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

They were physics classes, not biology classes. And no, they never taught what you are claiming, probably because you're wrong. And you are wrong. For example, in the Lederberg paper they saw a 1,000 fold difference in the adaptive mutation rate for two different phenotypes even though the mutation rate was the same in both populations. The mutation rate is not the adaptive mutation rate. Never has been. It isn't a single case. There are many, many, many examples where an adaptive phenotype can be reached by more than one mutation. Every time I show you how multidrug resistance has evolved in HIV you turn around and try to claim that I am telling people triple drug treatments should not be used. Care to reverse your course? You once again try to change the subject.You claimed that sexual reproduction prevents competition. Care to correct yourself on this one? Yes, they do.

quote:

---

To investigate how sex improves the efficiency of selection, we analysed the dynamics of adaptation. As in earlier studies21,22, asexual populations exhibit signatures of hitchhiking and clonal interference (Fig. 2a–d). Groups of functionally unrelated mutations, linked within the same genetic background, change in frequency together as clonal cohorts. The outcomes of evolution are determined by competition between these cohorts. In contrast, sexual populations are not characterized by cohorts of linked mutations (Fig. 2e–h). Instead, the dynamics of each mutation is largely independent of other variation in the population. In these populations, mutations that occur on different backgrounds fix independently, while others briefly hitchhike to moderate frequencies where they persist or are eliminated from the population.
Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution | Nature

---

Are you done being a liar?

That would confirm my point.And I'll give him HIS assignment right back: A → B and so on.

But you ARE wrong about that. Nobody thinks that. That is NOT what evolution concludes.Evolution concludes that reptiles and birds evolved from a common ancestor. They are cousins with the same grandparents. Fish and mammals evolved from a different common ancestor. They are also cousins with a different set of grandparents.And the two sets of grandparents are also cousins with their own common grandparents.Universal common descent is demonstrated by the nested hierarchy (derived from gross anatomy) and confirmed by DNA. That's the reality. There's no getting around it.You can't trump reality with mathematics.

And yet again, right on cue, Kleinman proves my point about him offering nothing but garbage.And now for Littleman's grand revelation to us about biological evolution, all while he is not only incapable of answering ringo's simple direct question, but is also very terrified of it: Anybody with any actual knowledge of evolution would be able to answer that question with ease. But stupid creationists like you cannot answer it and are terrified of such questions.

I actually think that that's what he's trying to do. Just like his fellow stupid creationist, Sledge, and most other stupid creationists.They practice simple Word Magick fueled by a lot of arrogant ignorance and wishful thinking. Maybe it's because of their religious mindset (Dan Barker: "Fundamentalism is when your theology becomes your psychology.") that fundies in general and creationists in particular seem to believe that they can change reality simply by redefining words. That's what we see them do when they use the argumentum ad dictionario, arguing with dictionary definitions which do not apply to the context they're trying to distort. In science, we develop definitions to describe what we observe, whereas in religion and theology (and philosophy and the law) one uses definitions to create and change reality. IOW, Word Magick!Sledge has tried to argue that if he doesn't believe in universal common descent, then it doesn't exist. Word Magick. Littleman keeps trying to redefine reality by applying mathematics sans modèle ("Math model? We don' need no stinkin' math model!"). In order to use mathematics to analyze reality, you first need to construct a mathematical model that describes the system; without a proper math model, all your calculations are nothing but farts in a high wind. Littleman not only refuses to use a math model, but he mocks the very idea.I'd call him a "loon", but that might be mistaken as disparaging Canadian coinage.{ }

Kleinman:

---

Just goes to show you what you learn in a biology program. No wonder you can't explain how biological evolution works.

Taq:

---

They were physics classes, not biology classes. And no, they never taught what you are claiming, probably because you're wrong.

---

---

Oh boy, Taq took a survey of physics course. Taq will now explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution, including the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Kleinman:

---

When I say it takes 1/(mutation rate) replications for an adaptive mutation to occur (in a single selection pressure environment), I'm giving the mean value of the binomial distribution for the adaptive mutation to occur.

Taq:

---

And you are wrong. For example, in the Lederberg paper they saw a 1,000 fold difference in the adaptive mutation rate for two different phenotypes even though the mutation rate was the same in both populations. The mutation rate is not the adaptive mutation rate. Never has been.

---

---

And Taq is also an expert in probability theory. That's why he doesn't do the math for any of the problems he presents, only for imaginary problems. He doesn't need to do the math for real problems, he's so smart.

Kleinman:

---

Your problem is that you want to make a rule based on these exceptional cases. That adaptive mutation might never occur. This is why you are misled by a single case where they suspect that recombination caused treatment failure. You do not understand the fundamental principles of probability calculations.

Taq:

---

It isn't a single case. There are many, many, many examples where an adaptive phenotype can be reached by more than one mutation.

---

---

Taq repeats the same argument but doesn't do the math, he's so smart, he doesn't have to.

Kleinman:

---

Once again you are confused by what I said and you demonstrate your ignorance of medicine. People that are immune incompetent are much more likely to get a resistant infection. And you do not understand what is happening in the medical system. People like you argue that primary care providers use too many antibiotics, yet pneumonia and sepsis are two of the most common reasons for hospital admission.
Most Frequent Principal Diagnoses for Inpatient Stays in U.S. Hospitals, 2018 #277
Almost 1/4 of the cost of all hospitalizations is for septicemia. Many of these cases could have been prevented if antibiotics were not delayed as an outpatient.​

Taq:

---

Every time I show you how multidrug resistance has evolved in HIV you turn around and try to claim that I am telling people triple drug treatments should not be used. Care to reverse your course?

---

---

Once again, Taq shows his expertise in probability theory. Tens of millions of people with HIV are successfully treated with 3 drug therapy and he presents one case of treatment failure. Obviously, three drug treatment doesn't work because it failed once. Recombination always allows adaptive evolution to work, that's why humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, recombination did it. Taq, which recombination events occurred?

Kleinman:

---

You keep using the term fixation and you (and Desai) use that term improperly.

Taq:

---

You once again try to change the subject.
​
You claimed that sexual reproduction prevents competition. Care to correct yourself on this one?

---

---

Taq is so smart that biological fixation means whatever he wants it to mean.

Kleinman:

---

They don't, you dummy.

Taq:

---

Yes, they do.

---

---

Whatever the percentage an allele is in a population, it is fixed according to Taq. And Taq is a genius, so he must be right.

quote:

---

To investigate how sex improves the efficiency of selection, we analysed the dynamics of adaptation. As in earlier studies21,22, asexual populations exhibit signatures of hitchhiking and clonal interference (Fig. 2a–d). Groups of functionally unrelated mutations, linked within the same genetic background, change in frequency together as clonal cohorts. The outcomes of evolution are determined by competition between these cohorts. In contrast, sexual populations are not characterized by cohorts of linked mutations (Fig. 2e–h). Instead, the dynamics of each mutation is largely independent of other variation in the population. In these populations, mutations that occur on different backgrounds fix independently, while others briefly hitchhike to moderate frequencies where they persist or are eliminated from the population.
Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution | Nature

Taq:

---

Are you done being a liar?

---

---

Are you done being a stupid ass and a liar?

vimesey:

---

Are you capable of being wrong ?

Kleinman:

---

Not reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals wrong.

ringo:

---

But you ARE wrong about that. Nobody thinks that. That is NOT what evolution concludes.
​
Evolution concludes that reptiles and birds evolved from a common ancestor. They are cousins with the same grandparents. Fish and mammals evolved from a different common ancestor. They are also cousins with a different set of grandparents.
​
And the two sets of grandparents are also cousins with their own common grandparents.
​
Universal common descent is demonstrated by the nested hierarchy (derived from gross anatomy) and confirmed by DNA. That's the reality. There's no getting around it.
​
You can't trump reality with mathematics.

---

---

---

Drug resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are the reality. And ringo doesn't have a single link which explains how this happens except perhaps these two link. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for two or more simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Are you the math consultant for Taq? Or perhaps the physics consultant?

And now you are trying to distract people away from the evidence that disproves your claims.What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that there can be more than one mutation that is adaptive. Therefore, you can't use the mutation rate as the adaptive mutation rate. You claimed multidrug resistance has never evolved in HIV. Obviously, you are very wrong. Conman. Conman.

dwise1:

---

And yet again, right on cue, Kleinman proves my point about him offering nothing but garbage.

---

Just the correct mathematical explanation for descent with modification and recombination. Are you one of those that believe that the multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution? That is very dumb.

Let's take just a few examples of how wrong your math is.1. The mutation rate is the adaptive mutation rate. That's false because more than one mutation can be adaptive.2. Sexual reproduction eliminates competition. That's so ludicrous I don't even need to explain it further.3. You don't think the polymerization of DNA impacts changes in entropy.4. You claim that multiple alleles can not move towards fixation at the same time, even though they are observed to do so in sexual populations. All you can do is shift the conversations to definitions of fixation.

That's a lie.There are plenty of links. Kleinman is afraid to look at them because he knows there is NOTHING on the Internet that supports his nonsense. He supports himself. Nobody else does.

And there you go trying to bury us under more and more garbage. Yes, it applies where it does actually apply.We do know how it applies. Why don't you? 
We already know that you are a stupid creationist (which includes all the creationist attributes of arrogant ignorance, lying and deceiving, etc) and that you don't know what you are talking about.We also know beyond a doubt that you are nothing but a troll.What do you have left to prove? That you're a stupid creationist troll who posts nothing but garbage? We already know that!You have nothing more to "contribute" or to detract. You shot your wad long ago. Why are you still here?

Kleinman:

---

Just the correct mathematical explanation for descent with modification and recombination.

Taq:

---

Let's take just a few examples of how wrong your math is.
​
1. The mutation rate is the adaptive mutation rate. That's false because more than one mutation can be adaptive.

---

---

Are you stupid or inattentive or both? I think both. From the paper with a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
Understand rubberband? You can have multiple evolutionary trajectories occurring in single evolutionary process. But the evolutionary process in one evolutionary trajectory has no mathematical effect on the other trajectories except biological competition.

Taq:

---

2. Sexual reproduction eliminates competition. That's so ludicrous I don't even need to explain it further.

---

You won't explain it because you can't. Sexual reproduction doesn't eliminate competition, Desai's experiment demonstrates this by increasing the frequencies of a few beneficial alleles while eliminating some of the less fit alleles. Desai doesn't allow this competition to go to completion because he induces sexual reproduction after 90 generations of competition. The most fit allele doesn't get fixed. This all occurs in a constant, single selection pressure environment. That's the condition necessary to amplify a few of the alleles. If the environment was changed, a different set of alleles would start a new amplification process. You really should try to do the mathematics of real evolutionary processes, not your imaginary situations.

Taq:

---

3. You don't think the polymerization of DNA impacts changes in entropy.

---

Don't let me stop you, survey of physics expert. Go ahead, compute the entropy change for polymerization of DNA and see what that gets you. Perhaps you can explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. I doubt it.

Taq:

---

4. You claim that multiple alleles can not move towards fixation at the same time, even though they are observed to do so in sexual populations. All you can do is shift the conversations to definitions of fixation.

---

Your terminology is as bad as your math and physics. Fixation occurs when an allele is 100% in frequency in the popultation. You have already shown that you have trouble doing the mathematics of frequencies. Do I need to go over the addition rule again with you. You are confusing the concept of amplification (in a single selection pressure, constant environment) and fixation. You so foolishly want to apply this to all environments. That is very foolish on your part.

Kleinman:

---

Drug resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are the reality. And ringo doesn't have a single link which explains how this happens...

ring0:

---

That's a lie.
​
There are plenty of links. Kleinman is afraid to look at them because he knows there is NOTHING on the Internet that supports his nonsense. He supports himself. Nobody else does.

---

---

This cowpoke smokes way too much locoweed. He's having hallucinations.

Kleinman:

---

Are you one of those that believe that the multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution?

dwise1:

---

Yes, it applies where it does actually apply.
​
We do know how it applies. Why don't you?​

---

---

Really, you know where the multiplication rule applies? You must show us in your C-- vaporware.