Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

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.

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.

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.

Kleinman:

---

I don't need to give that evidence when you give it yourself.

Tangle:

---

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.

---

---

I do know how descent with modification and adaptation works which is the way to describe the evolution of drug resistance and you don't. And neither do biologists. If you think I'm wrong, post a paper (with an appropriate quote) which explains why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You won't.

Kleinman:

---

Plausible alternative to what?

Tangle:

---

To life starting here - ie abiogenesis on Earth.

---

---

That is another dumb idea that biologists have. How old does that idea have to become before you realize how stupid it is?

Kleinman:

---

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

Tangle:

---

Oh do grow up.

---

---

Don't you think you will return to dust? Perhaps you think that the Bible and God will disappear when you die. And what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

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.

Dredge:

---

Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

---

---

Once Crick saw the structure of DNA, he realized there was a logical problem with the belief system that is held by most biologists. He tried to address this problem with the notion of panspermia. It only puts more focus on the theoretical problems of abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution which depends on universal common descent which biologists try to present the theory.

Dredge:

---

*qs=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.*/qs* Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

---

There is an edit button at the bottom of the post that allows you to correct a typo error or make other corrections to your post so that you don't have to make a new post with the correction.

Dredge:

---

Biology for space-cadets.

Tangle:

---

Actually a hypothesis awaiting evidence.

---

---

And

Dredge:

---

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.

Tangle:

---

Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).

---

---

Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal?

Dredge:

---

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.

Tangle:

---

Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).

Dredge:

---

The only "evidence" scientists will ever produce will be some bag-of-hot-air theory that proves nothing.
​
Wake me up when scientists produce a viable organism from inanimate matter. Anything less than that is just superstitious pie-in-the-sky.

---

---

---

Who says that atheists and biologists don't have faith?

Kleinman:

---

Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal?

Tangle:

---

You're truly weird aren't you? We'll never get evidence for panspermia, whatever happened to form life on Earth happened billions of years ago and all evidence has long since gone.​

---

---

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

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.