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

Message 2088Your ego crash. Run home to mama.

Oh but they do. Millions and millions of them understand how it applies to life and to evolution. And they have access to data, experiments, fossils, museums, and mountains of data which support evolution.You're a mathematician - you must have studied probability. What are the odds that millions and millions of scientists are all wrong, and the vast mountains of evidence are all invalid, and only you and some text written by a goathearder, high on some wackie baccie 3 or 4 thousand years ago, are right ?I know where I'm placing my bet.

Vimsey:

---

It's also a very useful run-through of how the second law of thermodynamics does indeed support the evolution of life

AZPaul3:

---

I liked Jeremy England's work.
​
Under a thermodynamic excess more complex chemical reactions occur spontaneously. Statistically, says England, the emergence of life on this planet was inevitable.
​
Jeremy England - Wikipedia

---

---

Sure, just like the fossil record supports your garbage. Maybe Jeremy England can explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments since biologists can't. Perhaps he is too busy making up stories for the mathematically incompetent. Or perhaps he can put some water in Lake Mead? He certainly doesn't understand descent with modification.

Wasn't talking to you, skank.

That looks interesting - I'll see if I can find his work online. Thanks Paul.No day is wasted when you learn something new.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists have no idea what the second law of thermodynamics is or does.

vimesey:

---

Oh but they do. Millions and millions of them understand how it applies to life and to evolution. And they have access to data, experiments, fossils, museums, and mountains of data which support evolution.
​
You're a mathematician - you must have studied probability. What are the odds that millions and millions of scientists are all wrong, and the vast mountains of evidence are all invalid, and only you and some text written by a goathearder, high on some wackie baccie 3 or 4 thousand years ago, are right ?
​
I know where I'm placing my bet.

---

---

Sure, we can tell by all the biologists' explanations of the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. And let us not forget their explanations of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That explains their level of understanding of biological evolution. Millions and millions of biologists that don't understand thermodynamics. They just didn't get it in their survey courses. Of course, with your understanding of probability theory, you can explain descent with modification. Yeah, right. How long have you had your gambling addiction?

AZPaul3:

---

Wasn't talking to you, skank.

---

Oh, your stupid conversation was private? Now that you understand the second law of thermodynamics, you will explain to us the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Not from a dim bulb like you. You are too busy drying out like Lake Mead.

vimesey:

---

That looks interesting - I'll see if I can find his work online. Thanks Paul.
​
No day is wasted when you learn something new.

---

Now that you are an expert in the second law of thermodynamics, could you explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail? While you are at it, explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments since biologists seem to have trouble with those. See if you can find it online.

Tell it to Google. You would have no way of knowing that. You are the one who is confused. I haven't said anything about thermodynamics at all, except to answer your question about whether I have ever taken a thermodynamics class.The topic is not about thermodynamics.The problem at hand is for you to demonstrate that you have even the most rudimentary understanding of evolution. So far, it seems pretty clear that you don't. It isn't, actually.If you can't manage links in the forum, it's no wonder that you can't follow links in Google. It isn't about thermodynamics. It's simple math and biology. My silliness is entertaining. My redundancy is about the same as yours (Kishoni, Lenski, Desai, oh my!)What's worse is your evasion. Do you understand yet that A → B and A → C are NOT the same as B → C ? Unless you understand that, there's no point in you even mentioning anything about evolution.

They're NOT going from B to C. That's the whole point. And if you don't understand that, you know nothing about evolution.You and your cousin have a common ancestor, your grandfather. You are NOT your cousin's father. Indeed they might. Mathematical symbols can represent whatever they are defined to represent. Or don't you understand that either? There is no room for confusion because they have no idea where evolution is taking them (their descendants) or even that evolution is taking them anywhere.

The lawS, plural. The increase in energy when an organism eats accounts for the increase in entropy. You can't have one law without the other.

They don't apply the way you want them to because they work in combination. A process proceeds if the net free energy is positive.

No, obviously he had banned you from Panda's Thumb for being a troll, just as you are doing here.It currently shows that you have posted 1420 messages. Feeling very charitable at the moment, I would estimate that about twenty (20) of those message contained actual content, actually said something that might contribute to discussion. The remaining one thousand four hundred (1400) have been nothing more than garbage trolling.Troll.

Says the guy who doesn't understand that A → B and A → C are not the same as B → C

I wonder how many times he mentions Kishony, Lenski and Desai.