What have we accomplished?

OK, so what's the simplest self-replicating organism that doesn't require a host to replicate and how many genes does it have?

We're not talking about "organisms" with "genes" at all. We're talking about abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Of course, I understand the problems I will encounter.

---

I doubt that because you haven’t bothered to think about it.

quote:

---

They are the same problems that people encountered when they told the flat-earthers that the earth isn't flat.

---

And thanks for proving it again. Though you got it wrong, of course. As usual.

You have so many doubts. But you don't doubt that fish evolve into mammals and that you are a descendant of bananas. So you think the earth is flat as well! No wonder you have no doubts that you descended from bananas. That explains your split from reality.

kleinman has 11 published papers, and you guys talk to him like he's a tin-foil hat. no wonder the discourse on this site is stale.

quote:

---

kleinman has 11 published papers,

---

He says he does. That doesn’t make it true. And judging by his performance here it probably isn’t. The papers aren’t full of stupid mistakes or insults or declarations of how great Kleinman is.

quote:

---

and you guys talk to him like he's a tin-foil hat.

---

That would be because he acts like one. He refuses to give his arguments, he makes silly mistakes, he goes on and on about how great he is and how everyone who disagrees with him is stupid.

quote:

---

no wonder the discourse on this site is stale.

---

Kleinman doesn’t contribute anything. And mindless agreement with him wouldn’t be an improvement.If he had good arguments I’d give them fair consideration. The fact he hides his arguments hardly convinces me that they’re good. It convinces me that he knows that they aren’t.

Frank Tipler, Andrew Wakefield, Fred Hoyle.What have you done for me lately?Doesn't matter what past honors were achieved.When someone goes off the deep end into fantasy they are just another crackpot nutjob.Add Kleinman to the list above.

This is an anonymous web site, we have no idea who the guy called 'kleinman' here is.Secondly, he IS a crackpot. Now that wouldn't matter if what he was saying about the maths was right - Newton was bonkers but he could do sums - but he isn't.The fact that he's here at all - on an amateur web site with people like you on it talking total crap - instead of talking to people in his field should tell you that he's a crank.

i found his academic profiles. he does have 11 published papers

How do you know that those profiles belong to Kleinman? Whoever he is.Besides, his behaviour here matters. He is excessively proud and arrogant. He does say things that are ridiculously false - that he should know to be false if he’s as competent as he claims. That is practically begging to be mocked. Not to mention the fact that he’s as abusive as anyone on this forum.

It's not quite 11 published papers, it's 2 papers and a PhD dissertation on thermodynamics and heat transfer, 6 papers on evolution, and the layman's abstract. My next paper will make 11. I wrote quite of few papers for internal use when I worked in the aerospace industry but they all pertained to heat transfer. That's nothing like the numbers produced by the fish-to-mammals factories. Of course, none of those papers correctly explain how evolution works. But even the stale fish-to-mammals aficionados sometimes gives me inspiration and it always gives me exercises in dealing with bad logic.

You really are a moron PaulK, I've never said I published 11 papers. And just because you are too stupid to understand the basic principles of Markov chains and how to apply them to the Jukes-Cantor model and how it is applied to DNA phylogenetics, don't blame me. I've pointed you to numerous references that explain these concepts. You are just too dumb to understand them. And where are PaulK's papers that explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? All PaulK can do is whine and say Kleinman is wrong and insulting. Take a course in introductory probability theory and pass the course and find out why you are wrong.

AZPaul3's idea of sanity is that fish evolve into mammals. Too bad he can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Then he could give the correct explanation for the evolution of drug-resistance and cancer treatment failures. Your continuing lunacies are harming people with your mythology.

It's only anonymous if you choose it. And with the garbage you spout, I see why you would want to remain anonymous. And weren't you the one who claimed to be a scientist, you liar? Fish evolving into mammals! No one should be skeptical of that claim. So where is your explanation of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Oh, and I tried to debate this subject with Felsenstein and challenged him to do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment. He said he wouldn't do it, it would take too much time.Edited by Kleinman, : typo

Is that all you can do is whine? Where're your papers explaining the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You are such a crybaby PaulK and not very well educated.