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

Only if you peddle the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Actually, we understand it far better than you do.Willfully ignorant and stupid creationists keep insisting that evolution is like one individual winning the lottery many times in a row. That is because you creationists have no clue what evolution is nor how it works, but rather you just made up a bullshit nonsense strawman to flail against (and you can't even make any progress in that fake staged fight).Please explain to us the probability of a lottery draw being won by at least one individual among millions. And then explain to us why you think that that has nothing to do with evolution.For that matter, do please explain to us what you think that evolution is and how it works. None of your stupid click-bait!OBTW, thank you for yet again admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about.Even though you are far too stupid to realize what you're actually doing, we can see it very clearly, which is why we are all laughing at you and your willful stupidity. Also, thank you for admitting that you have no clue what the Scopes trial was nor what it was about.

These two vanity papers are hoaxes. Debunked by reality. They are derived from the religious fantasies of an ego wounded small man. They carry no correct information but self-serving muddles of observably false premises. They are the ravings of a religious nutjob with no relation to reality.Kleinman, you're a fraud and your papers are known by your peers as toilet tissue.

I respectfully disagree on that one point.His sorry excuses for papers are like Chick Pubs tracts. On one family outing, I went into a public restroom and someone had put Chick Pubs tracts in every stall and on every horizontal surface. I appreciated that he had provided emergency toilet paper for us in the most altruistic form of charity (ie, of the four kinds of charity listed in the Pirke Avoth, the best is when the donor does not know the recipients and the recipients do not know the donor). Unfortunately, the pages were far too small and the paper of such poor quality that they were absolutely useless as toilet paper; try crumpling a page up as per the Sears&Roebuck protocol and it's reduced to a small wad. A complete waste.And Chick Pubs tracts are superior to Kleinman's "papers".

Creationists talking about thermodynamics often reminds me of babies pounding on a keyboard thinking they are doing something amazing on the computer.Kleinman's misguided view of thermodynamics has led him to the conclusion that going from a very simple single celled replicator to all of the biodiversity we see today is an increase in entropy. His claim is that sequences evolve through a Markov process so that genetic diversity increases over time. He believes this increase in genetic diversity is an increase in entropy. He treats bases in a DNA strand as positions in a system, and then claims entropy has increased if different strands have different bases at the same location.This has no real meaningful tie to the actual laws of thermodynamics. At best, there are ties to entropy in Shannon information, which isn't thermodynamics. The real thermodynamics is occurring at the biochemical level, the actual template driven replication of DNA. The flow of energy from the environment through the metabolism of life is where the actual thermodynamic processes exist.

Creationists are not just notorious for not understanding thermodynamics, but they are also legendary.Most of my exposure to creationist nonsense about thermodynamics came from the ICR (Institute for Creation Research, basically the creators of this entire "creation science" hoax) and the ICR's most prominent founding members, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering (AKA "The Father of Flood Geology" even though he and Whitcomb just stole it from SDAist George McCready Price) and Dr. Duane Gish, PhD Biochemistry (best known for the Gish Gallop that every creationist tries to emulate). From their books, it appears that Morris contributed much more to creating creationist misrepresentation of thermodynamics.About half a decade ago I bought the book, The Age of the Earth by USGS Research Geologist G. Brent Dalrymple, and found that its preface contained an unexpected gem: Dalrymple's first encounter with Morris and Gish.In 1975, Morris and Gish visited the US Geological Survey (USGS) to give a lecture and seminar on "creation science". This was around the time that they had started playing their game of "Hide the Bible", having finally realized that being honest about the religious basis for creationism was what was losing them their lawsuits, so they scrubbed their "educational" materials of all overtly religious content (eg, removing Bible verses, renaming "God" as "some unknown Creator") and lying by insisting that "all our objections to evolution are purely scientific, nothing religious about it", all in a deliberate campaign to deceive the courts and the public. Ironically, they succeeded in deceiving themselves more than anybody else.By 1975, they had already crafted their misrepresentation of thermodynamics (though they obviously just plain didn't understand it themselves), which they presented to several hundred USGS scientists. The follow-up discussions were very lively as those scientists kept trying to help Morris & Gish overcome their gross misunderstanding of geology, radiometric dating, and thermodynamics.Our long and bitter experience with creationists has taught us that creationists are incapable of learning. That is not true, especially in this case. Morris & Gish did definitely learn their lesson. From that point forward they made sure to avoid talking with scientists, especially scientists active in the fields that the creationists are misrepresenting. Kleinman refers to the thermodynamics of descent with modification, though he never explains what he means by that.My question for him is how that is supposed to differ from the thermodynamics of descent without modification.We know for a fact that descent does happen, since life does that all the time. So the real thermodynamics of descent on the biochemical level does indeed work with no problem, because if it didn't then life would not exist and persist.So how is the thermodynamics of descent supposed to differ depending on whether there is modification or not?Of course, that last question begs the question of whether there can possibly be descent without modification. To have descent without modification the offspring would have to be genetically identical to their parents. Since that hardly ever happens (except in cases of virgin birth, AKA "parthenogenesis, and other instances of natural cloning), then that would mean that descent with modification is the norm for life and that there exists no problems in the thermodynamics of descent with modification.So what the hell is Kleinman's problem with life doing what life naturally does?

Descent with modification is whatever he needs it to be at any given moment. It has no definition, and never will. In Kleinman's world, mutations are increases in entropy. Of course, going from base elements and simple molecules to DNA is a net decrease in entropy, so not sure how the sequence itself is supposed to offset that decrease in entropy. The mere act of copying DNA is a net decrease in entropy before we even get to the sequence.Of course, it all depends on how you define the system. If we include all of the Earth and the Sun we will continually see a net increase in entropy, but this is true for all planets, including those that don't have life or DNA.

Kleinman:

---

The great and wise Theodoric doesn't understand what the multiplication rule of probabilities does to evolution.

vimesey:

---

Only if you peddle the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

---

---

The same old stupid crap from someone that doesn't understand how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. See if you can find the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy BS in my math, for a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
The population is doing an exhaustive search of the entire sample space.

Kleinman:

---

The great and wise Theodoric doesn't understand what the multiplication rule of probabilities does to evolution.

dwise1:

---

Actually, we understand it far better than you do.

---

---

That is a stupid claim from someone that can't explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail while I can. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And from multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Of course, you are too stupid to understand introductory probability theory which explains why you can't explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Let's see you try and explain.

Kleinman:

---

The basic science and math ...
​
The mathematics of random mutation and ...​

AZPaul3:

---

These two vanity papers are hoaxes.

---

---

Yeah, right, like you know what a hoax is, like reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals. But you are too ignorant to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Scientists read these papers, nitwits like you call them hoaxes. Your atheist bubble has burst and you don't even know it.

AZPaul3:

---

... and your papers are are toilet tissue.

dwise1:

---

I respectfully disagree on that one point.
​
His sorry excuses for papers are like Chick Pubs tracts. On one family outing, I went into a public restroom and someone had put Chick Pubs tracts in every stall and on every horizontal surface. I appreciated that he had provided emergency toilet paper for us in the most altruistic form of charity (ie, of the four kinds of charity listed in the Pirke Avoth, the best is when the donor does not know the recipients and the recipients do not know the donor). Unfortunately, the pages were far too small and the paper of such poor quality that they were absolutely useless as toilet paper; try crumpling a page up as per the Sears&Roebuck protocol and it's reduced to a small wad. A complete waste.
​
And Chick Pubs tracts are superior to Kleinman's "papers"

---

---

It's good to see what you think of the editors and peer-reviewers at Statistics in Medicine. These papers are good enough to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail but dwise1 is too ignorant to understand them. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
dwise1 didn't learn this in his C++ course, that's why he's on the C-- team.

Taq:

---

Creationists talking about thermodynamics often reminds me of babies pounding on a keyboard thinking they are doing something amazing on the computer.

---

Welcome back Taq. Are you going to tell us how a germ cell line can have 200k retroviral infections and then post a single example of koalas with a retroviral infection that may drive them to extinction? That was brilliant. Or maybe you want to make up an example and do the math rather than doing a real example like the Kishony or Lenski experiments? You like making up fake examples. Perhaps you can engineer a virus and kill a few million people. You must have learned something in 26 years in the lab but it wasn't how drug resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail. Here's how it works. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Don't forget to explain to us that 3-drug combination therapy doesn't work for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy doesn't work for weeds and insects because of recombination.

Taq:

---

Creationists talking about thermodynamics often reminds me of babies pounding on a keyboard thinking they are doing something amazing on the computer.

dwise1:

---

Creationists are not just notorious for not understanding thermodynamics, but they are also legendary.

---

---

You are stupid. I am licensed and was paid a lot of money for my understanding of thermodynamics. Do you think because you know C++ that you know thermodynamics? You are completely ignorant of the subject and have no idea how it applies to biological evolution. No biologist understands thermodynamics. If they did, they could explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Biological evolution is a thermodynamics problem where biological competition is governed by the first law of thermodynamics and descent with modification is governed by the second law of thermodynamics and you fail to understand this (as usual).

quote:

---

Kleinman refers to the thermodynamics of descent with modification, though he never explains what he means by that.

Taq:

---

Descent with modification is whatever he needs it to be at any given moment. It has no definition, and never will.

---

---

You are an idiot Taq. Descent with modification is a random walk that can be modeled with a Markov Chain. It demostrates how the population diversifies. You can also model it with an "at least one rule" which gives the same results as the Markov Chain. You are just too ignorant to do this thermodynamics and math.

quote:

---

So how is the thermodynamics of descent supposed to differ depending on whether there is modification or not?
​
Of course, that last question begs the question of whether there can possibly be descent without modification. To have descent without modification the offspring would have to be genetically identical to their parents.
​

Taq:

---

In Kleinman's world, mutations are increases in entropy. Of course, going from base elements and simple molecules to DNA is a net decrease in entropy, so not sure how the sequence itself is supposed to offset that decrease in entropy. The mere act of copying DNA is a net decrease in entropy before we even get to the sequence.
​
Of course, it all depends on how you define the system. If we include all of the Earth and the Sun we will continually see a net increase in entropy, but this is true for all planets, including those that don't have life or DNA.

---

---

Mutations are disordering. That's what the Markov Chain does. Don't blame me if you are too stupid to see that. In rare cases, that disordering process when acted upon by natural selection increases fitness. It happens in about once every billion replication in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Here's one way to do the math for a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
This is why 3 drug combination therpy works for HIV. It takes about 1e15 replications for each evolutionary step.

He sure looks desperate for someone, anyone, to read his vanity press papers.