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

Quite a few and not very many. The number of adaptive steps is irrelevant. Do you think every T. Rex fossil ever found is at the same stage of adaptation? "Species" is already singular. Removing the "s" doesn't make it more singular. Not at all. The mutations in the individuals produce diversity among their offspring but we're looking at many, many generations here. Every diverse form may be a transitional on the way to a new species. If no archaeopteryx ever had offspring, it is still a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Even if that particular line died out, there could be other transitions that didn't fossilize. In other words, we KNOW that species transition into other species, even if we don't have fossils for every transition. Of course. How many pigs do you need to convince you that pigs exist? I will gladly agree with the biologists on that one. (Did you really think that denigrating biologists would help your argument?) If Kishony and Lenski replicate their experiments with archaeopteryx and T. Rex, the significance of your calculations will be demonstrated. You have it backwards. You calculate the number of transitionals that there "should" be and try to warp reality to fit your idea. Science looks at reality and adjusts the theory to fit the facts.

Finally! Yes, you should do that and report back to us.

Kleinman:

---

How many T Rex has ever lived and how many fossil specimens exist of T Rex?

ringo:

---

Quite a few and not very many.

---

---

Wikipedia lists 19 specimen.
Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia
UC Berkeley list the number at fewer than 100 and total number of about 2.5 billion
How many T. rexes were there? Billions. | Berkeley News
With that population size, under ideal conditions, you might get 2-3 adaptive evolutionary steps. That averages to 1 transitional fossil for every 25 million replications or about 40 transitional fossils for each adaptional mutation.

Kleinman:

---

Then consider that each adaptive step (mutation) in a lineage requires 1/(mutation rate) replication, for a mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a billion replications.

ringo:

---

The number of adaptive steps is irrelevant. Do you think every T. Rex fossil ever found is at the same stage of adaptation?

---

---

A population of 2.5 billion will only give slight diversification, and very little adaptation. Try doing the math.

Kleinman:

---

a bird specie

ringo:

---

"Species" is already singular. Removing the "s" doesn't make it more singular.

---

---

I stand corrected, I twarn't a anglish mager in kollige.

ringo:

---

I also mentioned that, strictly speaking, ALL fossils are transitional, not just the obvious ones like archaeopteryx.

Kleinman:

---

You are confusing the concept of diversity with a transition.

ringo:

---

Not at all. The mutations in the individuals produce diversity among their offspring but we're looking at many, many generations here. Every diverse form may be a transitional on the way to a new species.

---

---

---

You still don't get how slow the diversification process is. Most DNA is replicated with high fidelity, with only about 1 error in every 100 million or billion base replications. And when you talk about a lineage accumulating a set of adaptive mutations, the rest of the population in a different clade does not contribute to the probability of the next adaptive mutation occurring on a member of that lineage. Of course, if you want to include recombination as Taq did, you have another mathematical problem to address. That's why Taq couldn't give a rational explanation of how humans have greater reproductive fitness than chimps to achieve the greater population size. It takes orders of magnitude larger populations than available to either humans or chimps for adaptive DNA evolution to work properly. You aren't thinking systematically about this.

Kleinman:

---

And fossils are a snapshot of the dead, you don't know whether they had offspring or not.

ringo:

---

If no archaeopteryx ever had offspring, it is still a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Even if that particular line died out, there could be other transitions that didn't fossilize. In other words, we KNOW that species transition into other species, even if we don't have fossils for every transition.

---

---

You can't even explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments correctly. Yet you know that species transition into other species based on a single fossil of an extinct creature. You believe this because you want to believe this. This isn't science. Try learning how adaptive evolution works. The math isn't that hard and then the Kishony and Lenski experiments will make sense to you. It's basic biological competition and descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

... one fossil of some strange extinct life form out of the multiple billions of replications for adaptive evolution to operate is enough to convince you that a reptile lineage can evolve into birds?

ringo:

---

Of course. How many pigs do you need to convince you that pigs exist?

---

---

That's a silly analogy. I'm not denying that you don't have a fossil of a strange extinct creature. It's your claim that the creature is a transition step between a reptile and a bird. You might as well say that pigs are transitioning into birds. All you need are the right selection conditions and enough time. You make such immature claims about evolution yet you refuse to recognize what the Kishony and Lenski experiments are demonstrating about DNA evolution.

Kleinman:

---

Save that argument for naive schoolchildren and biologists that haven't studied introductory probability theory.

ringo:

---

I will gladly agree with the biologists on that one. (Did you really think that denigrating biologists would help your argument?)

---

---

Stop whining and learn introductory probability theory. That's the area of math that is used to describe DNA evolution and random recombination (Mendelian genetics as well). Biologists have no excuse for failing to correctly describe the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. And if biologists are going to use statistical methods to do inferential phylogenetics, they need to learn that they have to do their sampling in a random manner.

Kleinman:

---

ringo, you still aren't getting the significance of these calculations and the results of the Kishony and Lenski experiments that substantiate these calculations.

ringo:

---

If Kishony and Lenski replicate their experiments with archaeopteryx and T. Rex, the significance of your calculations will be demonstrated.

---

---

There is plenty of empirical data on the behavior of DNA adaptive evolution with complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms out there if you want to see it and it all shows that you are wrong. You have no excuse for not learning how adaptive DNA evolution works other than it doesn't fit your worldview. Why is it so important to you to think that you are related to chimpanzees?

Kleinman:

---

You must interpret the fossil record in the context of these mathematical facts....

ringo:

---

You have it backwards. You calculate the number of transitionals that there "should" be and try to warp reality to fit your idea. Science looks at reality and adjusts the theory to fit the facts.

---

---

ringo, the Kishony, and Lenski experiments are real, measurable, and repeatable. I don't have to warp the numbers that Kishony and Lenski report. In fact, the math I presented predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before it was performed. Why is universal common descent so important to you?

Kleinman:

---

You must interpret the fossil record in the context of these mathematical facts, otherwise, you are just storytelling.

Tanypteryx:

---

Finally! Yes, you should do that and report back to us.

---

---

I already have. You report you to have one fossil that you claim is some kind of transition between a reptile and a bird. You should have hundreds or thousands of these transitional fossils because each DNA adaptational step takes 100's of millions or billions of replications. Understand rubberband?

Nope you have not presented anything but bullshit. No I didn't. I said I have seen an Archaeopteryx fossil. And there are many more fossil species showing dinosaurs transitioning into birds and dinosaurs are no longer considered to be reptiles. And you have been told that we do have hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. You don't seem to understand the concept of ancestors and descendants and you should try to learn the basics of the evolutionary process. I know you're confused but Biology 101 would be a good place to start.If you were correct there should be thousands of citations to your papers. By now it should be obvious to even you that your calculations are erroneous and the do not accurately model the math or physics of life on this planet.You keep pulling "mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a billion replications" out of your ass, as if it is some kind of constant for all species, without a shred of evidence showing that it can be applied to any organisms other than bacteria. Considering the few citations you have on your "papers" I doubt that your calculations on 2 bacterial experiments are correct.On top of all your other errors you ignore all the other types of mutations other than single point replacements. Your math and physics fails to accurately model reality and the only way it could would be magic.

Kleinman:

---

I already have.

Tanypteryx:

---

Nope you have not presented anything but bullshit.

---

---

You must like it because several posts back, you said, "OK, I'm finished.", That's when I said, "At least my model correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV." Message 363 Are you finally ready to give your explanation of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? In particular, why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive mutational step?

Kleinman:

---

You report you to have one fossil that you claim is some kind of transition between a reptile and a bird.

Tanypteryx:

---

No I didn't. I said I have seen an Archaeopteryx fossil. And there are many more fossil species showing dinosaurs transitioning into birds and dinosaurs are no longer considered to be reptiles.

---

---

So is your new settled science dinosaurs are now birds? Seems like biologists are having a hard time making up their minds.

Kleinman:

---

You should have hundreds or thousands of these transitional fossils because each DNA adaptational step takes 100's of millions or billions of replications.

Tanypteryx:

---

And you have been told that we do have hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. You don't seem to understand the concept of ancestors and descendants and you should try to learn the basics of the evolutionary process. I know you're confused but Biology 101 would be a good place to start.

---

---

You tell me lots of things, but you still haven't given your explanation for the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. When are you going to give your explanation of why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational step? I know you're confused but a good place to start is in your elementary school arithmetic class.

Tanypteryx:

---

If you were correct there should be thousands of citations to your papers. By now it should be obvious to even you that your calculations are erroneous and the do not accurately model the math or physics of life on this planet.

---

I'm in good company, biologists don't cite Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture either. Edward Tatum understood the effect of the multiplication rule on biological adaptive evolution. Too bad biologists don't understand this because then they could correctly explain the biological evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and why cancer treatment fails. That's what happens when you put the solution of a scientific problem into the hands of amateurs.

Tanypteryx:

---

You keep pulling "mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a billion replications" out of your ass, as if it is some kind of constant for all species, without a shred of evidence showing that it can be applied to any organisms other than bacteria. Considering the few citations you have on your "papers" I doubt that your calculations on 2 bacterial experiments are correct.

---

Now I'm sure you have never studied probability theory. The mutation rate is the frequency of success for a binomial probability problem. That means that in 1/(mutation rate)*(number of random trials) gives the mean value for that binomial distribution.
Mean of Binomial Distribution - Statistics How To

quote:

---

The mean of binomial distribution is much like the mean (i.e. the average) of anything else. It answers the question “If you perform this experiment many times, what’s the likely (the average) result?.

​

Formula for Mean of Binomial Distribution
The formula for the mean of binomial distribution is:
μ = n *p

​

Where “n” is the number of trials and “p” is the probability of success.

---

When n=1/p, you have on average, 1 success. Understand rubberband. And don't blame me that biologists are so slow at understanding these mathematical facts of life. It explains why biologists have failed to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It appears you haven't learned this in your survey of physics and survey of mathematics courses.

Tanypteryx:

---

On top of all your other errors you ignore all the other types of mutations other than single point replacements. Your math and physics fails to accurately model reality and the only way it could would be magic.

---

You are so silly and inattentive. Check out equation (1) from this paper:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection

Kleinman:

---

If E1,…, Em are mutually exclusive events, then
P(E1 ∪ E2∪ …∪Em) = P(E1) + P(E2) + …+P(Em)
Then, for our case, the mathematical expression for the possible outcomes for a mutation is
P(−∞ < X < +∞) = P(Ad) + P(Cy) + P(Gu) + P(Th) + P(iAd) + P(iCy) + P(iGu) + P(iTh) + P(del)+… = 1 (1)
where ‘…’ represents any other mutation such as the probability of a double deletion or double insertion
of the base at that site and any other forms of mutation you might imagine could be included in the
sample space.

---

You see Tany, a mutation is also a random trial with multiple possible outcomes. Read this paper carefully and learn how to derive the governing equation for DNA evolution for a single selection pressure. Equation (13) is the governing equation for the Kishony experiment and when used in conjunction with Haldane's substitution equation predicts the behavior of the Lenski experiment. You should learn this.

Again, how many pigs do you need to convince you the pigs exist? Answer the question. Wrong. I couldn't care less which answer is true. All I care about is where the evidence leads.FYI, I have considered switching sides - i.e. trying to argue the creationist side. I'd get a lot more action.But the crestionist positions, including yours, are so god-dammed stupid that I couldn't think of a single positive thing to say about them. No, I'm saying that if I see a pig I know that pigs exist - and if I see a transitional fossil I know that transitional fossils exist. I don't need to see x number of transitional fossils that you claim "should" exist. I don't need to see x number of pigs. One is enough to demonstrate that it exists. YOU stop whining and learn introductory evolutionary theory. And learn that you can't calculate reality away. Mathematics describes reality; it doesn't define reality. Chimpanzees aren't the worst relatives I have. I don't brag about being related to you. I didn't say you were. (I guess reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in college either.)I said that your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils. Why is gravity so important?*shrug*It's a fact. We might as well get used to it.

Kleinman:

---

You can't even explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments correctly. Yet you know that species transition into other species based on a single fossil of an extinct creature.

ringo:

---

Again, how many pigs do you need to convince you the pigs exist? Answer the question.

---

---

ringo thinks this is a pig

Kleinman:

---

You believe this because you want to believe this.

ringo:

---

Wrong. I couldn't care less which answer is true. All I care about is where the evidence leads.

---

---

Opinions aren't evidence. Try some experimental evidence such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

ringo:

---

FYI, I have considered switching sides - i.e. trying to argue the creationist side. I'd get a lot more action.
​
But the crestionist positions, including yours, are so god-dammed stupid that I couldn't think of a single positive thing to say about them.
​

---

How long do we have to wait for your physical and mathematical explanation of descent with modification for the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Kleinman:

---

I'm not denying that you don't have a fossil of a strange extinct creature. It's your claim that the creature is a transition step between a reptile and a bird. You might as well say that pigs are transitioning into birds.

ringo:

---

No, I'm saying that if I see a pig I know that pigs exist - and if I see a transitional fossil I know that transitional fossils exist. I don't need to see x number of transitional fossils that you claim "should" exist. I don't need to see x number of pigs. One is enough to demonstrate that it exists.

---

---

You can have whatever opinion you want but that opinion of yours doesn't explain descent with modification for the Kishony and Lenski experiments or why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. To do this requires understanding the physics and mathematics of biological evolution, something that you don't have.

Kleinman:

---

Stop whining and learn introductory probability theory.

ringo:

---

YOU stop whining and learn introductory evolutionary theory. And learn that you can't calculate reality away. Mathematics describes reality; it doesn't define reality.

---

---

OK ringo, here's your big chance to teach introductory evolutionary theory. Teach us the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. These are two very simple experimental examples of evolutionary theory.

Kleinman:

---

Why is it so important to you to think that you are related to chimpanzees?

ringo:

---

Chimpanzees aren't the worst relatives I have. I don't brag about being related to you.

---

---

I'm sorry I disappoint you so much. At least I don't do this to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgsBHbW3Og&ab_channel=Da...

Kleinman:

---

I don't have to warp the numbers that Kishony and Lenski report.

ringo:

---

I didn't say you were. (I guess reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in college either.)
​
I said that your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils.

---

---

Are you now claiming that descent with modification works differently for reptiles or humans and chimps than demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Taq tried to make a case for sexual reproduction and recombination but that didn't go so well. Perhaps you think you can do better?

Kleinman:

---

Why is universal common descent so important to you?

ringo:

---

Why is gravity so important?
​
*shrug*
​
It's a fact. We might as well get used to it.

---

---

Too bad your opinion isn't supported by physical, mathematical, and experimental evidence. You have gotten used to your opinion just like many people got used to the opinion that the earth is flat. But if you want to make a case that descent with modification works differently for bacteria as demonstrated by the Kishony and Lenski experiments than for complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing organisms, make your case. But try to use physical, mathematical, and experimental evidence to do this, not your highly biased opinions. I do like a good scientific discussion, so don't keep us waiting.

No. I think it exists. Don't you?How many transitionals have to exist to convince you that transitionals exist? Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence. "We" aren't waiting. Only YOU are waiting. WE are way past your miscalculations.It took a while to pry you away from your fixation on Kishony and Lenski (are you physically capable of writing a sentence without the words "Kishony and Lenski"?) - but we're talking about transitional fossils now. Try to keep up. Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence. Your first lesson is: The Kishony and Lenski experiments are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. Maybe they are but they have nothing to do with the point you're trying to make. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing. Not at all. Read what I said: "... your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils."I'm saying that you have misused the Kishony and Lenski experiments. On the contrary, it seems to have gone very well, since nobody disagrees with it but you. Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence. You have it backwards, again. The flat-earthers are trying to overturn the accepted paradigm and YOU are trying to overthrow the accepted paradigm. I'm just going with what practically every scientist on earth thinks. I'll admit to being biased in favor of science - but go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.

Kleinman:

---

ringo thinks this is a pig

ringo:

---

No. I think it exists. Don't you?
​
How many transitionals have to exist to convince you that transitionals exist?​

---

---

If you use proportionality to the number of T Rex fossils, then 40 transitional fossils for each mutational adaptation step. Then you have to estimate how many mutations it would take to cause a transition from a reptile lineage to a bird lineage. If it can be done with 10 adaptive mutations, you would expect about 400 transitional fossils from the 10 billion replications necessary to make that genetic transition. For 100 adaptive mutations, you would expect about 4000 transitional fossils from the 100 billion replications necessary to make that genetic transition. Why do you think you can explain descent with modification with a single fossil specimen? Why do you think you can explain descent with modification with any fossil specimens?

Kleinman:

---

Opinions aren't evidence.

ringo:

---

Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.

---

---

How about taking a single fossil and claiming this proof of reptiles evolving into birds? Don't you know that we are in the era of DNA evidence?

Kleinman:

---

How long do we have to wait for your physical and mathematical explanation of descent with modification for the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

ringo:

---

"We" aren't waiting. Only YOU are waiting. WE are way past your miscalculations.
​
It took a while to pry you away from your fixation on Kishony and Lenski (are you physically capable of writing a sentence without the words "Kishony and Lenski"?) - but we're talking about transitional fossils now. Try to keep up.

---

---

Taq knows it's not a miscalculation. And why not be fixated on the Kishony and Lenski experiments? These are real, measurable, and repeatable examples of DNA evolution and descent with modification. And you are giving an opinion on a single fossil and calling it a transitional form of a reptile to a bird. Why don't you tell us how many replications for this lineage to make the transition from a reptile population to a bird population? I always enjoy a good fairytale.

Kleinman:

---

You can have whatever opinion you want....

ringo:

---

Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.

---

---

It's much easier to give the amount of scientific evidence you have presented. Zero! Feel free to repeat yourself while stamping your feet, "I have a fossil of a reptile evolving into a bird and that's scientific evidence because it is a pig".

Kleinman:

---

OK ringo, here's your big chance to teach introductory evolutionary theory. Teach us the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments.

ringo:

---

Your first lesson is: The Kishony and Lenski experiments are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

---

---

ringo thinks that descent with modification works differently for bacteria than it does for complex, multicellular, sexual replicators but he won't explain how.

Kleinman:

---

These are two very simple experimental examples of evolutionary theory.

ringo:

---

Maybe they are but they have nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.

---

---

Sure these experiments have everything to do with the point I'm making. They demonstrate experimentally how descent with modification works.

Kleinman:

---

At least I don't do this to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgsBHbW3Og&ab_channel=Da...

ringo:

---

That's pretty much exactly what you're doing.

---

---

Sorry if this discussion bursts your bubble on the idea of universal common descent, but facts are facts, that's what the science is showing. The fossil record does not demonstrate how descent with modification works, you need to measure it by doing experiments such as what Kishony and Lenski have done. Too bad biologists don't teach these facts to premed students because then they would have some idea of how antimicrobial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

Kleinman:

---

Are you now claiming that descent with modification works differently for reptiles or humans and chimps than demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

ringo:

---

Not at all. Read what I said: "... your whole discussion of the Kishony and Lenski experiments is irrelevant to the number of transitional fossils."
​
I'm saying that you have misused the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

---

---

Correctly explaining the physics and mathematics of these experiments is misusing them? These experiments demonstrate how many replications it takes for each adaptive mutation. And if you are agreeing that descent with modification works the same for all replicators, why can't these results be applied to other replicators?

Kleinman:

---

Taq tried to make a case for sexual reproduction and recombination but that didn't go so well.

ringo:

---

On the contrary, it seems to have gone very well, since nobody disagrees with it but you.

---

---

Taq bailed out because he knows he's wrong. The Lenski experiment demonstrates this and neither Haldane nor Kimura make claims in their analysis of fixation that multiple alleles fix simultaneously.

Kleinman:

---

You have gotten used to your opinion just like many people got used to the opinion that the earth is flat.

ringo:

---

You have it backwards, again. The flat-earthers are trying to overturn the accepted paradigm and YOU are trying to overthrow the accepted paradigm. I'm just going with what practically every scientist on earth thinks.

---

---

The difference is that I've given the correct mathematical and physical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Biologists have not. Universal common descent is a mathematically and empirically irrational belief. And your opinion about a fossil does not change the mathematical and experimental evidence.

Kleinman:

---

... not your highly biased opinions.

ringo:

---

I'll admit to being biased in favor of science - but go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.

---

---

For someone who admits to being biased in favor of science, you certainly put a lot of effort into avoiding the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments.

Did I say you could? i said that one transitional fossil is enough to demonstrate that transitional fossils exist. Another thing I didn't say. (You won't hear me talking about "proof".) Because there's a whole world out there. You're wasting your time trying to use Kishony and Lenski as a silver bullet to kill evolution when the rest of the world disagrees with you. Another thing I didn't say.Learn to read.

Kleinman:

---

Why do you think you can explain descent with modification with a single fossil specimen?

ringo:

---

Did I say you could? i said that one transitional fossil is enough to demonstrate that transitional fossils exist.

---

---

A transition to what?

ringo:

---

Go ahead and point out any opinions that I have expressed that aren't confirmed by evidence.

Kleinman:

---

How about taking a single fossil and claiming this proof of reptiles evolving into birds?

ringo:

---

Another thing I didn't say. (You won't hear me talking about "proof".)

---

---

---

Evidence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

evidence (ev-i-duhns)
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
verb (used with object), ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest:
He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence:
He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

---

Kleinman:

---

And why not be fixated on the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

ringo:

---

Because there's a whole world out there. You're wasting your time trying to use Kishony and Lenski as a silver bullet to kill evolution when the rest of the world disagrees with you.

---

---

All the empirical evidence of descent with modification behaves like the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It just happens that the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate this the best. And this evidence doesn't kill evolution, it kills the notion of universal common descent.

Kleinman:

---

Feel free to repeat yourself while stamping your feet, "I have a fossil of a reptile evolving into a bird and that's scientific evidence because it is a pig".

ringo:

---

Another thing I didn't say.
​
Learn to read.

---

---

So, when are you going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and how this proves (or is evidence of) universal common descent? Biologists really need help on this.

A different species. Dictionaries are like mathematics. They describe. They do not prescribe. So give us the second-best and third-best, just for variety. Stop being such a one-trick pony. But what's your goal in killing universal common descent if not to kill evolution? Do you have an alternative idea that includes evolution but NOT universal common descent? (Let me guess: evolution limitied to within "kinds".) I'm not going to try to use mathematics to try to show that the biologists are wrong. And I'm not going to use mathematics to show that bumble-bees can't fly. You need to learn some respect for biologists. Thinking they're all wrong and you're right is just crazy.

ringo:

---

i said that one transitional fossil is enough to demonstrate that transitional fossils exist.

Kleinman:

---

A transition to what?

ringo:

---

A different species.

---

---

---

Where are all the fossils that demonstrate the next transitional mutation? Now that you know that it takes about 1/(mutation rate) replications for each adaptational transitional mutation. For a mutation rate of 1e-9, that's about a billion replications and if these replicators' fossil remains were preserved in a similar ratio as T Rex, you should have about 40 fossils for the next adaptational transitional mutation. And 40 more for the next adaptational mutation, and 40 more for the next transitional mutation,... It appears that you are missing something from the fossil record. So, let's hear your excuse.

Kleinman:

---

Evidence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

ringo:

---

Dictionaries are like mathematics. They describe. They do not prescribe.

---

---

You don't know when you have been circumscribed.

Kleinman:

---

All the empirical evidence of descent with modification behaves like the Kishony and Lenski experiments. It just happens that the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate this the best.

ringo:

---

So give us the second-best and third-best, just for variety. Stop being such a one-trick pony.

---

---

I've already mentioned many examples how the multiplication rule affects descent with modification (adaptation). Start with the evolution of HIV to antiviral treatment. Single-drug treatment fails in about a week because the virus only has to achieve a population size of about 100,000 (mutation rate of 1e-5) for resistant variants to appear. While 3 drug therapy (3 mutations, 1 to each drug) requires about 1e15 replications to give a reasonable probability of that variant occurring. Read this paper if you want to understand the math:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
And if you want examples of descent with modification (adaptation) for complex, multicellular, sexual replicators, consider what people in agriculture do to suppress the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds and pesticide-resistant insects:
Herbicide Resistance: Development and Management

quote:

---

Because resistance is generally the consequence of using a single herbicide repeatedly, any proactive or reactive approach should take an opposite view. It is important to utilize an overall integrated pest management approach by combining as many of the following management practices as possible.

---

Take Steps to Avoid Insecticide Resistance

quote:

---

Applying two or more pesticides with different modes of action in a tank-mix or pre-pack may delay the onset of, or mitigate, existing pest resistance. Tank-mixing allows for adjusting of the ratio of pesticides to fit local pest and environmental conditions, while premixes are formulated by the manufacturer. The different pesticides in the mixture must be active against the target pest so that insects with resistance to one mode of action are controlled by a pesticide partner with a different mode of action. Theoretically, repeated use of any tank-mix or pre-pack combination may give rise to insecticide resistance, if resistance mechanisms to each insecticide in the mix arise together but the probability is very low.

---

These same principles apply to using rodenticides and cancer therapies. Single-drug targeted cancer treatments have a very low probability of working unless the cancer is caught at a very early stage. If you want to see how to apply this math to cancer treatment, read this paper:
Drug Resistance, An Enemy of Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are many, many papers where people in agriculture and medicine are figuring out descent with modification despite the failure of biologists to explain this process correctly.

Kleinman:

---

And this evidence doesn't kill evolution, it kills the notion of universal common descent.

ringo:

---

But what's your goal in killing universal common descent if not to kill evolution? Do you have an alternative idea that includes evolution but NOT universal common descent? (Let me guess: evolution limitied to within "kinds".)

---

---

Descent with modification occurs, biological competition occurs, recombination occurs, selection pressures exist, and universal common descent is mathematically irrational and should not be taught as scientific fact to naive school children. It is a stupid and dangerous thing to teach this falsehood when all the real, measurable, and repeatable scientific evidence shows that universal common descent does not occur. Your problem is that your intellectual bias doesn't allow you to accept these physical and mathematical facts of life. I'm a Creationist because I believe that the scientific evidence substantiates that belief. If you want to believe in abiogenesis and universal common descent, this is a free country. But I attribute your claims to a lack of good training in the laws of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. After all, biologists have failed to give a correct explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And we are all accountable to our Creator.

Kleinman:

---

So, when are you going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of descent with modification and how this proves (or is evidence of) universal common descent?

ringo:

---

I'm not going to try to use mathematics to try to show that the biologists are wrong. And I'm not going to use mathematics to show that bumble-bees can't fly.

---

---

ringo, you really need a new playbook. You trot out the same stupid lines but you can't hide the fact that you can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You need a much larger engine for universal common descent to fly. Descent with modification gets you at best one adaptive mutation per 1/(mutation rate) replications. That will get you to drug-resistant microbes, pesticide-resistant insects, herbicide-resistant weeds, and failed cancer treatments. But getting from reptiles to birds, fish to mammals, or even chimps and humans from a common ancestor, forget it.

Kleinman:

---

Biologists really need help on this.

ringo:

---

You need to learn some respect for biologists. Thinking they're all wrong and you're right is just crazy.

---

---

I don't think that everything that biologists do and teach is wrong. I've taken many biology courses over the years. You have to in order to get a medical degree. But biologists have done a terrible job teaching and explaining the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. They don't understand the relationship between biological competition and descent with modification. Haldane and Kimura do a decent job with the mathematics of biological competition but don't recognize the effect that competition has on descent with modification. Other than Mendelian Genetics, they don't understand how recombination works in a population and the vast majority of biologists have no idea how to derive, study, and understand the equations they use. They just plug numbers into some equation without understanding the underlying physics that the equation represents. If biologists want to claim biological evolution as there own private domain of study, they had better explain the subject correctly. So far, their explanation sucks and if I did something like this under the authority of my engineering or medical license, I would get sued for malpractice. But biologists don't have to get licensed, nobody blames them for drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. ringo, take an introductory probability course and learn how descent with modification works.

Oh that's easy ... Those fossils can only be found in the minds of Darwinists.Some Darwinists even employ artists to draw identikit impressions of the transitionals they see in their minds, which might end up in textbooks portrayed as creatures that really existed.Darwinist fairy-tales in textbooks ... yep, it's all very funny (but not really).