|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
You mean like this one? .... Accurate observations are extremely scientific. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: You mean like this one? .... "I think only an idiot can be an atheist." 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
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. When you have experimental verification, they refuse to accept these measurable, repeatable, and verifiable observations. Message 868 Dredge: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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Kleinman writes: 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. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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. Edited by Kleinman, : Correct quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Assuming your calclation of a billion replications is correct, what conclusion can be drawn from that data?
It has been observed in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
No, not that one, that's observationally wrong, an error of logic and a rather stupid and un-Christian remark. 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: 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: 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: 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:
Only an idiot would put too much, if any, stock in a random quote of an expert expressing an opinion that is completely outside of his field of expertise. But such an idiot is Dredge.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
A "dead-end tunnel" ... sounds like atheism ... which most biologists subscribe to.
Biologists have tunnel vision and they are looking down a dead-end tunnel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
"I think only an idiot can be an atheist." (Christian B. Anfinsen)Tangled writes:
I don't know about that ... after all, God says virtually the same thing: that's observationally wrong, an error of logic and a rather stupid and un-Christian remark. "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14.1)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
You, Tangle, and biologists are wrong about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. So says the religious charlatan desperately trying to make his god relevant again.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Having you been drinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
unwise1 writes:
Anfinsen was an "an expert expressing an opinion that is completely outside of his field of expertise"? Huh? Only an idiot would put too much, if any, stock in a random quote of an expert expressing an opinion that is completely outside of his field of expertise. Whom would you consider to be an expert in the field of God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman: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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024