Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

You mean like this one? ...."I think only an idiot can be an atheist."
​
Christian B. Anfinsen, former Professor of Biology and (Physical) Biochemistry, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

No, not that one, that's observationally wrong, an error of logic and a rather stupid and un-Christian remark.Like all people - even fundamental religionist nutters like yourself - atheists can be idiotic but most are not. Group slanders are always wrong, based on prejudice and lack of understanding.

Kleinman:

---

Tangle evidence is that he hopes that the evidence once existed.

Dredge:

---

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.

---

---

This is a problem that Tangle and biologists have. They think that an observation is all you need for scientific proof. There is no need for experimental verification. When you have experimental verification, they refuse to accept these measurable, repeatable, and verifiable observations.
Message 868

Dredge:

---

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

---

That is quite possible. I'm using a PC for this discussion. When I use my tablet to cruise the web, the screen doesn't have all the elements that the PC displays. I'm impressed that you can use a cell phone and see this kind of detail easily.
Message 869

dwise1:

---

As I recall, Dredge kept abusing his edit privileges so they were suspended. That is why his Edit button does not work.

Dredge:

---

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

---

---

These people look for any reason to discredit someone that doesn't agree with them. You can see what Taq has been saying because he is unable to put forth a coherent and reasonable argument. There is no reason to call them names, telling them they are wrong is enough to trigger them.
Message 870

quote not from Kleinman but from Taq:

---

Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron.

Dredge:

---

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

---

---

Taq is wrong, and he knows it. Earlier in my discussions with him, he said the mathematics I presented for descent with modification and adaptation was correct for asexual replicators. He claimed that descent with modification and adaptation works differently for sexual replicators. I understand that recombination can change the mathematics and the circumstances required for that to happen, I published a paper on that subject which explains those circumstances. Recombination does not have a major effect on the descent with modification and adaptation process. The use of 3-drug therapy for the treatment of HIV (which does recombination) should be in their set of observations but sadly it is lacking. Biologists (including Taq) have done a terrible job teaching the subject of biological evolution. They can't explain the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail. They have failed to correctly teach the usage of selection pressures in use in the field of agriculture. Biologists have tunnel vision and they are looking down a dead-end tunnel.

At least try not to be as big a twat as you obviously are. No one here believes that observation alone is required. We believe in the scientific method which of course includes experimentation. You need to look it up sometime.

Kleinman:

---

This is a problem that Tangle and biologists have. They think that an observation is all you need for scientific proof. There is no need for experimental verification.

Tangle:

---

At least try not to be as big a twat as you obviously are. No one here believes that observation alone is required. We believe in the scientific method which of course includes experimentation. You need to look it up sometime. There is no need for experimental verification.

---

---

Let's see if we can get beyond Tangle's preoccupation with sexual organs and their function. It has been observed in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation. Tangle hasn't been able to explain this observation mathematically or any other way so far but that is no surprise, neither have biologists. We expect Tangle to be wrong this time as well. Go for it Tangle, explain those observations from biological evolutionary experiments.

He doesn't need to. His intellect and reputation are not being called into question. Yours are.

Kleinman:

---

Go for it Tangle, explain those observations from biological evolutionary experiments.

AZPaul3:

---

He doesn't need to. His intellect and reputation are not being called into question. Yours are.

---

---

I can explain mathematically why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You, Tangle, and biologists cannot explain why and the explanation I've presented has been peer-reviewed and published by the editors and peer reviewers of Statistics in Medicine. If you think they did an inadequate peer review on these papers, I gave you the link for Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process and you can report that you think they did an inadequate peer review of these papers and they should be withdrawn. You won't do this just like you can't explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in these experiments. You, Tangle, and biologists are wrong about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Assuming your calclation of a billion replications is correct, what conclusion can be drawn from that data?

Uh, yeah it's "un-Christian". Christian B. Anfinsen was a Jew. An Orthodox Jew for that matter. Judaism is too good of a religion to be sullied by Christian BS.Though he wasn't always a Jew:

quote:

---

Anfinsen had three children with his first wife, Florence Kenenger, to whom he was married from 1941 to 1978. In 1979, he married Libby Shulman Ely, with whom he had 4 stepchildren, and converted to Orthodox Judaism. However, Anfinsen wrote in 1987 that "my feelings about religion still very strongly reflect a fifty-year period of orthodox agnosticism."

​

...

​

Anfinsen converted to Judaism and was Jewish since.

---

So he converted to Judaism in 1979 at the age of sixty-three for one of the most common reasons for converting to Judaism: marriage.Before that, he was an "orthodox agnostic." I do not know what he meant by that, but he is cited from eight (8) years after his conversion as saying that his religious feelings were still strongly influenced by his "fifty-year period of orthodox agnosticism." That would indicate that his conversion did not involve any radical change in his beliefs, which remained strongly agnostic.Wikipedia describes agnosticism as:

quote:

---

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

​

. . .

​

Types

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", "hopeful" or "temporal agnosticism")

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism

The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."

---

Myself, I'm a militant agnostic ("I don't know ... and neither do YOU!") That would appear to fall under "strong agnosticism", which I would assume is what Anfinsen's "orthodox agnosticism" falls under.Also, the more complete Anfinsen quote that I've found is:

quote:

---

I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.

---

This brings us to the fundamental problem of quoting an expert in one field making unqualified statements (AKA "his own personal opinion") in an entirely different field in which he enjoys no expertise. A well-known example would be Fred Hoyle, famed and esteemed astronomer (and coiner of the term, "Big Bang", in order to denigrate that idea) and creator of that creationist favorite, the probability of a tornado in a junkyard spontaneously constructing a 747. Reading his book's section on that tornado, I found that he did have any clue how either evolution or abiogenesis works/would have worked, choosing to invoke single-step selection, the idea (and probability math model) of an entire complex structure (eg, a 747) assembling out of pure random chance (eg, a tornado going through a junkyard). Despite being an expert in astronomy, he was very ignorant of biology, so while his opinion in most aspects of astronomy might carry some weight, his opinions about some aspects of biology were just plain crap and carry no weight.Same with Anfinsen. His expertise was in biochemistry (earned him a Nobel Prize), but that does make him any kind of expert in religion. His personal religious opinion was just as valid as anyone else's, which is to say near-zero validity. 
ABE:

A "dead-end tunnel" ... sounds like atheism ... which most biologists subscribe to.

​ I don't know about that ... after all, God says virtually the same thing:"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14.1)

So says the religious charlatan desperately trying to make his god relevant again.

Having you been drinking?

Anfinsen was an "an expert expressing an opinion that is completely outside of his field of expertise"? Huh?Whom would you consider to be an expert in the field of God?

Kleinman:

---

It has been observed in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation.

Dredge:

---

Assuming your calclation of a billion replications is correct, what conclusion can be drawn from that data?

---

---

It is not just my calculation, it is what Kishony says and what Lenski measured.It shows a couple of things. First, it shows that in a single selection pressure environment, with a beneficial mutation rate of 1E-9, it will take on average, a billion replications for an adaptive step. When that member gets that adaptive mutation, it and its descendants need to replicate another billion times to have a reasonable probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members. Same thing for the next adaptive step. Therefore, you need large population sizes with high recovery rates in order for that evolutionary adaptive process to occur. Bacteria, viruses, insects, and other replicators that achieve these population sizes can evolve to single selection pressures this way. Humans and chimpanzees don't have these kinds of population sizes or recovery rates. The second thing this shows is that each transitional step for a single adaptational mutation is extremely large. The number of transitional forms would be massive but the fossil record doesn't show this. Paleontologists have been looking for transitional forms for years and the only thing they have found is imaginary tales when they should have transitional forms coming out of their ears.The number of replications for adaptation to multiple simultaneous selection conditions gets exponentially worse for the evolutionary process as demonstrated by the success of 3-drug (3 simultaneous selection pressures) for the treatment of HIV despite the fact that it has a much higher mutation rate as demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments.Universal common descent is not mathematically or physically possible. The population sizes required are simply too massively large and the earth could never support such populations. That's what the physics and mathematics show for biological evolution. Biologists are wrong and that's why they can't explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail, they don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Biologists harm society with their failure to correctly understand biological evolution.