Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

So says the person who accepts the irrational belief that DNA was magically poofed into being.

I already did multiple times, and here we are again. You fucking moron. And they have, you fucking moron. None of which actually matches reality. For example, the rate of appearance for antibiotic resistance in the Lenski paper differs based on the genetic background of the bacteria. Where is that in your math?Genomic evolution of antibiotic resistance is contingent on genetic background following a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli - PubMedNot only that, but the appearance of antibiotic resistance can differ by 1,000 fold depending on the antibiotic. Where is that in your math?REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMCOn top of everything else, your math is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of adaptation in biology.

Not a scientific term.

Accurate observations are extremely scientific.
In fact they're the base bedrock of all science.There's ample evidence on this website that Kleinman is moronic. But I doubt very much that he's fucking anyone. Except himself of course.

Kleinman:

---

So, now you claim an LTR is an ERV?

Taq:

---

Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron.

---

---

Do you and other biologists claim a tire is an entire vehicle? And too bad biologists can't explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. That's your cue to claim there are millions of papers out there but you can't explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments.

Kleinman:

---

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

Taq:

---

Which has nothing to do with what you asked.

---

---

Are you now claiming that people with HIV can't get herpes simplex, herpes zoster, or cytomegalovirus,...?

Kleinman:

---

Sure, we got your nonsensical answer that LTRs are the same as ERVs, LTRs would be ERVs if they had viral protein-coding regions.

Taq:

---

Any remnant of a retroviral insertion is an ERV. Solo LTR's are what is left over after homologous recombination of a full length ERV. Solo LTR's are the result of mutations in full length ERVs.

---

---

Now you are claiming that LTRs don't get mutations. Explain that for us.

Kleinman:

---

But you claim you can identify proteins even when they don't exist.

Taq:

---

They do exist in many ERVs, you fucking moron.

---

---

You said that 90% of ERVs consist only of LTRs. No protein coding sequences at all and the rest have some protein-coding fragments. How do LTRs remain intact without mutations when the rest of the genetic sequence has disappeared or been altered?

Kleinman:

---

So the 10% of LTRs that have some remaining protein-coding regions associated with them, why isn't the LTR altered as well?

Taq:

---

Most of them are altered, you fucking moron.
​
How do we tell that both mice and humans have a cytochrome c gene? How do you think that works? The two gene sequences differ by quite a bit, so how can they tell these are the same gene?

---

---

If the genetic sequence of what you call an LTR is altered, how do you know that it is still part of a retrovirus? The protein-coding sequence is gone.

Kleinman:

---

Is your claim now that the genetic sequences for LTRs never evolve?

Taq:

---

No, you fucking moron. I have never said that. As shown by genes shared by many different vertebrates, it's possible to identify homologous sequence even when the sequence differs. These are basic, basic concepts, and you can't seem to understand them.

---

---

How do you identify homologous sequences when the protein-coding sequences are gone?

Kleinman quoting Wikipedia:

---

A long terminal repeat (LTR) is a pair of identical sequences of DNA, several hundred base pairs long, which occur in eukaryotic genomes on either end of a series of genes or pseudogenes that form a retrotransposon or an endogenous retrovirus or a retroviral provirus.

Taq:

---

So how do you think the authors of the human genome paper were able to distinguish between LTRs from retroviruses and LTRs from retrotransposons?

---

---

I guess they ask a virologist that doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Do vertebrates have retrotransposons that are not ERVs?

Taq:

---

Wrong question. What are the LTR sequences?

---

---

Doesn't that question fit your belief system? How many different DNA repeats are in vertebrate genomes and what are their sequences?

Kleinman:

---

When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.

Taq:

---

So says the person who accepts the irrational belief that DNA was magically poofed into being.

---

---

We are still waiting for you to give a mathematical explanation for the evolution of drug resistance. Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony drug resistance evolution experiment?

Kleinman:

---

Are you going to explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Taq:

---

I already did multiple times, and here we are again. You fucking moron.

---

---

You are being silly again, you haven't explained why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolution experiments. You are like the layman ringo. You post a link and then don't give a message number or a quote. But here's the mathematical explanation for descent with modification and adaptation for those biological evolutionary experiments.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
You need to do a little more math for the Lenski experiment, that can be found here:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment
I'll post quotes from those papers if you like.

Kleinman:

---

You are the one claiming that biologists have explained the evolution of drug resistance.

Taq:

---

And they have, you fucking moron.

---

---

Which paper explains why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation? You confuse muddling with understanding.

Kleinman:

---

Sure I would Taq, it is right here in this paper:

Taq:

---

None of which actually matches reality. For example, the rate of appearance for antibiotic resistance in the Lenski paper differs based on the genetic background of the bacteria. Where is that in your math?
​
Genomic evolution of antibiotic resistance is contingent on genetic background following a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli - PubMed
​
Not only that, but the appearance of antibiotic resistance can differ by 1,000 fold depending on the antibiotic. Where is that in your math?
​
REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC
​
On top of everything else, your math is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of adaptation in biology.

---

---

You are confused Taq, that's why you don't post a quote from any of your papers that explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolution experiments. It is simply a consequence of the probability of at least one adaptive mutation occurring in a population and the joint probability of a second mutation occurring on a member with the previous adaptive mutation. That math isn't difficult at all, a high school student can learn it. It's the multiplication rule, put your mind to it, even a biologist can learn how to do this math.

Taq:

---

You fucking moron

Dredge:

---

Not a scientific term.

---

---

Give him some slack, he can't argue the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. He didn't learn how to do the physics and mathematics in his survey of physics and survey of mathematics courses.

Dredge:

---

Not a scientific term.

Tangle:

---

Accurate observations are extremely scientific.
In fact they're the base bedrock of all science.
​
There's ample evidence on this website that Kleinman is moronic. But I doubt very much that he's fucking anyone. Except himself of course.

---

---

Maybe Tangle wants to explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. Taq, with all his biological training, can't do it. Let's see if you can do it.

It's not an irrational belief. Such a belief lies outside the realm of methodological naturalism, but that doesn't mean it's irrational.However, I can understand how, in the small and shallow mind of an atheist, such a belief would seem irrational. It's a bit like a small child not understanding how something invisible like radioactivity can have powerful effects.

... just like we'll never know what caused the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record. Although that doesn't stop delusional bs-artists and con-men (mostly atheists) claiming to know otherwise.

It's nothing new ... Darwinoids do a similar thing when it comes to the fossil record. Any inconvenient gaps are filled with imaginary, hoped-for fossils that don't exist.

Thank you for your advice re "Preview" button.As for "favorite text editor", I'm not sure if my phone employs such a person ...

One little error and I had my "edit" amputated. Justice?

"Everyone in biology" claims that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process described by neo-Darwinism. F..king morons.