Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which you have a need to deny.
My comment was similar to Miller's. Unfortunately, I didn't get the result that he got.
Frank, macroevolutionists haven't posted any EXPERIMENTAL evidence of macroevolution. There have been claims that algae growing in colonies from a single alga is macroevolution (was that your claim?), that transposons are evidence of macroevolution and a couple of others that I can't recall at this moment. This is not experimental evidence. This is like saying, "look, there are reptiles" and: look, there are birds" there's your proof of macroevolution.
Frank, anything I say publicly, you are free to discuss publicly. If we ever have a private conversation, unless I request otherwise, you are free to discuss publicly. Let's see if the PS crew can give an experimental example of macroevolution of the adaptive evolution of a lineage to 3 simultaneous selection pressures targeting just two genetic loci. Good luck with that! If HIV can't do it with its huge population, high mutation rate, recombination, and that it isn't driven to extinction, it's hard to imagine any replicator that could adapt to those conditions.
I missed that. Did Ken Miller make some comment about the Kishony experiment or my claims about that experiment? Or are you just saying that my question, "Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment?" is a good question? If that's your comment, there is a good answer to why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment.Alan Kleinman said:
That we can not re-run millions of years of evolution experimentally does not preclude a consiliance of supportive evidence from multiple scientific fields.
K and L do not refute macroevolution. Once, again you don't need to convince me to be taken seriously. Let me put it another way, you will not enhance your credibility within evolutionary science by convincing me.
Thank you. I should have a post up by tomorrow, if it is approved.
Miller likely had more important things to do than play games and was kind enough to give you a non-offensive answer. I tried, but unfortunately didn't get the result Miller got.
No it is doubtful if he understands much of anything here. Now you pretend to understand but you have demonstrated at least four times that you do not have any evidence or even understand the concept. When you demonstrate that you have evidence for your beliefs then you may be able to make demands. Until then you are only going to be corrected.
They do. You on the other hand should have taken some courses that explained to you what the scientific method is and what scientific evidence is.
What scientific evidence is that which has been tested experimentally? Making up some story about an observation is not scientific evidence until you test it experimentally. Perhaps you are naive enough to believe those stories without testing them but that kind of faith is blind. It certainly isn't science.
These experiments demonstrate how adaptive microevolution works. Those who believe that macroevolution is simply the addition of a series of microevolutionary steps need to learn that you don't compute the joint probability of a series of random events occurring by addition, you use the multiplication rule to compute that joint probability.
Let me know if it is and give me a link to it here. If there is anything interesting going on in that discussion, I might chime in.
Miller couldn't give a straight answer and say "I don't know". And are all you macroevolutionists such thin skin crybabies?
They do? Why don't you post the curricula from a few university biology departments that show that biologists take the same math, chemistry, and physics courses as do engineering and physics majors? With my first two years of undergraduate studies, I could have chosen math, chemistry, physics, or engineering as my major field. This is why biologists have failed to correctly describe the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution. Biologists just don't have the correct training and preparation to analyze and solve these kinds of scientific problems.
Do you think a sociologist is going to explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of adaptive DNA evolution? You need someone trained in the hard mathematical sciences. You won't find them in the biology department.
The antibiotics he used were Ciprofloxacin and Trimethoprim (not simultaneously). That first paper is just the start of the analysis. Why doesn't Kishony's experiment work if he uses 2 antibiotics or if the increase in the concentration of the drug is so large that an improvement in fitness does not occur with a single adaptive mutation?
You believe his verbal explanation is better than a mathematical explanation? Why hasn't Kishony given a verbal explanation of how his experiment would work if he uses two drugs simultaneously or if the increase in drug concentration in a single drug experiment is so large that it takes more than a single mutation for adaptation. Here's the mathematical explanation for that situation:
Once you understand the thermodynamics, the application of the solution equation is actually quite simple. You don't need the physicians to become thermodynamicists, you just need to show them how to apply the principles in the clinical circumstances, like this:
You are once again attempting misdirection from what I wrote by calling them stories. It wont' get you to where you want to go, i.e. refute the consilience of evidence from multiple related scientific fields. Neither have not shown to anyone's satisfaction that your math refutes macroevolution.
Your conclusions have been debunked by experts in the field.
You keep trying but get the same result over and over.
Use some logic, it wasn't necessary for him to say he doesn't know to accomplish his purpose of making you go away.
Thank you for prime example of why people like you to go away.
You are making a foolish assumption. Just because people are not required to take majors level courses does not mean that they did not do so. I took majors level chemistry, math, and physics courses. I did not want the watered down stuff. You unfortunately should have taken a course that explains to you what science is. When are you going to learn what scientific evidence is? As pointed out when you did interact with real scientists they tried to get across the idea that you did not have any evidence. They even offered to help you and you just ran away.
Kleinman knows the scientific method but needs to disbelieve and deny it because otherwise his peculiar argument against macroevolution falls apart.
Why would they? It is funny how often you unwittingly admit that you do not know much about these things.
I don't expect a macroevolutionist zealot to be convinced by anything. If you want to be convinced by stories written about observations rather than verifying stories by experimental testing, no be it. Good luck with your discussion over at PS about finding experimental evidence of a replicator that can adapt to 3 selection conditions at only two genetic loci.
Experiments are not limited to the laboratory. Those observations technically are "experiments". Again, an understanding of the scientific method would help immensely here.
