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

AZPaul3:

---

The guy is a lying anti-science religionist. And a charlatan at that trying to click-bait his errant papers into view. There is no reason we should not stomp on his head then tar and feather his creationist ass.

Tanypteryx:

---

You for got, he's also a QUACK!

---

---

Maybe the bug chaser wants to file a complaint with the medical board against me. He would be a good monkey in the next edition of the Scopes monkey trail.AZPaul3 talks a good story, the coward that he is. He needs to learn how to live with a burst bubble.

Kleinman:

---

It is because humans and every other replicator is not evolving in a constant environment.

Taq:

---

If that is what you think then you know nothing about biology. It isn't a changing environment that causes clonal interference.

---

---

Taq stumbles into the truth for once. It isn't a changing environment that causes clonal interference, it is a constant environment. A changing environment causes the relative fitnesses to change, which interferes with fixation. And you have already admitted that I know how descent with modification works for asexual replicators. When you finally admit that descent with modification works the same way for sexual replicators then you will know something about biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Taq quotes a 10-year-old paper that shows that recombination causes HIV treatment to fail, therefore, combination therapy for the treatment of HIV does not work.

Taq:

---

I never said that.
​
You claimed that multi-drug resistance does not evolve in HIV, and that it definitely doesn't do so by recombination. In reality, it does. Reality wins. You are wrong.

---

---

Right on cue. Then why do you post a link based on a single patient with HIV where the authors claim that recombination is happening? This is like your koala example of ERVs when a single infection may cause the extinction of the animal.

Kleinman:

---

They don't understand the laws of thermodynamics and they can't explain a simple biological evolutionary problem.

Taq:

---

So says the person who can't measure the entropy of a DNA sequence, and a person who thinks changing environments cause clonal interference in sexual organisms.

---

---

Why don't you show us? Give us the entropy of a DNA sequence. You won't because you don't know how. You don't even know that entropy is not conservative, it is always increasing as a population diverges. And a changing environment doesn't cause clonal interference, it changes the relative fitnesses of the different variants so that in one environment, a variant may be most fit, but in a different environment, its fitness decreases. For example, a drug-resistant variant may be most fit is an environment with the drug but in a drug-free environment, it may be less fit than the drug-sensitive variants. That's why the drug-resistant variants were selected out of Lenski's populations. How did you get so confused on this subject? What were you doing in your 26 years of research to foul up so much?

Kleinman:

---

you believe that reptiles evolve into birds

AZPaul3:

---

No. We KNOW that reptiles and birds share a common ancestor millions of years ago.

---

---

Yeah, right, you were a naive child and you grew up to be a naive adult. You are also a dummy.

So you admit that you can't do it. In order for you to claim that you would need to calculate the entropy of the different DNA molecules. What about the change in entropy for the process of reproduction? Going from one strand of DNA to two strands of DNA? Is that a decrease or increase in entropy? You are the one who thinks a constant environment is what reduces clonal interference in sexual populations, not me.

You have not shown error in anything I have said. That should be very telling to the spectators in the peanut gallery.On the contrary, this forum has shown the errors and deliberate deceptions in your religiously motivated efforts to disprove common descent, evolution, genetics, math, reality ...You are a fraud, Kleinman. And a truly ignorant one.

No, it isn't. Asexual reproduction is what causes clonal interference. You have changed my mind on that one. You don't even know what descent with modification is. Darwin is the guy who coined the term, and he called it "descent with modification through natural selection". Descent with modification includes natural selection.I have already shown you how descent with modification differs between asexual and sexual populations. You refuse to accept reality. I don't. I have referenced many papers and many examples. You ignore them, and then try to claim that I am saying multidrug therapy doesn't work.Here is another one:

quote:

---

The potential contribution of recombination to the development of HIV-1 resistance to multiple drugs was investigated. Two distinct viruses, one highly resistant to a protease inhibitor (SC-52151) and the other highly resistant to zidovudine, were used to coinfect T lymphoblastoid cells in culture. The viral genotypes could be distinguished by four mutations conferring drug resistance to each drug and by other sequence differences specific for each parental virus. Progeny virions recovered from mixed infection were passaged in the presence and absence of both zidovudine and SC-52151. Dually resistant mutants emerged rapidly under selective conditions, and these viruses were genetic recombinants. These results emphasize that genetic recombination could contribute to high-level multiple-drug resistance and that this process must be considered in chemotherapeutic strategies for HIV infection.
Recombination leads to the rapid emergence of HIV-1 dually resistant mutants under selective drug pressure. - PMC

---

Kleinman:

---

Of course, that someone can't tell you how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

Taq:

---

You can't tell us how drug resistance evolves. You get it wrong at every turn.
​
For example, why does chloramphenicol resistance evolve faster in sexual hypermutating strains of E. coli than it does in standard and hypermutating strains of asexual E. coli? Why does sexual reproduction fail to speed up evolution of trimethoprim resistance?
​
Sexual recombination and increased mutation rate expedite evolution of Escherichia coli in varied fitness landscapes - PMC

---

---

Why don't you tell us what the environments used to carry out these experiments? Was it constant? Or did it vary? Or can't you explain your own links?

You still haven't shown error in anything I've said. You can turn a blind eye to fact but it ain't going away.The naive child is the one who never grew out of bible school and ruined his career and reputation becoming a radical religious fraud.

So you can't tell us how antibiotic resistance evolved in those experiments. Figures.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you show us? Give us the entropy of a DNA sequence.

Taq:

---

So you admit that you can't do it.

---

---

You don't need to, stupid. It isn't necessary to do the mathematics of descent with modification. You don't even know what is necessary and what isn't necessary to calculate to understand biological evolution.

Kleinman:

---

You don't even know that entropy is not conservative, it is always increasing as a population diverges.

Taq:

---

In order for you to claim that you would need to calculate the entropy of the different DNA molecules.

---

---

No, you do not. In this case, all you need to know is that it is increasing as the population diverges. You can easily compute the rate at which new alleles are created without knowing the value of the entropy at any step. That is if you know how to do the probability calculation (either an "at least one" calculation or a Markov chain). Both give the same results. But knock yourself out and compute the exact value for the entropy. At absolute temperature equals 0, the entropy is 0.

Kleinman:

---

For example, a drug-resistant variant may be most fit is an environment with the drug but in a drug-free environment, it may be less fit than the drug-sensitive variants.

Taq:

---

What about the change in entropy for the process of reproduction? Going from one strand of DNA to two strands of DNA? Is that a decrease or increase in entropy?

---

---

The exact value of entropy is not important with descent with modification. What is important is that any divergence of a population must increase entropy for it to be possible. What is important is the rate of increase in new variants as the population diverges.

Kleinman:

---

What were you doing in your 26 years of research to foul up so much?

Taq:

---

You are the one who thinks a constant environment is what reduces clonal interference in sexual populations, not me.

---

---

Don't be silly. It only makes you look more ignorant.

Kleinman:

---

Why don't you tell us what the environments used to carry out these experiments? Was it constant?

Taq:

---

So you can't tell us how antibiotic resistance evolved in those experiments. Figures.

---

---

You didn't read this paper either. Do you ever read any of the papers you put up as references?

Yes you do. If you can't measure entropy then you can't demonstrate that entropy has changed. It's a pretty simple concept. DNA is chemistry. If your mathematics don't include the entropy of the chemical interactions then it is meaningless. What matters is the amount of energy available for work in the system which is entropy. In order to make those comparisons you have to incorporate the chemistry of DNA and and the movement of energy during the replication of DNA. What you are ignoring is the change between free individual nucleotide bases and a string of nucleotide bases. Then why was there clonal interference in the asexual organisms in a constant environment but no clonal interference in the sexual organisms that were in the same constant environment?

I did read them. I would be glad to explain why the evolution of chloramphenicol resistance benefitted from sexual recombination while the evolution of trimethoprim resistance did not benefit from sexual recombination. As a bonus, I could also throw in a discussion on the evolution of glycerol utilization as it relates to sexual recombination and epistasis.All you have to do is admit you don't understand why they saw these results and I will give you the explanations.

Kleinman:

---

You don't need to, stupid.

Taq:

---

Yes you do. If you can't measure entropy then you can't demonstrate that entropy has changed. It's a pretty simple concept.

---

---

Then do it and show us how UCD is possible. You are blowing hot air.

Kleinman:

---

It isn't necessary to do the mathematics of descent with modification.

Taq:

---

DNA is chemistry. If your mathematics don't include the entropy of the chemical interactions then it is meaningless.

---

---

So quit blowing hot air and show us how you compute entropy for a DNA sequence.

Kleinman:

---

The exact value of entropy is not important with descent with modification. What is important is that any divergence of a population must increase entropy for it to be possible. What is important is the rate of increase in new variants as the population diverges.

Taq:

---

What matters is the amount of energy available for work in the system which is entropy. In order to make those comparisons you have to incorporate the chemistry of DNA and and the movement of energy during the replication of DNA.

---

---

That is complete BS. Energy and entropy don't even have the same units.

Kleinman:

---

That is if you know how to do the probability calculation (either an "at least one" calculation or a Markov chain). Both give the same results. But knock yourself out and compute the exact value for the entropy. At absolute temperature equals 0, the entropy is 0.

Taq:

---

What you are ignoring is the change between free individual nucleotide bases and a string of nucleotide bases.

---

---

So, you don't think that is accounted for in the relative fitness?

Kleinman:

---

Don't be silly. It only makes you look more ignorant.

Taq:

---

Then why was there clonal interference in the asexual organisms in a constant environment but no clonal interference in the sexual organisms that were in the same constant environment?

---

---

Desai is using relative fitness to increase the frequencies of several of the more fit alleles by using a constant selection of a single selection pressure for 90 generations. He then induces sexual reproduction after 90 generations of amplification of the more fit alleles which are at high enough frequencies to give recombination of those alleles. If Desai had used varying environments with variable selection pressures, those alleles would not have been amplified. You have been doing 26 years of research, do Desai's experiment except with a varying environment with varying selection, and show that your argument is correct. Or see why combination selection pressures work for treating HIV, weeds, and insects, something that you claim won't work.