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

We don't believe you.

We don't believe you. We know better.

I didn't check your math because, like Kleinman's math, it's useless.But I grant the point that in your simple pop-culture anti-science vernacular such a thing is "statistically impossible", though in fact it is possible just not at all probable.

In your popular parochial non-intellectual definitions that is correct. You can define your layman's terms anyway makes you happy.Just like infinities math contains a lot of concepts that science sees quite differently. Whether you are charting a discrete or continuous series you can asymptote to "impossible" as much as you want. You never get there. It doesn't exist on the chart.You might say it is impossible to asymptote to impossible.

A bunch of years ago the state of Texas added two additional numbers to their lotto choices. Now you could select numbers 51 and 52 in your lotto mix. The state lotto commission blanketed the state with ads showing two dancing ping-pong balls with “51” and “52” on them. The graphics and the voice over were about how great the lotto had become with “two more chances to win!”. It was aimed at folks like you, wasn't it.That sure would help get you to 1000 wins faster, right?

Kleinman will now show us the math on the fall of the British Empire and the physics and/or the mathematics that limit comments to imagined contradictions.I can't wait to learn from him.

Kleinman will now have his peers Kishony, Lenski, and Desai, explain, here at Evc, that DNA evolution works the same with viruses and bacteria as with multicellular sexually reproducing organisms.Can't wait to learn from them.

"They" didn't peer review your work. It was vanity published, as you know well, and no peer review was done.

John Wiley & Sons is a book seller and does not publish an independent peer reviewed scientific journal. They publish hundreds of journals as as service available to the independent journals. They do not have their own journal. They are a publishing house, not a journal. You're trying to hide the weenie again.

You didn't have to prove me right so quickly. I thought you might want to hide more weenies first.Yes, as i said, they are a publishing house. They publish journals. They do not create them, edit them or review them.You also have a group of detractors over at Google Groups, talk.origins. They know your math is erroneous, your observations bogus, just as we concluded. They didn't like your personality either.https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cUFAn6vukD4You're a failed star on both forums.Do you have any positive responses to any of your papers? Where are the glowing reviews of your genius breakthroughs? As staggeringly brilliant as you say your work is, redirecting all of science onto the proper probability models, there should be legions of testimonials. Where are they? You hide those weenies too?

You have to remember you are talking to a meat-cracker eating catholic. Of course you will find misogyny. These guys invented it. Another evil perpetrated by god and Her retinue of demons.

Obsessed Johnny Onenote. No you haven't. All you have given us is disingenuous excuses and lies.You cannot provide any positive feedback from the science community on your drivel. The community has rejected your analysis and has ignored you since. Of course that makes you a martyr and a hero. The know-nothing world-wide discipline of thousands of biologists are all wrong. Only you are right.You're an idiot. No one accepts your crap. You are reduced to shouting silently into the void. How many forums have rejected your presence? Include EvC.

The catholic church. The greatest evil on Earth.

I thought I heard some shouting coming thru the void. No, Just Kleinman again.

And it sure ain't going to be you. You have shown yourself to be incompetent.