Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Tangle:

---

Well you know, I'm still answering the question you asked which was, lest we forget
​
"Have atheists come up with any rational scientific idea?"
​
and I'm only on B

​

George Beadle (1903–1989): American scientist in the field of genetics, and Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine laureate who, with Edward Tatum, discovered the role of genes in regulating biochemical events within cells in 1958.[26]

---

You seem to think that working on an existing idea is coming up with a rational scientific idea. Edward Tatum in his Nobel Laureate Lecture wrote about a fundamental principle that governs biological evolution and is one of the few people that started to understand the biological evolutionary process. Biologists have failed to understand what Tatum wrote. Did George Beadle understand this?Atheism is based on the irrational concept that there is no God. That would require knowledge of everything.

Well yes I do. It's a bit of a push to claim that Nobel laureates don't have ideas. And that those that do have absolutely new ideas - like the WWW, that you are now typing into because of that new idea - have to also invent everything that precedes it, like a typewriter!You REALLY are loony tunes aren't you?Anyway, still on B. I reckon "foundational" probably means a new idea to most (obviously not to you) Niels Bohr (1885–1962): Danish physicist. Best known for his foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]Skipping to C Samuel T. Cohen (1921–2010): American physicist who invented the W70 warhead and is generally credited as the father of the neutron bomb.[78]Now even you must feel that nobody had seen a mushroom cloud before? Or does he have to invent fireworks too?

Kleinman:

---

You seem to think that working on an existing idea is coming up with a rational scientific idea.

Tangle:

---

Well yes I do. It's a bit of a push to claim that Nobel laureates don't have ideas. And that those that do have absolutely new ideas - like the WWW, that you are now typing into because of that new idea - have to also invent everything that precedes it, like a typewriter!

---

---

So, when an atheist says there is no God, what precedes that? How do atheists come up with that idea? Give us your rational explanation.And what did Edward Tatum mean when he wrote the following in his Nobel Laureate Lecture?
Edward Tatum – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org

quote:

---

In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics – such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.

---

I added the bold face for you.

Francis Crick, well known for never having a new idea in his life. Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.[83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

Tangle:

---

Francis Crick, well known for never having a new idea in his life.
​
Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.[83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

---

Don't forget panspermia.

Irrelevant.

Theodoric:

---

Irrelevant.

---

Panspermia is one of the best concepts to come about from atheists. It indicates an awareness that DNA could not evolve spontaneously. Of course, DNA arriving from the planet Krypton is a bit bizarre.

No, fool. Atheism, like everything in reality, is based on the preponderance of the evidence. Specifically in this case, ALL the evidence that has ever been produced vis-à-vis gods.Religion seeks to, again, rule the world with your hoaxes and your fantasies. But science, the real stuff, not the half-assed crap you're trying to push here, has already taken over.All that is needed to accurately discern reality is evidence. Science provides all the evidence there is on gods. Your emotional fears and aspirations provide none. Your god claims have no evidence, no legitimacy. They do nothing. They mean nothing. There is no reason to entertain such fantasies existing.If you entertain serious thoughts of gods and ghosts to the point that you actively practice religious rites then you are mentally deficient. You have left the real world behind and insist we all follow you. And that way lies evil. You are poison to humanity.

Er, no ... you are a tad confused. Science can only scratch the surface of reality, since science cannot perceive the supernatural and the divine.It would appear you're suffering from SMS - Shallow Mind Syndrome. My heart goes out to you ... it's an APauling affliction.

Well that was fun but to continue would be cruel.What you just demonstrated Kleinman, is that you cannot admit to a mistake. You made a false claim that was easily disproven but you just couldn't accept it.You've done this many times in this thread on things that actually matter. And now you've shown us why you make false claims and then refuse to accept the evidence that you're wrong. You do it because you have a religious belief that you think is jeopardised by the evidence.You can never be a scientist Kleinman; you're incapable of following the evidence wherever it takes you. Your beliefs have corrupted your mind.Religion poisons everything.

I should add as a postscript, that the discoverer of evolution himself, Charles Darwin, was not an atheist“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” Letter from Charles Darwin to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879 three years before he died.You guys have only yourselves to blame.

As an atheist, all you've got to look forward to is old age, sickness and death. Good luck with that.

Kleinman:

---

Atheism is based on the irrational concept that there is no God. That would require knowledge of everything.

AZPaul3:

---

No, fool. Atheism, like everything in reality, is based on the preponderance of the evidence. Specifically in this case, ALL the evidence that has ever been produced vis-à-vis gods.

---

---

AZPaul3 will now present his preponderance of the evidence, just as he explains the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail.

Tangle:

---

Well that was fun but to continue would be cruel.
​
What you just demonstrated Kleinman, is that you cannot admit to a mistake. You made a false claim that was easily disproven but you just couldn't accept it.
​
You've done this many times in this thread on things that actually matter. And now you've shown us why you make false claims and then refuse to accept the evidence that you're wrong. You do it because you have a religious belief that you think is jeopardised by the evidence.
​
You can never be a scientist Kleinman; you're incapable of following the evidence wherever it takes you. Your beliefs have corrupted your mind.
​
Religion poisons everything.

---

Won't you tell us how we came to being by panspermia?And feel free to point out any errors in my mathematics or physics of these publications which correct the deficiencies that biologists have made in explaining descent with modification and adaptation. Your flawless atheistic logic should be able to do this.
For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
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
If you have trouble doing the math, ask dwise1.

Tangle:

---

I should add as a postscript, that the discoverer of evolution himself, Charles Darwin, was not an atheist
​
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” Letter from Charles Darwin to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879 three years before he died.
​
You guys have only yourselves to blame.

---

Do you even understand the physics of Darwinian evolution? Darwin got the fundamental physics of descent with modification and adaptation and biological competition correct. What Darwin didn't do is the mathematics of this process. Biologists did a good job describing the mathematics of biological competition but have muddled around trying to explain descent with modification and adaptation correctly. Here is what Darwin said in his book "Origin of Species":

Darwin:

---

For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist.

---

If you know how to do the mathematics of the physics that Darwin is describing here, you can do the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You haven't done this but that's no surprise, neither have biologists. You are very superficial in your atheistic thinking.