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

Tanypteryx:

---

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

---

Not you, you are too stupid to understand these papers. Go find some bugs to chase.

Then why did you say this?"Taq doesn't understand that a phage is not an example of descent with modification. His Lederberg example is not an example of descent with modification."--KleinmanHow is the mutation of E. coli genes resulting in phage resistance not an example of a random walk finding phage resistance in a process that can be modelled by a Markov chain?Like I said, descent with modification is whatever you want it to be at any given moment. Not in any meaningful way with respect to thermodynamics.

Kleinman:

---

Descent with modification is a random walk that can be modeled with a Markov Chain.

Taq:

---

Then why did you say this?
​
"Taq doesn't understand that a phage is not an example of descent with modification. His Lederberg example is not an example of descent with modification."--Kleinman
​
How is the mutation of E. coli genes resulting in phage resistance not an example of a random walk finding phage resistance in a process that can be modelled by a Markov chain?
​
Like I said, descent with modification is whatever you want it to be at any given moment.

---

---

A phage inserting into a genome is not descent with modification.

Kleinman:

---

Mutations are disordering.

Taq:

---

Not in any meaningful way with respect to thermodynamics.

---

---

What do you think entropy is? It is a disordering process. That's what a Markov Chain is, a disordering process. The Jukes-Cantor model reaches maximum entropy when the probability of finding any base at the site is 0.25, which is equilibrium. The site has been disordered from the original base so that the probability of finding any of the bases at that site is 0.25.

It's not inserting into the genome. Phage resistance occurs through mutations of E. coli genes, just like with antibiotic resistance. On top of that, insertion of phage DNA is also a mutation and fits in just fine with descent with modification and Markov processes.Again, you define descent with modification differently at different places.

quote:

---

Here, we demonstrate that the strictly lytic Escherichia phage vB_EcoM-P10 rapidly selected for resistance in the APEC ST95 O1 strain AM621. Whole-genome sequence analysis of 109 spontaneous phage-resistant mutant strains revealed 41 mutants with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in their core genome. In 32 of these, a single SNP was detected while two SNPs were identified in a total of nine strains. In total, 34 unique SNPs were detected. In 42 strains, including 18 strains with SNP(s), gene losses spanning 17 different genes were detected.
Frontiers | Spontaneous Phage Resistance in Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli

---

That is a category error. All bears are mammals. Cows are mammals. Cows are not bears.Just because you consider something disordered does not make it relevant to thermodynamics. The Jukes-Cantor model is not thermodynamics. People use the term "entropy" outside of thermodynamics. One common example is the use of entropy in information theory, which is not thermodynamics.

Kleinman is pulling the typical creationist deception known as semantic shifting: taking a term out of context and misapplying it in a different context. For example theory has a specific scientific meaning quite different from its street meaning, so creationists misapply the street meaning to scientific theory as in "Evolution is only a theory." The same applies here as creationists abuse entropy in its many contexts, only one of which has anything to do with thermodynamics. BTW, semantic shifting also has different meanings in its various contexts, such as in linguistics.Either Kleinman is too stupid to realize his mistake, or else he is deliberately engaging in deception. Or both, given that he's a dishonest creationist.

". . . never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."--Robert J. HanlonKleinman lecturing the rest of us on how we don't understand thermodynamics only increases the force of the facepalm.The semantics get even worse with "descent with modification".Mutations (SNPs, indels) leading to antibiotic resistance = descent with modificationMutations (SNPs, indels) leading to phage resistance != descent with modification

Kleinman:

---

A phage inserting into a genome is not descent with modification.

Taq:

---

It's not inserting into the genome. Phage resistance occurs through mutations of E. coli genes, just like with antibiotic resistance. On top of that, insertion of phage DNA is also a mutation and fits in just fine with descent with modification and Markov processes.
​
Again, you define descent with modification differently at different places.

---

---

This is your example. If you think it makes UCD possible, go for it.

Kleinman:

---

What do you think entropy is? It is a disordering process.

Taq:

---

That is a category error. All bears are mammals. Cows are mammals. Cows are not bears.
​
Just because you consider something disordered does not make it relevant to thermodynamics.

---

---

Not only is it relavent, it is how descent with modification works. Why do you think it can be modeled with a Markov chain, an entropy producing process?

Kleinman:

---

The Jukes-Cantor model reaches maximum entropy when the probability of finding any base at the site is 0.25, which is equilibrium.

Taq:

---

The Jukes-Cantor model is not thermodynamics. People use the term "entropy" outside of thermodynamics. One common example is the use of entropy in information theory, which is not thermodynamics.

---

---

The Jukes-Cantor model certainly is an entropy producing model and that is the second law of thermodynamics. You are just very poorly trained in the subject.
Entropy rate - Wikipedia

Kleinman:

---

The Jukes-Cantor model is not thermodynamics. People use the term "entropy" outside of thermodynamics. One common example is the use of entropy in information theory, which is not thermodynamics.

dwise1:

---

Kleinman is pulling the typical creationist deception known as semantic shifting: taking a term out of context and misapplying it in a different context. For example theory has a specific scientific meaning quite different from its street meaning, so creationists misapply the street meaning to scientific theory as in "Evolution is only a theory." The same applies here as creationists abuse entropy in its many contexts, only one of which has anything to do with thermodynamics. BTW, semantic shifting also has different meanings in its various contexts, such as in linguistics.
​
Either Kleinman is too stupid to realize his mistake, or else he is deliberately engaging in deception. Or both, given that he's a dishonest creationist.

---

---

dwise1, you are a blithering idiot that knows nothing about Markov chains or the thermodynamics of biological evolution. But keep on posting, everyone wants to know how stupid you are.

I think it is descent with modification. Show how it is relevant to thermodynamics. No, it isn't. Just because some Markov processes are relevant to thermodynamics does not make all Markov processes relevant to thermodynamics.You have much to learn.

dwise1:

---

Either Kleinman is too stupid to realize his mistake, or else he is deliberately engaging in deception.

Taq:

---

". . . never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."--Robert J. Hanlon
​
Kleinman lecturing the rest of us on how we don't understand thermodynamics only increases the force of the facepalm.
​
The semantics get even worse with "descent with modification".
​
Mutations (SNPs, indels) leading to antibiotic resistance = descent with modification
​
Mutations (SNPs, indels) leading to phage resistance != descent with modification

---

---

Taq, you are a stupid ass that doesn't know a thing about Markov processes which are entropy processes or the thermodynamics of biological evolution. Where is your explanation of how drug resistance occurs or why cancer treatments fail? Haven't you learned anything in your 26 years of research? Oh, yeah, 200k retroviral infections do no harm to a germ line cell but one retroviral infection in koalas threatens them with extinction. What a dummy. Maybe you need another survey of physics course. Here, I'll save you some time. 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
All you need to understand these papers is an introductory probability theory course. A high school student can understand these papers but a virologist like you can't understand these papers. You're a dummy.

Also known as the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Equivocation - RationalWiki

Kleinman:

---

This is your example. If you think it makes UCD possible, go for it.

Taq:

---

I think it is descent with modification.

---

---

Go for it, prove UCD with phages.

Kleinman:

---

Not only is it relavent, it is how descent with modification works. Why do you think it can be modeled with a Markov chain, an entropy producing process?

Taq:

---

Show how it is relevant to thermodynamics.

---

---

I have you dumb cluck. I showed you that descent with modification is a disordering process that can be modeled with a Markov chain and that a Markov chain is an entropy-producing process.

Kleinman:

---

The Jukes-Cantor model certainly is an entropy producing model and that is the second law of thermodynamics.

Taq:

---

No, it isn't. Just because some Markov processes are relevant to thermodynamics does not make all Markov processes relevant to thermodynamics.
​
You have much to learn.

---

---

Oh really? Which Markov processes don't produce entropy and when is entropy not a thermodynamic variable? You dummy.

Theodoric:

---

Also known as the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Equivocation - RationalWiki

---

This is what a dimwit does when he doesn't know how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Here, I'll help you. For a single selection condition:
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
I hope this helps but I doubt you have the intelligence to understand these papers. But that explains why you don't know how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

The mantra continues.
Om...

Theodoric:

---

The mantra continues.
Om...

---

And it will continue. That's all you can come up with to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail, while I explain it. 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
Chant on that for a while, but don't expect to understand the answer, you have to have taken and passed a course in introductory probability theory which you haven't.