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

Theodoric:

---

Only if it impacts your professional behavior. Plenty of practicing MD's spout shit and keep their license.

---

You are an idiot that has no idea how biological evolution works. You can't even explain the Kishony or Lenski experiments, the simplest examples of biological evolution. You are just full of hot air.

No he won't. No one is interested in your fumbled math and failed explanations. You have shown you know nothing. Good to see PaulK and Taq having to continually correct you about near everything you post.You are entertainment. However, I'm waiting for you to give up trying to explain math you don't know and genetics, of which you know even less, and go full blown crazy catholic creationist on us.Stop belittling us obviously lesser intellects, put it all together, take the eucharist, and finally disprove evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Now, AZPaul3 is going to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

AZPaul3:

---

No he won't. No one is interested in your fumbled math and failed explanations. You have shown you know nothing. Good to see PaulK and Taq having to continually correct you about near everything you post.
​
You are entertainment. However, I'm waiting for you to give up trying to explain math you don't know and genetics, of which you know even less, and go full blown crazy catholic creationist on us.
​
Stop belittling us obviously lesser intellects, put it all together, take the eucharist, and finally disprove evolution.

---

---

I don't have to belittle numbskulls like you. You prove how little you know about biological evolution every time you post. That's why you can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And neither can Taq or PaulK.

quote:

---

The peer reviewers had no trouble understanding my meaning and they published this work. You just don't read very carefully.

---

They had no problem because you explicitly explained what you were doing.

quote:

---

You assumed heterozygosity,

---

Wrong. And I even rewrote the example with assumed homozygosity, just for you. It shingled nothing of significance because it is just a simple application of the rule of 1.

quote:

---

I didn't claim heterozygosity, you did. Why don't you accept the blame for your own blunders?

---

I didn’t claim heterozygosity, nor did I claim that YOU claimed heterozygosity. Those blunders are yours.

I guess you still don’t know what retroviruses do to a cell.Too bad.

Weird how you are attacking me for something you and I are not even discussing.

Then get on with the rest. Put it all together, take the eucharist, and finally disprove evolution. That is your ultimate goal, yes? Or is there no purpose to this other than your ignored and hurting ego?

Kleinman:

---

The peer reviewers had no trouble understanding my meaning and they published this work. You just don't read very carefully.

PaulK:

---

They had no problem because you explicitly explained what you were doing.

---

---

I listed the link to the paper many times. You just never bothered to read it.

Kleinman:

---

You assumed heterozygosity,

PaulK:

---

Wrong. And I even rewrote the example with assumed homozygosity, just for you. It shingled nothing of significance because it is just a simple application of the rule of 1.

---

---

Sure it is a simple example of the rule of one because there the subsets are mutually exclusive. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Kleinman:

---

I didn't claim heterozygosity, you did. Why don't you accept the blame for your own blunders?

PaulK:

---

I didn’t claim heterozygosity, nor did I claim that YOU claimed heterozygosity. Those blunders are yours.

---

---

Sure you did, you didn't understand that C simply represented all the non-A and non-B alleles. That's why you introduced a, b, c, and d alleles. You made a blunder. My simplified model is correct. The probability of an adaptive recombination event depends on the frequencies of alleles in the population.

PaulK:

---

I guess you still don’t know what retroviruses do to a cell.
​
Too bad.

---

They certainly don't make UCD possible and the idea that there are 100s of thousands of these in the human genome is nonsense. That's as smart as the idea of junk DNA. That was a really smart idea of biologists.

Theodoric:

---

Weird how you are attacking me for something you and I are not even discussing.

---

You are just an idiot that doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. You can't even explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments, the simplest examples of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

I don't have to belittle numbskulls like you.

AZPaul3:

---

Then get on with the rest. Put it all together, take the eucharist, and finally disprove evolution. That is your ultimate goal, yes? Or is there no purpose to this other than your ignored and hurting ego?

---

---

You have just proved my point. You can't explain the simplest examples of biological evolution. You are a numbskull.

Weird how you are attacking me for something you and I are not even discussing.

Theodoric:

---

Weird how you are attacking me for something you and I are not even discussing.

---

I'm discussing the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Who knows what a dummy like you is discussing?

Oh nice deflection! Next Kleinman the Bullshitter will show us how the Gypsies create fossils in the middle of rocks. Message 1539
So that's your evidence, personal incredulity? I note that you have presented no evidence to refute the pattern of ERVs found in many genomes of sexually reproducing species. Not one single paper, nothing...At least there are papers showing that some of what was called "junk DNA" decades ago has functions, but nothing showing that ERVs have been mistakenly identified.And no one, not one single person has said or implied that ERVs make UCD possible. The pattern of ERVs is the evidence that inheritance happens and that all life is related, not the cause, but obviously one of the consequences of UCD. And YOU have presented NO counter evidence and you will NEVER be able to explain the pattern of ERVs that are observed and obvious in the genomes of living organisms. One of the standards of science that has always fascinated me is that "when presented with evidence that contradicts current views, science has no choice but to modify the theory to include the new observations."

quote:

---

I listed the link to the paper many times. You just never bothered to read it.

---

That’s not much of an excuse. If you choose to use unclear notation it shouldn’t require following a link to see what it means.

quote:

---

Sure it is a simple example of the rule of one because there the subsets are mutually exclusive. Is it that hard for you to understand?

---

You were the one objecting to it on spurious grounds. That’s not my fault.

quote:

---

Sure you did, you didn't understand that C simply represented all the non-A and non-B alleles. That's why you introduced a, b, c, and d alleles.

---

Which does not in any way make my point incorrect. You choose to confuse the issue with your arrogant bluster, and that is entirely your fault.

quote:

---

You made a blunder

---

A minor error, due to your use of unclear notation. The point made was still correct. You’ve made far worse blunders. Your mistaken claim that I was assuming heterozygosity was at least as bad.

quote:

---

The probability of an adaptive recombination event depends on the frequencies of alleles in the population.

---

And those frequencies will not be static. Indeed, if the alleles are adaptive they will tend to increase.