Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kleinman:

---

You, Tangle, and biologists are wrong about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

AZPaul3:

---

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

---

---

You still can't explain the mathematical reason it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. And neither can biologists. AZPaul3, you are a sucker that has swallowed a bad story hook, line, and sinker.

Kleinman:

---

You still can't explain the mathematical ...

AZPaul3:

---

Doesn’t matter. No one cares for your view. We don’t believe a thing you say. Go do all the phony math you want Kleinman.

---

---

It's not just the mathematics, it is the experimental evidence that reveals this as well. You may not care or be able to do the mathematics of biological evolution, but people suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments might care. Biologists have failed society and AZPaul3 has swallowed their story hook, line, and sinker. You ignore the results of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments because they don't agree with your belief system.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists have failed society and AZPaul3 has swallowed their story hook, line, and sinker.

AZPaul3:

---

Kleinman, we see your religious zealotry and thus your motivation to lie. No one is believing your crap. Doesn't matter what you think of me or biologists or society.
​
We know how mutation actually happens, how drug resistance actually happens, how life and evolution and genetics actually happen.
​
Your fairy tales, your wailing and gnashing of teeth against evolution and against science, mean nothing. The reality is already known.

---

---

AZPaul3, I am not lying. Descent with modification and adaptation obeys specific mathematical principles and scientific laws. Mutations are random events, so the joint probability (the probability that two or more particular mutations will occur on a member in a lineage) determines the probability that it will occur. Drug resistance requires that a lineage of bacteria accumulate a particular set of mutations. Biologists have not done this math. In my medical practice, I see drug-resistant infections, but nothing I had learned in my many years of study of biology explains how this happens. The mathematics for this process was presented to experts in the field of probability theory and the application of this mathematics to medical problems at Statistics in Medicine". They peer-reviewed the math and the experimental examples from the medical field and found that the math was correct. It wasn't hard for them to peer review this paper. The math is actually very simple and is taught in introductory probability theory courses taught at the high school level. Anyone familiar with the mathematics of coin tossing or dice rolling can understand and do this math. You can deny this all you want but the math is very simple that explains how a lineage accumulates a set of adaptive mutations. You could easily learn this math if you watched the YouTube videos on the subject from Khan Academy or Professor Leonard geared toward high school students. You may find these papers contradict your understanding of biological evolution but the math fits the experimental data. Some day, if you start to care about drug-resistant infections or why cancer treatments fail, read these papers, and understand how biological evolution actually works.
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
If you actually ever read these papers and understand what they say and still think they are wrong, I've given you a website, Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process , report it to them and I'm sure that the publisher "John C. Wiley" will have them removed. But they won't because the peer reviewers went through these papers with a fine-toothed comb and found them correct.

sensi:

---

Go ahead and name the 100 million. I'm waiting.

---

Hi sensi, the reason why these nested hierarchies are baloney is that these are just another name for "family tree" and biologists don't understand how descent with modification and adaptation works. From the following website:
Nested hierarchies - Understanding Evolution The problem for biologists is that they have failed to correctly do the mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation. They can't even show how humans and chimpanzees came from a common ancestor. Taq tried to show that ERVs which later turned out to be LTRs show that they are related and his best argument is to call me a "f---ing moron". Perhaps he is trying to show that his skills as a debater are on par with his skills as a biologist. Taq and other biologists don't understand that it takes huge populations for descent with modification and adaptation to operate. The Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments demonstrate it. It takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation to occur on the correct lineage. If you have a replicator in a multiple selection pressure environment, descent with modification and adaptation needs exponentially larger populations to adapt. This is why 3-drug therapy is used to treat HIV. Even HIV can't reach the population size required for descent with modification and adaptation to operate. If you want to understand the math, you can read these two papers that show how to compute those probabilities:
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
You can also formulate these problems as a Markov Process as we have discussed previously. It gives equivalent results but the computational effort is much greater.If you include biological competition, this slows the descent with modification and adaptation process even further. This is why the Lenski experiment evolves much more slowly thant the Kishony experiment. Here's a paper that shows how to do the mathematics for the Lenski experiment:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment
And here's a short presentation video that helps show how you do the arithmetic:
The Lenski Long Term Evolution ExperimentBiologists have failed to understand these simple mathematical principles and correctly explain how biological evolution works. That's why they haven't described how drug resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail, or given a correct explanation of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments.

Theodoric:

---

The troll returns

---

You don't have much to contribute to this discussion.

Theodoric:

---

Even nonbiologists should understand. The fundies will refuse to understand.

---

Maybe you want to try and post a link to a paper that explains how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Biologists have failed to give this explanation. And don't forget to post a quote from the paper that gives that explanation.

Dredge:

---

Theodorkic appears to be the resident troll-watchman ... without his diligent observations, trolls could slip in past the city gates unnoticed.

---

He's not the only one. There are a few that post that has nothing to offer. Now they can post and tell us how much they have to offer.

Kleinman:

---

AZPaul3, I am not lying.

AZZPaul3:

---

Of course you are lying.

---

---

So, why don't you tell us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

Kleinman:

---

So, why don't you tell us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

AZPaul3:

---

One-note Kleinman in keeping with his demented form.

---

---

What's the matter, don't you and biologists know the tune? Why can't you and biologists explain to us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail? It is a very simple question about evolutionary biology. Here, I'll play it for you.
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
See how simple that is? That is the cue for you to play your tune. Make sure you blow hard.

Kleinman:

---

Why can't you and biologists explain to us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

AZPaul3:

---

---

---

AZPaul3, you post a "bored" picture in response to a simple question to describe a biological phenomenon that is occurring today in many places around the world. There are many good laboratory experiments that demonstrate this phenomenon. The reason why you and biologists can't correctly describe this phenomenon is that you and biologists don't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. You may be bored, and Taq can claim that you don't need mathematics to describe biological evolution but that doesn't change the fact that you and biologists are wrong and have failed to correctly describe and understand biological evolution. Try something other than an emoticon to explain real, measurable, and repeatable experimental evidence and the physics and mathematics which describes how these biological evolutionary experiments work.