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

Kleinman asked me a question that made no sense and I explained why it made no sense. How is that dodging?

Ask a biologist. Thousands of them have been working for centuries fitting every living thing into a nested hierarchy. They started doing that long before they knew much about DNA. FYI, the nested hierarchy demonstrates who is related to whom. Tell it to a biologist. They were doing it long before they know much about DNA. And yet they did it without knowing much about DNA. You might as well be saying that you can't fly an airplane without understanding jet propulsion. Sadly for YOU, yes, because those seem to be the only experiments you know about. Somebody - it might have been Jed Clampett - used to say, "When he tells you howdy, he's told you everything he knows." 1. "I" or "we" do not have a mathematical problem. YOU have a mathematical problem.
2. "I" or "we" do not have an empirical problem. YOU have a problem understanding that the Kishony and Lenski experiments do not define all of biology. (Do Kishony and Lenski even agree with your claims about them?)
3. It isn't "my" idea of universal common descent. It's the idea of practically every biol;ogist on earth. (And the alien biologists whose Petrie dishes we occupy agree with us too.)
4. It's becoming fairly clear that you ARE trying to push that evolution-only-within-kinds crap. It has no basis in biology (which is why you denigrate biologists) and it has no basis in the Bible either. And you claim that biologists don't. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ability to repeat "Kishony and Lenski" in every sentence. Don't be too optimistic about how soon they will catch up with you.

You could have stopped at, "I don't know." That summarizes everything you've posted here.

You can prefer whatever flavor of ice cream you want. Just don't pretend that science confirms your preference.ABE:And you just admitted to being a YEC.

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

Maybe Kleinman can explain the math.

You're missing the whole point: Your math doesn't matter.In Message 404, you asked, "Where are all the fossils that demonstrate the next transitional mutation?" and I pointed out that fossils don't demonstrate mutations. None of that has anything to do with your math either.You're clearly trying to claim that there aren't "enough" transitional fossils, according to your bogus calculations. It hasn't worked. You haven't convinced anybody, here or anywhere else.If you want to argue that the transitional fossils aren't transitional, then argue that directly.Don't pretend that you can calculate how many there "should" be. Next you'll be calculating how high Mt. Everest "should" be if continental drift is correct.

But universal common descent was well understood since long before we knoew anything about DNA. And DNA has only confirmed universal common descent. Not at all. Phrenology has been discredited scientifically; universal common descent has not. (You can't cherry-pick one scientific conclusion to deny another.) If Kishony, Lenski or Desai agree with your conclusions, go ahead and show us. No need. DNA has confirmed the nested hierarchy that was initially determined using gross anatomy. Then you should stick to listening and not try to tell your own. No I didn't. I asked for the second-and-third-best experimental examples that confirm your conclusion. I've told you repeatedly that your math is irrelevant.I know you're trying to steer the discussion back toward your math but we're past that now. You might think you've invented the best mousetrap ever but nobody is buying it, so we're not interested in discussing your design. I'm sure Desai is tickled pink to be included. I'm on pins and needles waiting for biologists to confirm your conclusions. When thet do, I'll take you seriously. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

It's nice to be appreciated. Because your math is irrelevant. It can't undo reality. I thought I had mentioned that before. Anyway, I've mentioned it now, so you can stop asking.

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

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

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

Biologists understand biology. YOU claim they don't. Nobody believes you. By reading fossils. You're just making yourself look foolish by talking about tea-leaves. Biologists have figured out biology. YOU claim they haven't. Nobody believes you. There may be no papers that agree with YOU. That would be because YOUR explanation is wrong. If they think they need one, they'll make one. Yes, you're the only one who understands. We heard you. We don't believe you. No, that isn't how it works. YOU show us that they agree with your math. It doesn't help your case either. We've dealt with creationists before who thought that the scientists didn't understand their own experiments. 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. I think your criticisms of evolution are fairy tales. 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. 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. 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. Fool. And you understand more than he does. We've heard you. We don't believe you. Fool. 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. 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.

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.

Funny how you talk about probability and yet you don't understand the difference between "improbable" and "false". (And you don't understand that science doesn't deal in proof.)