Message 392 of 393 (792940)
10-16-2016 6:15 AM
Kleinman's argument is built on not understanding natural selection.
It is based on a special case of natural selection, the evolution of drug resistance. In this case the selection is very strong, and it is hard selection. Moreover, since drugs directly attack the chemistry of the target organisms there is a very limited range of mutations - sometimes sets of mutations - that might defeat them.
A proper understanding of natural selection would recognise that these features are relevant to the outcome and study how varying the strength of selection, the hardness of the selection and the possible counters to selective force affect the outcome.
But that is not for Kleinman. He refuses to even consider it. And so he has failed to produce a general model of natural selection by not even trying.
Equally he has failed to produce a probability argument by not trying. As I pointed out early on in the discussion it is not enough to show that a sequence of stochastic events is highly improbable. Such sequences tend to be improbable by their very nature. Kleinman needs more, yet we saw no sign of him making the effort. Indeed he seemed reluctant to even acknowledge the basic fact that highly improbable sequences can be easily generated.
Now maybe Kleinman feels that we are all wrong and only the opinion of real experts matters. If so, I invite him to write up his argument as a general argument as evolution and to submit it to Science and Nature, and other top-tier journals dealing with evolutionary theory. I predict that he will not get far.