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

quote:

---

They certainly don't make UCD possible and the idea that there are 100s of thousands of these in the human genome is nonsense

---

Nobody has said that they make UCD possible. But the presence of ERV fragments in the human genome - and in the genomes of other apes is evidence of common ancestry. And if you knew what ERVs do to a cell it wouldn’t be surprising to find them in the human genome.

quote:

---

That's as smart as the idea of junk DNA. That was a really smart idea of biologists.

---

Junk DNA is a fact. You may not like it, but that is your problem.

I don't. Science doesn't deal in beliefs. Science doesn't deal in "proof". Don't you know ANYTHING about science?

At least I know how sex works and that it doesn't violate 2LoT. And you have no idea how sexual reproduction works. Go calculate the square root of zero, that all you are good for.

Well, he has given us proof that he doesn't know anything about science.

What I find entertaining is that you cannot do the physics and mathematics of sexual reproduction. So far we haven't seen you or your subject succeeding.

Kleinman:

---

You are too stupid to realize you are not random sampling.

Tanypteryx:

---

Oh nice deflection! Next Kleinman the Bullshitter will show us how the Gypsies create fossils in the middle of rocks.

---

---

No, I'll just show you the physics and mathematics of biological evolution, something which you don't have the slightest idea about. You are such a nimrod.

Kleinman:

---

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

PaulK:

---

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.

---

---

I don't need much of an excuse for something so simple. Why it confuses you is really a mystery.

Kleinman:

---

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?

PaulK:

---

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

---

---

Whose fault is it that you don't see the obvious?

Kleinman:

---

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.

PaulK:

---

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.

---

---

You make the error and you should get the credit for your error, it's only fair enough.

Kleinman:

---

You made a blunder

PaulK:

---

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.

---

---

My notation was clear enough to anyone who can read, perhaps your problem is that you can't read.

Kleinman:

---

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

PaulK:

---

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

---

---

That's correct in a constant environment. What happens when the environment is changing? An allele might be advantageous in one environment but disadvantageous in another environment.

Kleinman:

---

They certainly don't make UCD possible and the idea that there are 100s of thousands of these in the human genome is nonsense

PaulK:

---

Nobody has said that they make UCD possible. But the presence of ERV fragments in the human genome - and in the genomes of other apes is evidence of common ancestry. And if you knew what ERVs do to a cell it wouldn’t be surprising to find them in the human genome.

---

---

Of course, they don't make UCD possible. It also is a demonstration of biologists wrongly doing non-random sampling and introducing bias into their math. But if that is all you have, what else can you do.

Kleinman:

---

That's as smart as the idea of junk DNA. That was a really smart idea of biologists.

PaulK:

---

Junk DNA is a fact. You may not like it, but that is your problem.

---

---

So anything you don't understand is junk. No wonder you are so slow in understanding.

Kleinman:

---

Then why do you believe in UCD...

ringo:

---

I don't. Science doesn't deal in beliefs.

---

---

So you don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics. No wonder you are so slow in understanding the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

... you don't have any proof..

ringo:

---

Science doesn't deal in "proof". Don't you know ANYTHING about science?

---

---

So that's why you believe in fish evolving into mammals and reptiles evolving into birds. You don't have to prove anything. Who needs to know about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution when you already know this?

Kleinman:

---

Yeah right, you understand the second law of thermodynamics like you understand how biological evolution works and that is no understanding.

Tanypteryx:

---

At least I know how sex works and that it doesn't violate 2LoT.

---

---

Did you learn that chasing bugs? You are so stupid that you don't understand the simplest examples of biological evolution, the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Tell us how smart you have gotten chasing around bugs.

ringo:

---

Science doesn't deal in "proof". Don't you know ANYTHING about science?

Tanypteryx:

---

Well, he has given us proof that he doesn't know anything about science.

---

---

We all can't be as smart as you chasing around bugs. But I do know how to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments and that you have to random sampling of your data if you don't want to introduce bias into your math. Did you learn that chasing bugs around?

Kleinman:

---

Why would a dope like you find it entertaining not to do the physics and mathematics of biological evolution?

Tanypteryx:

---

What I find entertaining is that you cannot do the physics and mathematics of sexual reproduction.

---

---

Tell us how sexual reproduction makes UCD possible, this should be entertaining. It must be all the chasing of bugs that does it.

So, you still have no evidence refuting the patterns of ERVs in the genomes of sexually reproducing species. We can all see you flailing, Bullshit Peddler.

What part of "science doesn't deal in belief" do you not understand?Science does not deal in belief. We do not "believe" in thermodynamics. We know the laws of thermodynamics to be an accurate description of the universe. We know this because it's what the evidence shows. Belief doesn't enter into it.We know that mathematics can be used to describe the universe. But mathematics and logic require real evidence to work with. By themselves, in a vacuum, they produce nothing but speculation. No. Science doesn't deal in belief. Why can't you understand that?No, fish did not evolve "into" mammals. A common ancestor evolved into fish and mammals. We know that fish and mammals have a common ancestor because they fit so neatly into a nested hierarchy. And the more we know about DNA, the more it confirms that common ancestor,And no, reptiles did not evolve "into" birds. A common ancestor evolved into reptiles and birds. We know that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor because they fit so neatly into a nested heiearchy. And the more we know about DNA, the more it confirms that common ancestor, That's right. Science doesn't deal in "proof". All it needs is mountains of evidence. Well, we certainly don't need YOUR crackpot ideas about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Crackpot mathematics can't tear down mountains of evidence.

Tell us how sexual reproduction works, this should be entertaining.