a single retroviral infection? Then try to consider the consequences of 203,000 infections to a lineage. What do you think happens to koala offspring born with the virus in every one of their cells but manage to survive? Don't you think it is possible for that viral infection to reactivate in some of those cells? And then what happens to the offspring?

Kleinman:

---

Why won't you accept the fact that koalas are threatened by extinction from this virus, regardless of whether the insertion of the viral genome or not?

Taq:

---

Why won't you accept that these viral sequences exist in germline cells and are being passed down vertically without birth defects?

---

---

Are you having that much difficulty reading my posts? I've said that viral sequences can be inserted into host cells such as herpes zoster and HIV. But the virus is not deactivated when it does this as indicated by the occurrence of shingles and the fact that HIV can not be cured. And if the virus inserts into a germ cell, the offspring formed by that germ cell will have that viral disease. You want to claim that this can happen 203,000 times. That's why it surprises me that someone that claims to be a virologist would make such an assertion.

Kleinman:

---

And then you claim that 203,000 retroviruses can infect a germ cell line without killing that lineage just because a virus that is driving a koala population toward extinction is being inserted into the genome.

Taq:

---

You are claiming no offspring should even be possible. That is what I am addressing. Admit that you are wrong and we can move on to the next dumb statement you are making.

---

---

Try reading my post again, because that is not what I'm saying. It is clear that you will not acknowledge what the life cycle of a virus is and that killing the host cell is part of that life cycle. Insertion of the virus genome into the host genome is only part of that life cycle and the reactivation of the virus and replication followed by the killing of the host cell is part of that life cycle. Now you want to claim that it can happen 203,000 times. You do not make sense.

Kleinman:

---

And if the virus inserts into a germ cell, the offspring formed by that germ cell will have that viral disease.

Taq:

---

You claimed that koala embryos could never even be formed, or that they would be born with birth defects. Neither is occurring. Admit your error and we can move on.

---

---

Don't be silly. But I don't blame you for wanting to bail out from this discussion. It isn't difficult to explain why your concepts of nested hierarchies and retroviruses are nonsensical. We all look forward to your publication of a mathematical explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

AZPaul3:

---

show us one of these majik biological lineages that violates the nested hierarchy.

Dredge:

---

I already have ... and many more than just one ... most of the novel Phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion. A Phylum that appears in the fossil record with no evolutionary history isn't part of a nested hierarchy.

---

---

Dredge, don't you know that AZPaul3 is an atheist? AZPaul3 says that atheists don't believe in anything. Actually, AZPaul3 will believe anything that fits his belief system, and his belief system is quite nonsensical.

Kleinman:

---

Dredge, don't you know that AZPaul3 is an atheist? AZPaul3 says that atheists don't believe in anything. Actually, AZPaul3 will believe anything that fits his belief system

Dredge:

---

I understand that, as an atheist, it's very easy for APauling to believe the Darwinian bedtime story ... despite what the fossil record says.

---

---

It is not just AZPaul3, you have a bunch of these atheists, here on this forum. They think they have the corner on science but don't understand the simplest principles. What is sad is how their kind of thinking permeates the field of biology. It is no wonder that biologists have failed to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. They are too busy pursuing their pseudo-scientific beliefs, like nested hierarchies and these weird claims about retroviruses.

Kleinman:

---

They think they have the corner on science but don't understand the simplest principles.

Tangle:

---

Atheists are the minority group in science as well as society.

---

---

Have atheists come up with any rational scientific idea? They certainly don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Otherwise, they could explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Tangle:

---

You fundamentalist nut jobs need to look to find a new excuse for being wrong.

Dredge:

---

Atheism has its fair share of fundamentalist nut jobs as well ... although I prefer to call them fruit-cakes.

---

---

Don't you know that atheists can prove there is no God?

Dredge:

---

Atheism has its fair share of fundamentalist nut jobs as well ... although I prefer to call them fruit-cakes.

Tangle:

---

Atheists tend to be rational so that's unlikely, but whatever the proportion, your comment is irrelevant.

---

---

Tell us a rational scientific idea that atheists have come up with. It certainly isn't one about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Tell us a rational scientific idea that atheists have come up with. It certainly isn't one about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Tangle:

---

You wouldn't know this not being a scientist...

---

---

You are having trouble with language. I didn't ask what atheists are working in science. I asked for a rational scientific idea that atheists have come up with. Of course, perhaps you think that Scott Aaronson came up with the scientific idea of quantum mechanics or Ernst Abbe came up with the field of optics. Atheists certainly have not come up with any rational ideas concerning the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Even the concept of atheism is irrational. It implies the knowledge of everything in the universe.

Tangle:

---

Numbers #6 and #8 in the A category:
​
Hannes Alfvén (1908–1995): Swedish electrical engineer and plasma physicist. He received the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).

---

You are still missing the point. Did Hannes Alfven come up with magnetohydrodynamics or did he do work in the field?And why do you think that the concept of atheism is rational? Have atheists observed everything in the universe?

Kleinman:

---

Don't be silly. But I don't blame you for wanting to bail out from this discussion. It isn't difficult to explain why your concepts of nested hierarchies and retroviruses are nonsensical. We all look forward to your publication of a mathematical explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

Taq:

---

I'm not the one bailing out. That would be you. You can't admit that koalas are being born with ERVs from a currently active exogenous retrovirus. Instead, you run away.

---

---

You aren't being very logical. You won't admit to what the life cycle of a virus is. And you have this gross notion that a birth defect is some anatomical defect that you can always see. Then you go forward with this ridiculous claim that a germ cell line can have 203,000 retroviral infections and the lineage does just fine. Try acting like a virologist who understands a virus's life cycle and what it does to a cell that the virus has infected. Then you will understand why a single viral infection may cause the extinction of the koala lineage.

Kleinman:

---

I asked for a rational scientific idea that atheists have come up with.

Tangle:

---

This one made me laugh
​
Tim Berners-Lee (1955–): English computer scientist, best known as the inventor of the World Wide Web.[32]
​
Type away on that atheist device unbeliever.

---

---

Did Berners-Lee invent computer networking? I was using computer networks back in the 1970s in engineering school. Did Berners-Lee invent that network? Did he invent the typewriter keyboard? I learned how to use a typewriter keyboard in the early 1960s. Did Berners-Lee invent the typewriter keyboard when he was 8 years old? Does Berners-Lee know everything?And you still haven't given us a rational atheist scientific idea that explains biological evolution and how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

Tangle:

---

Last of the As
​
Julius Axelrod (1912–2004): American Nobel Prize–winning biochemist, noted for his work on the release and reuptake of catecholamine neurotransmitters and major contributions to the understanding of the pineal gland and how it is regulated during the sleep-wake cycle.[21]
​
I dunno, three Nobel Prize winners just under A. Maybe they discovered something or other. Probably didn't matter much.

---

This is really a difficult question for you. I'm asked for a rational scientific idea that atheists have come up with, not for some research on an existing idea.Atheists have come up with the concept that there is no God. Do atheists know everything?

Kleinman:

---

You won't admit to what the life cycle of a virus is.

Taq:

---

I will admit that part of that life cycle is the ERVs found in the koala genome. You are the one who won't admit this.

---

---

You won't admit to what the entire life cycle is of the virus because it doesn't fit your irrational belief system. Why won't you admit to the fact that the virus takes over cell function to reproduce itself and then kills the host cell? That's why the koala population is threatened with extinction.

Kleinman:

---

Then you go forward with this ridiculous claim that a germ cell line can have 203,000 retroviral infections and the lineage does just fine.

Taq:

---

There are billions of examples walking around right now. They are called humans.

---

---

Tell us about those infected with HIV and are not being treated. And that is only one retroviral infection. That is a fact.

Kleinman:

---

Try acting like a virologist who understands a virus's life cycle and what it does to a cell that the virus has infected.

Taq:

---

I'm not the one disagreeing with virologists.

---

---

You have already shown that you don't understand the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation and now you want to claim that 203,000 retroviral infections of a germ cell line cause no problem to that lineage. You have chosen an irrational line of thought.

Taq:

---

So who is disagreeing with virologists? That would be you.

---

I also disagree with your irrational understanding of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. That is why you can't explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. You make irrational misinterpretations of the data to fit your faulty belief system. That's why you can't explain mathematically the Kishony, Lenski, Desai, or Peabody experiments and make irrational extrapolations of the Desai and Peabody experiments.

Tangle:

---

Well you know, I'm still answering the question you asked which was, lest we forget
​
"Have atheists come up with any rational scientific idea?"
​
and I'm only on B

​

George Beadle (1903–1989): American scientist in the field of genetics, and Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine laureate who, with Edward Tatum, discovered the role of genes in regulating biochemical events within cells in 1958.[26]

---

You seem to think that working on an existing idea is coming up with a rational scientific idea. Edward Tatum in his Nobel Laureate Lecture wrote about a fundamental principle that governs biological evolution and is one of the few people that started to understand the biological evolutionary process. Biologists have failed to understand what Tatum wrote. Did George Beadle understand this?Atheism is based on the irrational concept that there is no God. That would require knowledge of everything.

Kleinman:

---

You seem to think that working on an existing idea is coming up with a rational scientific idea.

Tangle:

---

Well yes I do. It's a bit of a push to claim that Nobel laureates don't have ideas. And that those that do have absolutely new ideas - like the WWW, that you are now typing into because of that new idea - have to also invent everything that precedes it, like a typewriter!

---

---

So, when an atheist says there is no God, what precedes that? How do atheists come up with that idea? Give us your rational explanation.And what did Edward Tatum mean when he wrote the following in his Nobel Laureate Lecture?
Edward Tatum – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org

quote:

---

In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics – such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.

---

I added the bold face for you.