Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Tangle:

---

Anyway here's a formal test of UCD for you to ignore and lie about not existing.
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry - PubMed

Dredge:

---

"Theobald recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life"
Was the universal common ancestry proved? - PubMed

---

---

Tangle's link is behind a paywall but he posts the link because he thinks this is proof. You need to understand the difference between probability theory and statistics. Probability theory lays the foundation for statistical analysis. In probability theory, you start with the concept of a random trial (e.g. toss of a coin, roll of a die, draw of a card,... etc.), and from that, you can construct a sample space and derive a distribution function. Once you do that, you know the frequency of success for your case. Statistical analysis starts from a point where you have a set of data, and from that data, you assume a distribution function and then try to establish a confidence interval. My work is based on probability theory, not statistical analysis. That was the only complaint that I got from one of the peer reviewers at Statistics in Medicine, that my work was not a statistical analysis. They were correct, I started from fundamental principles (the mutation rate) and derived the correct distribution for descent with modification and adaptation and showed that the distribution function was a variation of the binomial probability distribution. That's why the statistical data from the Kishony and Lenski biological evolution experiments fit the model I've presented. Biologists have no statistical data that doesn't fit this model.

Interesting

I don't suppose for a moment you read or understood either paper.They're testing for a single common ancestor billions of years ago at the dawn of life. The criticism is that the model can't "reject the separate origins hypothesis of the domains of life" - ie Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya ie cellular scale organisms from billions of years ago.The ongoing discussion is whether all three descended from a single organism or whether there are alternative explanations. That is not something anybody but academics worry about. You guys are billions of years up the ladder trying to pretend that dinosaurs reptiles, birds and mammal don't share a common ancestor. No-one but loony-tunes religionists doubt that.

Dredge:

---

"Theobald recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life"
Was the universal common ancestry proved? - PubMed

Tangle:

---

I don't suppose for a moment you read or understood either paper.

---

---

Quote your proof if you think you have some. You won't.

There's 200 years of evidence. Start hereEvidence of common descent - WikipediaMeanwhile, show me how it's wrong.

Kleinman:

---

Quote your proof if you think you have some. You won't.

Tangle:

---

There's 200 years of evidence. Start here
​
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
​
Meanwhile, show me how it's wrong.

---

---

Quote your proof if you think you have some. You won't.

What's up, can't you read?Contents
1 Evidence from genetics
2 Evidence from paleontology
2.1 Fossil records
2.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
2.2 Evolution of the horse
2.3 Limitations
3 Evidence from comparative anatomy
3.1 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
3.1.1 Pentadactyl limb
3.1.2 Insect mouthparts
3.1.3 Other arthropod appendages
3.2 Analogous structures and convergent evolution
3.3 Vestigial structures
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Explanation
4.3 Evidence for migration and isolation
4.4 Continental drift
4.5 Oceanic island distribution
5 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
5.1 Universal biochemical organisation
5.2 Molecular variance patterns
5.3 Out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution
6 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
7 Evidence from studies of complex iteration
8 Evidence from speciation
8.1 Hawthorn fly
9 See also
10 References
11 External linksEvidence of common descent - wikidocGet back to me when you can say that you accept the Theory of Evolution.

Tangle:

---

6 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance

---

Let's start there. Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive step (adaptive mutation) in the Kishony evolution of bacterial resistance experiment?Is that your proof for UCD?

Good night Kleinman

Tangle:

---

Good night Kleinman

---

Good night Tangle.

So you think the amusing belief that carrots and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor is the product of a sound mind?(Please don't reply that it's "not a belief" ... that tiresome lie is such a tiresome lie.)

Tangle:

---

You guys are billions of years up the ladder trying to pretend that dinosaurs reptiles, birds and mammal don't share a common ancestor. No-one but loony-tunes religionists doubt that.

Dredge:

---

So you think the amusing belief that carrots and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor is the product of a sound mind?
​
(Please don't reply that it's "not a belief" ... that tiresome lie is such a tiresome lie.)

---

---

Their beliefs are so weird that vimesey thinks I can do photosynthesis. He pictures me as plankton!
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=903827#m903827

Photosynthesis was not what vimesey was seeing but a scared lonely little man in his closed world screaming nothings into the void. It’s called a caricature. In this case, not a favorable one. Kleinman the Plankton.

Kleinman:

---

Their beliefs are so weird that vimesey thinks I can do photosynthesis.

AZPaul3:

---

Photosynthesis was not what vimesey was seeing but a scared lonely little man in his closed world screaming nothings into the void. It’s called a caricature. In this case, not a favorable one.

​

Kleinman the Plankton.

---

---

So, AZPaul3 can offer an explanation. Why doesn't AZPaul3 explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail?

Throw out the truth - as atheists do - and all you have left is nonsense and superstition. I remember as a boy my grandfather saying that his great-grandfather was known for being able to perform partial-photosynthesis ... strong evidence that we share common ancestry with plants.