Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

No, it isn't. Life cannot just pop in existence by chance - not on this planet, nor on any other planet. Life has to be divinely created. Even the village-idiot knows that.

Kleinman:

---

None of Taq's references explain how drug resistance occurs and why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation for a single selection pressure in the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Taq:

---

All of them do. Read the papers you fucking moron.

---

---

None of your references explain how drug resistance evolves and why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You are wrong and you know it. That's why you can't post a single quote.

I'm sure you do.

Kleinman:

---

Did they identify 203,000 retroviruses in these genomes?

Taq:

---

They weren't only trying to detect the presence of ERV's, and they were widespread amongst vertebrates.

---

---

So, now you claim an LTR is an ERV?

Kleinman:

---

What happens if a germ cell has more than one retrovirus active in the cell at a time?

Taq:

---

Apparently, nothing. There are koalas with over 50 recently inserted ERVs and they are having offspring without a hitch.

---

---

That's a relief for those with HIV, they don't have to worry about herpes simplex, herpes zoster, or cytomegalovirus,... affecting them.

Kleinman:

---

Is your claim that the LTRs remain but the protein-coding region has disappeared? Do the LTRs ever get a mutation when they are replicated?

Taq:

---

Already answered multiple times.

---

---

Sure, we got your nonsensical answer that LTRs are the same as ERVs, LTRs would be ERVs if they had viral protein-coding regions. But you claim you can identify proteins even when they don't exist. So the 10% of LTRs that have some remaining protein-coding regions associated with them, why isn't the LTR altered as well?

Kleinman:

---

Are all LTRs associated with retroviruses?

Taq:

---

LTRs are by definition from retroviral insertions.

---

---

Is that definition like your definition of an atheist? Are all LTRs identical?

Kleinman:

---

If you don't have the viral protein-coding genes in the genetic sequence, and the LTRs have evolved, how can you be sure this genetic sequence is from a retrovirus?

Taq:

---

The same way you can identify a partial fingerprint.

---

---

You can tell the genetic structure of a protein-coding region from DNA repeats? Tell us what the genetic structure of the protein-coding region is in the 90% of LTRs that have no protein-coding regions. And do fingerprints evolve as genetic sequences do?

Kleinman:

---

How do you determine that this piece of genetic material is the remnant of a retrovirus rather than host DNA when the viral protein-coding DNA is gone?

Taq:

---

The same way we know a partial fingerprint is from a finger.

---

---

Is your claim now that the genetic sequences for LTRs never evolve? Explain to us why LTRs don't evolve.

Kleinman:

---

Can the host vertebrate genome have its own LTRs that are not from a virus?

Taq:

---

Can a murder weapon have its own fingerprints?
​
All you are trying to do is used the Omphalos argument. Arguing that the human genome was created with genetic scars from retroviral insertion is nonsense. It's like saying the universe was created last Thursday, complete with a false history and false memories.

---

---

Perhaps this will help you with your confusion:
Long terminal repeat - Wikipedia Do vertebrates have retrotransposons that are not ERVs?

Kleinman:

---

He is now shifting his argument from ERVs to LTRs.

Taq:

---

LTRs are ERVs, you fucking moron.

---

---

Do you have to be so obnoxious when you can't explain yourself. Here is the image that you posted showing a simplified representation of a retroviral genome:

LTRs represent only a small part of that genetic sequence. Now you say it represents the entire genetic sequence. Can't you get your story straight?

Kleinman:

---

The correct picture he should use for his argument looks like this:

Taq:

---

You would deny that those are tires. Instead, they are round pieces of rubber that were created with the Earth 6,000 years ago. They never came from a tire factory, nor did they ever reside on a car.

---

---

You make very silly claims when your illogical argument collapses. You are the one claiming that you can identify the genetic structure of proteins based on LTRs. And your claims become much stranger when you claim that LTRs are ERVs when LTRs are only a very small portion of the genetic structure. Try to stay on point, if you can.

Kleinman:

---

Taq can look at this picture and tell us what vehicle these tires came off simply by the brand of tire.

Taq:

---

I can tell you they are tires. In the same way, LTRs are the tires of the ERV vehicle. Your argument seems to be that the Earth was created with those tires already in place.

---

---

Now you are claiming that host genetic structures don't have any DNA repeats. Why would you want to make this claim?

Kleinman:

---

It is no surprise that Taq would rather argue about what he thinks atheism and agnosticism mean, or post a bunch of references that he claims explain how drug resistance evolves and then gets angry because I point out that he doesn't quote from any of them.

Taq:

---

You fucking moron. You don't even understand the papers you claim to reference. You don't even understand that modeling asexual reproduction does not accurately model the evolution of sexual species. You can't even understand that the mutation rate is different in humans and in bacteria.

---

---

Taq, do you think that crossing over or recombination has a marked effect on descent with modification and adaptation? Tell us how an allele can accumulate 5 adaptive mutations using crossing over or recombination. Because that's what it takes to get the high-efficiency beta-lactamase allele to penicillin-type antibiotics.

Kleinman:

---

It appears you are having difficulty posting a quote from any of your papers that you think describes the mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance.

Taq:

---

You don't need mathematics to explain how antibiotic resistance evolves, you fucking moron.

---

---

Are you going to explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why don't you explain to us why three-drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV? I realize this is hard for you but biological evolution is a thermodynamic process that obeys physical and mathematical laws.

Kleinman:

---

The fact is that biologists have failed to describe the physics and mathematics of biological evolution and the evolution of drug resistance.

Taq:

---

Prove it. Show me every paper in existence on antibiotic resistance and show me that none of them have the requisite math.

---

---

You are the one claiming that biologists have explained the evolution of drug resistance. Post a single paper that explains why it takes a billion replication for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment. Don't forget to put a quote from the paper. You won't because biologists haven't understood or written the paper.

Kleinman:

---

I'm familiar with most of those papers you listed and none give the correct mathematics.

Taq:

---

You wouldn't recognize correct math if it was right in front of you, you fucking moron.

---

---

Sure I would Taq, it is right here in this paper:
For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And since you are unable to post a quote for your claim, here's one for you. Equation (14) from that paper gives the probability equation that explains how much amplification must occur for the next beneficial mutation. You should learn math if you want to understand biological evolution instead of making your wild speculations.

Tangle:

---

Life being seeded here from other parts of the galaxy is one possibility

Dredge:

---

No, it isn't. Life cannot just pop in existence by chance - not on this planet, nor on any other planet. Life has to be divinely created. Even the village-idiot knows that.

---

---

There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.

Dredge:

---

Even the village-idiot knows that.

AZPaul3:

---

I'm sure you do.

---

---

Aren't you going to try to get my papers withdrawn? I gave you the link. In case you missed the papers, here they are.
For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
I'll post the link again to Retraction Watch if you need it.

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.”

Kleinman:

---

There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.

Tangle:

---

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.”

---

---

Old idea or new idea, Crick brought up the notion of panspermia when he realized that the structure of the DNA molecule was impossible to evolve. Some old ideas are right and some old ideas are wrong. You just don't know which is which.

You're going to have to present the evidence for your claim that Crick said DNA could not have evolved. This is what they actually said"Crick and Orgel were careful to point out that Directed Panspermia was not a certainty; but rather a plausible alternative that ought to be taken seriously."Meanwhile, this is an article in Scientific America that outlines his reasons why he thought directed panspermia was a possible explanation for life on earth. It's 50 years ago and no further arguments have been found as far as I'm aware. (Other than the finding of organic material on Mars, meteors and Mercury.) The Origins of Directed Panspermia - Scientific American Blog Network I know for certain that you 2,000 year god myth is utter bullshit.

Kleinman:

---

Old idea or new idea, Crick brought up the notion of panspermia when he realized that the structure of the DNA molecule was impossible to evolve.

Tangle:

---

You're going to have to present the evidence for your claim that Crick said DNA could not have evolved. This is what they actually said
​
"Crick and Orgel were careful to point out that Directed Panspermia was not a certainty; but rather a plausible alternative that ought to be taken seriously."
​
Meanwhile, this is an article in Scientific America that outlines his reasons why he thought directed panspermia was a possible explanation for life on earth. It's 50 years ago and no further arguments have been found as far as I'm aware. (Other than the finding of organic material on Mars, meteors and Mercury.)
​
The Origins of Directed Panspermia - Scientific American Blog Network

---

---

I don't need to give that evidence when you give it yourself."Crick and Orgel were careful to point out that Directed Panspermia was not a certainty; but rather a plausible alternative that ought to be taken seriously."
​
Plausible alternative to what?

Kleinman:

---

Some old ideas are right and some old ideas are wrong. You just don't know which is which.

Tangle:

---

I know for certain that you 2,000 year god myth is utter bullshit.

---

---

The Bible and God were here long before you arrived and will be here long after you return to dust.

You're not a scientist at all are you? Unfortunately religous nutters like yourself generally lie about these things so please reference your source in the time-honoured way. To life starting here - ie abiogenesis on Earth. Oh do grow up.

Biology for space-cadets. To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition.