Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

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.

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.

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]He has to invent everything and know everything? Now that's a tough one. I'm pretty sure doesn't but just let me type it into that World Wide Web thing that he DID invent.Seems like atheists are turning out to be fairly capable scientists.Still on B Charles H. Bennett (1943–): American physicist, information theorist and IBM Fellow at IBM Research. He is best known for his work in quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation and is one of the founding fathers of modern quantum information theory.[30]

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!You REALLY are loony tunes aren't you?Anyway, still on B. I reckon "foundational" probably means a new idea to most (obviously not to you) Niels Bohr (1885–1962): Danish physicist. Best known for his foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]Skipping to C Samuel T. Cohen (1921–2010): American physicist who invented the W70 warhead and is generally credited as the father of the neutron bomb.[78]Now even you must feel that nobody had seen a mushroom cloud before? Or does he have to invent fireworks too?

Francis Crick, well known for never having a new idea in his life. Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.[83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

Well that was fun but to continue would be cruel.What you just demonstrated Kleinman, is that you cannot admit to a mistake. You made a false claim that was easily disproven but you just couldn't accept it.You've done this many times in this thread on things that actually matter. And now you've shown us why you make false claims and then refuse to accept the evidence that you're wrong. You do it because you have a religious belief that you think is jeopardised by the evidence.You can never be a scientist Kleinman; you're incapable of following the evidence wherever it takes you. Your beliefs have corrupted your mind.Religion poisons everything.

I should add as a postscript, that the discoverer of evolution himself, Charles Darwin, was not an atheist“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” Letter from Charles Darwin to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879 three years before he died.You guys have only yourselves to blame.

I don't know any atheists that believe that. I know a few that think it likely and others that don't know, believe or care.Atheism is a non-belief in god(s). It has no opinion on abiogenesis. Would you care to provide your evidence for that claim please.​

You need to take a few logic lessons.Atheism is a non-belief in god(s). It does not follow that they also believe in abiogenesis.Some like me, think it the most likely explanation, many have no opinion because they don't think about it much, others just don't know. I know none that "believe" in abiogenesis. So you're provably wrong yet again.
​ I don't know or care what Francis Crick thought about aliens and certainly don't trust a word you say about what he thought about it.Life being seeded here from other parts of the galaxy is one possibility - amino acids and other molecules are found on asteroids - but it doesn't solve the problem of how life started elsewhere so that it could get here.

Bears repeating every now and then:Panda's Thumb Forum Evaluating Alan Kleinman's arguments
By Joe Felsenstein
September 6, 2021 18:00 MSTAlan Kleinman has been commenting on various threads here at PT, in ways that repeatedly argue that he has done the first correct probabilistic analysis of “DNA evolutionary adaptation” and “competition”, and that call for evolutionary biologists to provide an analysis of the Lenski and Kishony experiments in bacterial evolution. He also argues that we have not provided a correct analysis of bacterial antibiotic resistence or of the evolution of drug resistance in cancer. This thread is intended to allow discussion of these assertions, without disrupting discussions of other topics at PT.Let me explain.Kleinman has published 7 papers on modeling evolutionary processes. I have provided links to PDFs of these, when I encountered ones that might be free:Kleinman, A. 2014. The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection Statistics in Medicine 33 (29): 5074–5080 (PDF)
Kleinman, A. 2015. Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance. Statistics in Medicine 34 (11): 1977–1980.
Kleinman, A. 2016. The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance. Statistics in Medicine 35 (29): 5391-5400
Kleinman, A. 2018a. Random mutation and natural selection in competitive and noncompetitive environments. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 9 (1): 6903–6906. (PDF)
Kleinman, A. 2018b. Malaria and other infectious diseases, Suppression of the evolution of drug resistance. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 12 (2): 9083-9085. (PDF)
Kleinman, A. 2019. Fixation and adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 20 (1): 14754–14760. (PDF)
Kleinman, A. M. 2020. Drug resistance, An enemy of targeted cancer therapies. Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports 4 (9): 1–4.
He has also brought his argument up repeatedly at Peaceful Science and at Panda"s Thumb, usually in the middle of threads devoted to other issues.The basic calculation he does is to consider a haploid clonally-reproducing organism such a bacterial culture, one which has no recombination. He develops a formula for the probability that the clone has beneficial mutations occuring at n sites, where the first such mutation has nGA generations to occur, the second has nGB generations to occur, and so on. Note that an important feature of his model is that he considers, not the time in generations but the number of cells that have ever arisen in the clone. So with a probability mu PA for each new cell that it has a beneficial mutation, it takes about 1/(mu PA) cells before there is a reasonable probability of seeing the beneficial mutation once.A mystery (to me, anyway) is where selection is in all this. We are computing probabilities that, when a given number of cells has arisen, we have had beneficial mutation at all of the n sites. Once one has occurred, there seems to be no futher mutation at that site. Why? This calculation is supposed to show us the fundamental mathematical theory of mutation and selection, but aside from waiting until a mutation labelled “beneficial” occurs, there is no further effect of selection.The same theory is also used in most of his other papers (an exception being the paper on recombination which I will get back to later). He has an idiosyncratic terminology. As far as I can tell it involves calling the occurrence of beneficial mutations by mutation “DNA adaptive evolution” while he calls their subsequent changes of gene frequency in the population “competition”.Some questions arise:Kleinman sees two processes at work: “competition” which is survival of the fittest, and “DNA evolutionary adaptation” which is changes of genotypes by mutation, either deleterious or beneficial. Is this terminology helpful?
His equations are all about how many organisms (or cells) need to have arisen to get a given probability that a beneficial allele will arise by mutation. The theory uses the stochastic process of mutation. How does natural selection affect this?
His treatment of recombination between genotypes with two or more loci assumes that offspring of a cross between a haploid Ab genotype and a haploid aB genotype will all be AB. Is that true?
He seems to think that he is the first to give a correct mathematical theory of mutation and natural selection. Was he? For example, his first paper has the rather astonishingly grand title “The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection”. Would RA Fisher (1922) or JBS Haldane (1924) have agreed? I think he is off by 97-99 years.
Is he really the first to apply the mathematics of population genetics theory to evolution or drug resistance in cancer, or to success of multidrug therapies for diseases?
Anyway, I must be misunderstanding how his theory works, and I hope that this thread will explain his theory to me. After all, if it is the fundamental mathematical theory of my own field, then it is surely important to know. By doing the discussion here, we can avoid being so rudely interrupted by the folks in the previous threads who were trying to discuss arguments other than Kleinman"s.[Note added 9 October 2021] After 2,111 comments in this thread, many by AK, I am placing him on pre-moderation and limiting him to 1 comment per day. I will accumulate his future comments and release them at a rate of 1 per day. People who consider this unreasonable suppression of discussion are invited to read his past comments and consider his responses to counterarguments.[Note added 10 October 2021] Owing in part to remarks addressed to me today in comments at the thread Return of the God of the Gaps, Alan Kleinman has been banned from PT.Evaluating Alan Kleinman's arguments

I've been here 12 years Keinman, I've seen dozens of fruit-loops like you claim extraordinary things. It always take the same form - 'I've found something that proves that all of science for the last 200 years is wrong'. The details of why and how vary, but it all resolves to the same thing.The claims would instantly gain a Nobel Prize if correct, but as yet, none have materialised. Instead a few have ended in the loony bin.The central problem is ego and an irrational blindness to legitimate criticism. You can never be a scientist because you totally lack objectivity and self-criticism. You can never accept that you might be wrong and the reason is your religious belief system. That corrupts your mind. Real scientists who also hold religious beliefs - which are the majority - are able to separate their beliefs from their science. You can't, so you are forced to fail and be embarrassing to watch.

I'm not interested Kleinman; it's not me you have to convince, it's the guys that work in the disciplines you are trying to say are wrong.Nobody recognises your amazing insights. The reason is that you're both wrong and delusional.

Sane

Apparently you don't know it.Life here, on this planet, could have been seeded by asteroids bringing it from elsewhere in our galaxy. Amino acids have been found in asteroids and asteroids have crashed into our planet for billions of years.It would not resolve how life came about elsewhere in the galaxy but it would cause religionists like you some problems. But don't worry, it's unlikely to be a something we will ever know.

Ffs, the idea is older than that damn book you worship so much.“Panspermia (from Ancient Greek πᾶν (pan) 'all ', and σπέρμα (sperma) 'seed') is the hypothesis, first proposed in the 5th century BCE by the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, that life exists throughout the Universe.”