Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Kleinman:

---

Tell us how life started in the primordial soup.

ringo:

---

That's a different topic. Are you starting to run scared?

---

---

Abiogenesis and universal common descent, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. Yeah, I'm quaking in my boots.

ringo:

---

So let's see you use mathematics and physics to confirm the Bible story.

Kleinman:

---

That's an easy one. You have three possibilities, 1. panspermia, 2. abiogenesis then descent with modification, and 3. We were created.
1. panspermia-still have a problem with how life arose on the planet Krypton and how did that life get to earth.
2. abiogenesis then descent with modification-chemistry, physics, and math doesn't work
3. we were created-only possibility remaining and can't be disproved.

ringo:

---

I don't see where you mentioned the Bible at all. Readong comprehension eludes you again.

---

---

---

Don't need to, already proved 1. and 2. false.

ringo:

---

Once again, you misunderstood the assignment. I wanted you to show how Dredge could have decades of symptoms in 3 years.

---

Once again, I'm impressed with your attention to detail. Now, if you could only apply that attention to the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Abiogenesis and universal common descent, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology.

Dredge:

---

Ha ha! Good one! Biology for Space Cadets.
​
Abiogenesis: Knowing how stupendously complex any living organism is, how dumb would you have to be to believe that lifeless mud, by a wild stoke of luck, somehow became a living organism? And that very fortunate organism just so happened to be able to reproduce! How lucky was that?!
​
The probability of that happening is to impossibly small that no one with even an ounce of common sense could believe such a profoundly unscientific idea.
Embarrassing.
Universal Common Descent: How dumb would you have to be to believe that a human and a lettuce evolved from the same organism? Manifest superstition. Embarrassing

---

---

It is sad that the field of biology has become like this. It has become a form of zealotry. I wonder why they think it is so important to believe that humans are related to chimpanzees. I suspect it is because they understand that if they aren't related to chimpanzees that they were created and owe a debt and are accountable to their Creator. Perhaps if they knew that their Creator was abounding in mercy and grace it might make a difference.

Kleinman:

---

Tany thinks that DNA evolution works differently for insects than it does for yeast.

Tanypteryx:

---

I know that the evolutionary process works differently in modern complex sexually reproducing organisms compared to bacteria and viruses and yeast, and so do you.

---

---

Don't stop there, tell us how DNA evolution is different in "modern", complex, sexually reproducing organisms than bacteria, viruses, and yeast.

Kleinman:

---

Do you want to explain to us how a retrovirus in a somatic cell gets into a gamete?

Tanypteryx:

---

By infecting a gamete in the first place Nimrod.

---

---

So these are infectious retroviruses, not endogenous retroviruses. When were these stem cells infected by these retroviruses and do these retroviruses use these stem cells to reproduce themselves?

Kleinman:

---

And are you claiming that these retroviruses somehow alter the reproductive fitness of either humans or chimpanzees?

Tanypteryx:

---

Nope, I didn't even imply that.

---

---

Then why do humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimps?

Kleinman:

---

Do you know that humans and chimpanzees produce identical insulin?

Tanypteryx:

---

Yep, and unlike you I also know why, but so what? What does that have to do with ERVs?

---

---

Do you know that humans and chimps don't produce identical preproinsulin? This has to do with a habit of yours of seeing similarities where they don't really exist.

Tanypteryx:

---

I knew you wouldn't be able to explain the pattern of endogenous retroviral insertions in the human and chimp genomes, or in all the other organisms that also have them, for the same reasons that you were unable to explain the nested hierarchy that all complex life fits into when you plot ERVs, or genomes or morphological relationships.

---

I thought you said these were infectious retroviruses, not endogenous retroviruses and they infect gametes. And that they appear randomly in the genome. And that humans and chimps have the exact same ERVs. What percent of the human genome is composed of these retroviruses? And what percentage of the chimpanzee genome is composed of retroviruses?

Kleinman:

---

I was starting to think you had left the building as well.

Tanypteryx:

---

Nope, I just had to go on a road trip to Utah. I'm here now, so I can pop in occasionally when I have time.
​
It does seem like continued argument with you is pointless. You are just another creationist abusing science. Your conclusions and knowledge of evolution are flawed and no matter how much insist you are correct you seem to have convinced no one. Your work has been ignored by science. Everyone already knows that multiple therapies or pesticides work better than shingle ones, and why, so stop acting like you invented it.

---

---

Abusing science? That's silly. And I know that my work is ignored by most biologists. It doesn't fit their mathematically irrational belief system. And I don't claim to have invented combination therapies. Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture explained it and it is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities. Biologists also ignore Edward Tatum's work which explains why biologists still can't explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You should learn about that mathematical rule and its effect on descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

I thought you said these were infectious retroviruses, not endogenous retroviruses

Tanypteryx:

---

Then you thought wrong.
​
So you still can't explain the pattern as I said.

---

---

Tany, it's not up to me to explain this pattern that you are seeing. It is for you to give an explanation. And I have a few questions about your claim. I hope you don't think I'm abusing you with these questions.1. What percentage of the human and chimpanzee genome is made up of what you call ERVs?
2. How did humans and chimpanzees or your primate progenitor acquire these ERVs?
3. When did humans and chimpanzees or your primate progenitor acquire these ERVs?
4. How many bases are in a typical retrovirus?
5. Are ERVs biologically active and perform some type of genetic activity for the cell or are they what biologists like to call "junk" DNA?Answer those questions and that will give us a good start in analyzing your claim. This is going to be fun.

Tanypteryx:

---

It does seem like continued argument with you is pointless.

nwr:

---

Yes. This is why I have stopped responding to his posts.

---

---

Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that the mathematician with a little knowledge of physics doesn't do the mathematics of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

The joint probability of random adaptive evolutionary events doesn't add, you must multiply their probabilities

Dredge:

---

Sounds like "or" (add) verses "and" (multiply).

---

---

Here's a simple analogy to understand natural selection in an adaptation process.Consider if for your family to survive that your family needs to win two lotteries. And the probability of winning one lottery is 1 in a million, and the probability of winning the other lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability is 1 in a million times 1 in a million equals 1 in a trillion, a very low probability indeed. But let's say, you win one of those lotteries. And because of this, you are a very wealthy man and you can raise a very large family. And all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, there will be a high probability that one of your descendants will win that second lottery for your family.The probability of an adaptive mutation occurring on some variant in a population depends on the number of replications that variant does and the mutation rate, nothing else. There are lots of factors that affect that variant from doing the necessary number of replications for the next adaptive mutation. Competition is one of those factors. It is also possible that a single adaptive mutation does not exist for the given selection conditions. But it all comes down to the fact that the number of replications and the mutation rate determine that probability. And adaptive evolutionary events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule as are your chances of winning two lotteries.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists understand that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational transition?

ringo:

---

Biologists understand biology. YOU claim they don't. Nobody believes you.

---

---

Where's the biologists' explanation of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony, Lenski, and Desai experiments? Biologists don't even understand how biological competition affects descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

How did biologists figure that out by reading fossil tea leaves?

ringo:

---

By reading fossils. You're just making yourself look foolish by talking about tea-leaves.

---

---

Where did you read in your fossils that it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Kleinman:

---

Biologists have not figured out why biological competition slows descent with modification.

ringo:

---

Biologists have figured out biology. YOU claim they haven't. Nobody believes you.

---

---

Take a math and physics class and then you might believe me.

Kleinman:

---

That's why there are no papers by biologists that correctly explain the Kishony, Lenski, or Desai experiments.

ringo:

---

There may be no papers that agree with YOU. That would be because YOUR explanation is wrong.

---

---

My papers agree with the numbers given by Kishony and Lenski. And these papers show you how to derive the equations from first principles. Biologists have yet to publish a paper that does that.

Kleinman:

---

Where's the biologist's mathematical model of random recombination?

ringo:

---

If they think they need one, they'll make one.

---

---

Don't worry ringo, the paper has already been written and Taq knows it is correct.

Kleinman:

---

I have the whole tree, I have all the cherries.

ringo:

---

Yes, you're the only one who understands. We heard you. We don't believe you.

---

---

I'm not the only one that understands. The peer-reviewers of my papers also understand. The reason why they understand is they know how to do the mathematics of a stochastic process. Biologists are so poorly trained in mathematics, they can't do a simple probability problem. Ask nwr, he understands how simple the math is and it works correctly to predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Sadly, nwr doesn't do the mathematics of biological evolution.

ringo:

---

If Kishony, Lenski or Desai agree with your conclusions, go ahead and show us.

Kleinman:

---

You ask them if my math is correct or not.

ringo:

---

No, that isn't how it works. YOU show us that they agree with your math.

---

---

---

You are just being silly now. It isn't my choice whether they comment on my work or not. What we do know is that my math predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before it was performed and it explains why competition slows adaptation in the Lenski experiment. Neither Kishony nor Lenski have explained this.

Kleinman:

---

If they won't admit it publicly whether I'm correct or not is not my choice.

ringo:

---

It doesn't help your case either. We've dealt with creationists before who thought that the scientists didn't understand their own experiments.

---

---

Try dealing with the math and physics (if you can).

ringo:

---

DNA has confirmed the nested hierarchy that was initially determined using gross anatomy.

Kleinman:

---

Oh really? Post a few examples of how that has been done.

ringo:

---

Birds. We can tell a bird from a cow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a crow and an eagle are both birds by gross anatomy.
​
Mammals. We can tell a cow from a crow by gross anatomy. We can tell that a cow and a whale are both mammals by gross anatomy.
​
And we can tell that birds and mammals are all vertebrates by gross anatomy.

---

---

---

But you can't tell whether birds are related to mammals or any other vertebrate by gross anatomy. You must use DNA analysis, determine the genetic differences and calculate whether it is possible for such a genetic transformation to occur. Taq couldn't do it with humans and chimpanzees because he doesn't have a sufficient number of replications to do the math. It takes extremely large populations to do descent with modification under the best of circumstances. Bacteria, viruses, cancer cells, plants, insects, and other populations that can achieve large numbers with rapid recovery can do limited adaptive evolution. The Lenski experiment has gone about 80,000 generations with about 5 trillion replications and has gotten a lineage with about 100 adaptive mutations. And that's with only a single selection pressure acting on the population.

Kleinman:

---

So you think that drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are fairytales?

ringo:

---

I think your criticisms of evolution are fairy tales.

---

---

Pay attention, I'm criticizing biologists' failure to understand the mathematics of descent with modification and the concept of universal common descent. Biologists will not understand biological evolution until they correctly formulate the mathematics for descent with modification. That's why biologists fail to correctly explain the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Kleinman:

---

Is it the intent of biologists to give sad endings to those stories? It certainly seems so.

ringo:

---

You seem to forget that biologists are the ones who do the basic research that makes medical treatments possible. I doubt that many physicians share your contempt for biologists.

---

---

Biologists' explanation of the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail sucks.

ringo:

---

I asked for the second-and-third-best experimental examples that confirm your conclusion.

Kleinman:

---

Why are you ignoring the Desai experiment?

ringo:

---

You haven't said much about the Desai experiment, YOU ignored it for most of this discussion. Eventually, you tacked it on the end of your "Kishony and Lenski" mantra.
​
So is it Kishony best, Lenski second-best and Desai third-best? Then give us your fourth-best and fifth-best.

---

---

---

ringo, you argue about the stupidist things. The Lenski experiment has been going on for decades, the Kishony experiment published in 2016, the Desai paper was just published at the beginning of 2021. Have you even tried to read the Desai paper?

Kleinman:

---

There you go! Your idea of science is no math, no physics.

ringo:

---

On the contrary, my idea of science is that math and physics are inextricable intertwined with biology and chemistry and geology and.... YOU are the one who is trying to do biology without biology.

---

---

I forgot to mention that your idea of science also doesn't include experimentation.

Kleinman:

---

The reading of fossil tea-leaves tells it all.

ringo:

---

Fool.

---

---

I'm not the one taking something equivalent to phrenology and thinking that I can explain the physics and mathematics of biology.

ringo:

---

I'm sure Desai is tickled pink to be included.

Kleinman:

---

He should be if he actually wants to understand how biological evolution works.

ringo:

---

And you understand more than he does. We've heard you. We don't believe you.

---

---

---

Why don't you read his paper and find out? You won't because you will find out that the math I've presented is correct.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you solve this problem with your fossil tea-leaf reading?

ringo:

---

Fool.

---

---

We'll take that as an admission that you can't. No surprise.

ringo:

---

I'm on pins and needles waiting for biologists to confirm your conclusions. When thet do, I'll take you seriously.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you get off your pins and needles and do it yourself?

ringo:

---

Why don't I fly around the world? Because I'm not a pilot.
​
Why don't I do biology? because I'm not a biologist.
​
But I do respect biologists. If it needs doing, they'll do it.

---

---

---

Biologists haven't explained the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. What's their excuse?

Kleinman:

---

Just imagine what those two selection pressures would do to the population of biology students.

ringo:

---

You seem to forget that creationism has already been selected OUT by ALL sciences, along with astrology, alchemy and flat-earthism. Even if you could destroy evolution, creationism isn't even NEAR to second place.

---

---

Tell that to the people with antimicrobial-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

Kleinman:

---

Abiogenesis and universal common descent, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. Yeah, I'm quaking in my boots.

ringo:

---

Clearly you ARE shaking in your boots, trying to divert attention from your ignorance by changing to an unrelated subject. (Abiogenesis is NOT biology, by the way. Look up "A".)
​
Go ahead and start a topic about abiogenesis. I dare ya, dumbest.

---

---

Shaking in my boots, that's hilarious! And I know why you won't read the Desai paper. It might as well be written in hieroglyphics without the rosetta stone for what you would understand.Are any varsity player's left out there? Or just the C- team?

ringo:

---

It can't undo reality.

Dredge:

---

Is an atheist Darwinist qualified to define "reality"? I have my doubts.

---

---

ringo is just filling space at this time. If there is going to be any chance of an interesting discussion on this topic, it might come from Tanypteryx. Let's see how he does with his endogenous retrovirus claims.In the meantime, you might find this video interesting on debating someone that is delusional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1GxFKtxF-I&t=91s&ab_chan...

Dredge:

---

I thought you might find this interesting:
​
Biology transcends the limits of computation
​

---

From your reference:

quote:

---

Biology has been saddled with “physics envy” when in fact it is a far more sophisticated discipline than physics, with numerous
unique principles (Kaufmann, 2005; “The social sciences' ‘physics envy,” 2012). Biology obeys the rules of mathematics, physics and
chemistry, but cannot be reduced to those things (Schr€odinger, 1944; Walker and Davies, 2016). Biology possesses properties un-
known to physics, chemistry, and computing. Evolution is not computation

---

The problem with applying the laws of physics to biological systems is that you have to have enough understanding and experience applying the laws of physics to complex systems and enough understanding and experience with biological systems and variables involved that you are trying to model. For example, when an engineer begins his/her training in learning how to apply Newton's laws to write equations of motion, one doesn't start by learning how to write the equation of the motion of a building with many structural components to an earthquake. The student starts by learning how to write the equation of motion for a pendulum or a mass and spring. You learn how to formulate a simple differential equation based on Newton's laws and compare that result with a laboratory experiment. Then you learn how to write the equations for more and more complex systems. The same principle is used when learning heat transfer. You start with the simplest case of a conduction heat transfer problem in a single spatial dimension, then you learn how to do the math in more complex geometries. Once you master that case, you introduce convection heat transfer, again doing the simplest cases first and moving to more complex cases. Once you master the situation with conduction and convection heat transfer, then radiation heat transfer is introduced. This process is continued to more and more difficult geometries with more complex physical systems. The application of these laws of physics should always be applied with simultaneous experimentation and empirical measurement when pushing the limits of the application of these laws. That's the way it is done in the aerospace industry.These principles should be taught to biology students who have familiarity with biology experiments (engineering students are not exposed to these experiments). The reason why I like the Kishony and Lenski experiments so much is that they demonstrate descent with modification for both experiments while the Lenski experiment includes biological competition. One can start with the fundamental variables, the mutation rate and population size, derive the simple probability calculation that determines the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring, and in the case of Lenski's biological competition, superimpose Haldane's frequency equation for competition and compute the rate of adaptive evolution. These experiments don't include the effect of random recombination but if you recognize that this is similar to a random card drawing problem, you can use the trinomial (or multinomial distribution) to superimpose that math on descent with modification and biological competition. Taq debated me on these points and I think he gets it. It takes a long time to get sufficient mastery of physics and mathematics and biological systems to do this kind of mathematical modeling. Descent with modification is one of the best examples of the second law of thermodynamics around. The equations are not that hard to derive and the experimental evidence can actually be visualized with the Kishony experiment.An interesting paper but I don't agree that you can't mathematically model biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that the mathematician with a little knowledge of physics doesn't do the mathematics of biological evolution.

nmr:

---

When you talk of "the mathematics of evolution", you are actually talking about the mathematics of your own completely bogus strawman version of evolution. And nobody cares (except creationists).

---

---

You are so boring. It's no fun playing with the C- team with their out-of-date playbook.

Kleinman:

---

I wonder why they think it is so important to believe that humans are related to chimpanzees. I suspect it is because they understand that if they aren't related to chimpanzees that they were created and owe a debt and are accountable to their Creator.

Dredge:

---

Yep ... the Darwinian version of life's history is a product of atheism, not legitimate science. That's pretty obvious to anyone outside the cult.
Sign of the times, I'm afraid.

---

---

More precisely, an over-extrapolation of Darwinian evolution. In a way, it's like taking Einstein's theory of relativity and saying "everything is relative". When you apply Darwin's theory correctly, you can explain experiments such as Kishony's and Lenski's. And explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. What you don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bathwater. Darwin got some things right. It is universal common descent that doesn't fit in the theory of evolution. That's what the experimental and mathematical evidence shows.