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

vimesey:

---

I am human - I can be both right and wrong about various things, because humans are capable of error.
​
Do you accept that you are human, and can be both right and wrong about various things, because you are capable of error ?

---

Is this your excuse for not correctly explaining why cancer treatments fail? What do you think was meant by Edward Tatum when he said this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture?
Edward Tatum – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org

vimesey:

---

I am asking you if you accept that you can be wrong. You are avoiding answering that simple question. Answer it.

---

I am not wrong on this, you are. And those doctors are correct to be monitoring Alyssa. I hope for the best, but I prepare for the worst.

vimesey:

---

You are still not answering the question. Are you capable of being wrong ?

---

Not reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals wrong. You have to be a biologist to get it that wrong.

vimesey:

---

Actually, scratch that. So you are saying that hundreds of thousands of evidence backed biologists are capable of being wrong, but you're not ?

---

They certainly haven't explained how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. They are really slow at understanding the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Why don't they explain how reptiles evolve feathers to grow in the right place, what was the selection pressure for that to happen? And how did bacteria evolve the Krebs cycle, or the DNA replicase system, or the electron transport system, or the ability to transport specific materials in and out of the cell,... They aren't scientists, they are story fabricators. Just give them a billion years and anything can happen. They need to learn how biological evolution actually works, not some fantasy. You are witnessing a folie à plusieurs.

vimesey:

---

Once again - are you capable of being wrong ?

---

Decide for yourself. The physics and mathematics of biological evolution and how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail is published open access. You don't need me to make that decision. What I do know is biologists are capable of being wrong, reptiles don't evolve into birds and fish don't evolve into mammals.

vimesey:

---

Everybody is capable of being wrong.
​
Do you deny that you are capable of being wrong ?

---

We can see that you have run out of any valid arguments.

vimesey:

---

Right - had a good sleep and back on track.
​
Let's crack on.
​
Are you capable of being wrong ?

---

Your sleep didn't give you any good arguments for UCD. Do you understand why the doctors are monitoring Alyssa? It's possible their treatment didn't kill all the cancer cells. They might not know for several years unless the reproductive time for the cancer cells is rapid.

addressing Kleinman:

---

Are you capable of being wrong ?

Phat:

---

I know I am. Im quite sure I would never make a good creationist since I dont understand the science,physics,and chemistry behind it.

---

---

vimesey says he is wrong but he never says what he is wrong about. And when have you heard a biologist say they are wrong about anything? They never say they are wrong about the thermodynamics, they say they just don't understand it but they are working on it. And biologists don't say they are wrong about the mathematics of descent with modification despite what their own experiments show them. They just need to perform more experiments. For years, they claimed that the multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution and some still do, but the multiplication rule dominates biological evolution. That's why 3 drug therapy works for the treatment of HIV and combination selection pressures work for weeds and insect control. Biologists are so wrong but they never admit it, they just wait long enough for their errors to disappear but it doesn't work so well for people suffering from drug-resistant infections or failed cancer treatments. They insist that UCD is true but they can't explain how drug resistance evolves or cancer treatments fail. Biologists have not demonstrated that they understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

vimesey:

---

As ever with you, it's dodging the question.
​
All humans are capable of being wrong. Are you incapable of being wrong ?

---

vimesey will now preach a sermon on Romans 3:23 since he can't explain biological evolution.

Phat:

---

Im quite sure I would never make a good creationist since I dont understand the science,physics,and chemistry behind it.

dwise1:

---

Neither do the creationists, so you would fit right in.

---

---

The not-so-wise1 will now explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Of course, he won't.

vimesey:

---

Ah the fragile ego of a man who cannot admit that he could be wrong.
​
I could be wrong - along with hundreds of thousands of scientists and museums, storerooms and universities stuffed full of evidence.
​
As a mathematician Kleinman, can you work out the probability of hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent scientists and mountains of evidence being wrong, and just you being right in incorrectly applying the mathematical model from scenario A to a different scenario B ? Feel free to show us the maths.

---

vimesey won't tell us which one of those hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent scientists can explain to us how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Maybe they need a whole mountain range of evidence? Or perhaps they let ringo do the mathematical model from scenario A to a different scenario B? With that kind of mathematical talent, the only conclusion you can come to is reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.

Kleinman:

---

Just goes to show you what you learn in a biology program. No wonder you can't explain how biological evolution works.

Taq:

---

They were physics classes, not biology classes. And no, they never taught what you are claiming, probably because you're wrong.

---

---

Oh boy, Taq took a survey of physics course. Taq will now explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution, including the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Kleinman:

---

When I say it takes 1/(mutation rate) replications for an adaptive mutation to occur (in a single selection pressure environment), I'm giving the mean value of the binomial distribution for the adaptive mutation to occur.

Taq:

---

And you are wrong. For example, in the Lederberg paper they saw a 1,000 fold difference in the adaptive mutation rate for two different phenotypes even though the mutation rate was the same in both populations. The mutation rate is not the adaptive mutation rate. Never has been.

---

---

And Taq is also an expert in probability theory. That's why he doesn't do the math for any of the problems he presents, only for imaginary problems. He doesn't need to do the math for real problems, he's so smart.

Kleinman:

---

Your problem is that you want to make a rule based on these exceptional cases. That adaptive mutation might never occur. This is why you are misled by a single case where they suspect that recombination caused treatment failure. You do not understand the fundamental principles of probability calculations.

Taq:

---

It isn't a single case. There are many, many, many examples where an adaptive phenotype can be reached by more than one mutation.

---

---

Taq repeats the same argument but doesn't do the math, he's so smart, he doesn't have to.

Kleinman:

---

Once again you are confused by what I said and you demonstrate your ignorance of medicine. People that are immune incompetent are much more likely to get a resistant infection. And you do not understand what is happening in the medical system. People like you argue that primary care providers use too many antibiotics, yet pneumonia and sepsis are two of the most common reasons for hospital admission.
Most Frequent Principal Diagnoses for Inpatient Stays in U.S. Hospitals, 2018 #277
Almost 1/4 of the cost of all hospitalizations is for septicemia. Many of these cases could have been prevented if antibiotics were not delayed as an outpatient.​

Taq:

---

Every time I show you how multidrug resistance has evolved in HIV you turn around and try to claim that I am telling people triple drug treatments should not be used. Care to reverse your course?

---

---

Once again, Taq shows his expertise in probability theory. Tens of millions of people with HIV are successfully treated with 3 drug therapy and he presents one case of treatment failure. Obviously, three drug treatment doesn't work because it failed once. Recombination always allows adaptive evolution to work, that's why humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, recombination did it. Taq, which recombination events occurred?

Kleinman:

---

You keep using the term fixation and you (and Desai) use that term improperly.

Taq:

---

You once again try to change the subject.
​
You claimed that sexual reproduction prevents competition. Care to correct yourself on this one?

---

---

Taq is so smart that biological fixation means whatever he wants it to mean.

Kleinman:

---

They don't, you dummy.

Taq:

---

Yes, they do.

---

---

Whatever the percentage an allele is in a population, it is fixed according to Taq. And Taq is a genius, so he must be right.

quote:

---

To investigate how sex improves the efficiency of selection, we analysed the dynamics of adaptation. As in earlier studies21,22, asexual populations exhibit signatures of hitchhiking and clonal interference (Fig. 2a–d). Groups of functionally unrelated mutations, linked within the same genetic background, change in frequency together as clonal cohorts. The outcomes of evolution are determined by competition between these cohorts. In contrast, sexual populations are not characterized by cohorts of linked mutations (Fig. 2e–h). Instead, the dynamics of each mutation is largely independent of other variation in the population. In these populations, mutations that occur on different backgrounds fix independently, while others briefly hitchhike to moderate frequencies where they persist or are eliminated from the population.
Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution | Nature

Taq:

---

Are you done being a liar?

---

---

Are you done being a stupid ass and a liar?

vimesey:

---

Are you capable of being wrong ?

Kleinman:

---

Not reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals wrong.

ringo:

---

But you ARE wrong about that. Nobody thinks that. That is NOT what evolution concludes.
​
Evolution concludes that reptiles and birds evolved from a common ancestor. They are cousins with the same grandparents. Fish and mammals evolved from a different common ancestor. They are also cousins with a different set of grandparents.
​
And the two sets of grandparents are also cousins with their own common grandparents.
​
Universal common descent is demonstrated by the nested hierarchy (derived from gross anatomy) and confirmed by DNA. That's the reality. There's no getting around it.
​
You can't trump reality with mathematics.

---

---

---

Drug resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are the reality. And ringo doesn't have a single link which explains how this happens except perhaps these two link. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for two or more simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Are you the math consultant for Taq? Or perhaps the physics consultant?

dwise1:

---

And yet again, right on cue, Kleinman proves my point about him offering nothing but garbage.

---

Just the correct mathematical explanation for descent with modification and recombination. Are you one of those that believe that the multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution? That is very dumb.

Kleinman:

---

Just the correct mathematical explanation for descent with modification and recombination.

Taq:

---

Let's take just a few examples of how wrong your math is.
​
1. The mutation rate is the adaptive mutation rate. That's false because more than one mutation can be adaptive.

---

---

Are you stupid or inattentive or both? I think both. From the paper with a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Understand rubberband? You can have multiple evolutionary trajectories occurring in single evolutionary process. But the evolutionary process in one evolutionary trajectory has no mathematical effect on the other trajectories except biological competition.

Taq:

---

2. Sexual reproduction eliminates competition. That's so ludicrous I don't even need to explain it further.

---

You won't explain it because you can't. Sexual reproduction doesn't eliminate competition, Desai's experiment demonstrates this by increasing the frequencies of a few beneficial alleles while eliminating some of the less fit alleles. Desai doesn't allow this competition to go to completion because he induces sexual reproduction after 90 generations of competition. The most fit allele doesn't get fixed. This all occurs in a constant, single selection pressure environment. That's the condition necessary to amplify a few of the alleles. If the environment was changed, a different set of alleles would start a new amplification process. You really should try to do the mathematics of real evolutionary processes, not your imaginary situations.

Taq:

---

3. You don't think the polymerization of DNA impacts changes in entropy.

---

Don't let me stop you, survey of physics expert. Go ahead, compute the entropy change for polymerization of DNA and see what that gets you. Perhaps you can explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. I doubt it.

Taq:

---

4. You claim that multiple alleles can not move towards fixation at the same time, even though they are observed to do so in sexual populations. All you can do is shift the conversations to definitions of fixation.

---

Your terminology is as bad as your math and physics. Fixation occurs when an allele is 100% in frequency in the popultation. You have already shown that you have trouble doing the mathematics of frequencies. Do I need to go over the addition rule again with you. You are confusing the concept of amplification (in a single selection pressure, constant environment) and fixation. You so foolishly want to apply this to all environments. That is very foolish on your part.