Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Alan Kleinman]

What are you going to teach them instead?

Teach the correct physics and mathematics of evolution so these students will be prepared to deal with drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and failed cancer treatments. Train children to deal with the problems encountered in medicine and agriculture, not some nonsense that replies evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't know. Why do you ask?

Because that happens in the Lenski experiment and Lenski and his team don't know why.

 

[Speedwell]

Teach the correct physics and mathematics of evolution so these students will be prepared to deal with drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and failed cancer treatments. Train children to deal with the problems encountered in medicine and agriculture, not some nonsense that replies evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.

Yes, that was my question: If birds and mammals didn't evolve, what are we supposed to teach children about how they got here?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Yes, that was my question: If birds and mammals didn't evolve, what are we supposed to teach children about how they got here?

You teach them that the empirical and mathematical evidence shows that they didn't come about by evolution. And if you want, you can say that there are science deniers that claim that they did evolve. But start with the correct physics and mathematics of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

You teach them that the empirical and mathematical evidence shows that they didn't come about by evolution.

How did they come about?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

How did they come about?

In public schools, you tell them there is no scientific explanation. But you do tell them there is a scientific explanation of how evolution works using time-tested laws of physics and there is no mathematically rational way that they evolved.

 

[Ken-1122]

Usually the excuse is bias and money. Keep them
big grants coming. You ever see "Expelled", a
scientist will be ridiculed, a amateur ignored.

I did not see the movie “expelled” but from what I’ve heard, it was about what happens in the United States. The TOE is much bigger than the United States, this theory is accepted by scientists all over the world so if someone disproved the TOE, this person would become rich and famous. Even if all the scientists in the US are in on a conspiracy to keep the flaws of Evolution a secret, and the truth hidden, what’s to stop all the scientists from other countries from telling the truth and getting the fortune and fame? Call me skeptical, but I just don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep the truth hidden for all of this time and nobody willing to take the fame and fortune that comes with telling the truth; and for what? To prevent the TOE from being discarded along with all the other disproved scientific theories that's been disproved over the years? I’m not convinced.

 

[Speedwell]

In public schools, you tell them there is no scientific explanation. But you do tell them there is a scientific explanation of how evolution works using time-tested laws of physics and there is no mathematically rational way that they evolved.

Well, I suppose that's better than shoving right-wing Evangelical extremism up their noses.

 

[pitabread]

Well, I suppose that's better than shoving right-wing Evangelical extremism up their noses.

It's still lying to the kids. Though I guess for some creationists that's not a big deal. :/

 

[Astrid]

I did not see the movie “expelled” but from what I’ve heard, it was about what happens in the United States. The TOE is much bigger than the United States, this theory is accepted by scientists all over the world so if someone disproved the TOE, this person would become rich and famous. Even if all the scientists in the US are in on a conspiracy to keep the flaws of Evolution a secret, and the truth hidden, what’s to stop all the scientists from other countries from telling the truth and getting the fortune and fame? Call me skeptical, but I just don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep the truth hidden for all of this time and nobody willing to take the fame and fortune that comes with telling the truth; and for what? To prevent the TOE from being discarded along with all the other disproved scientific theories that's been disproved over the years? I’m not convinced.

The WWSSSTTTDTTOG
(world wide satanic scientist society to try to desrroy the truth of god)

I've heard about that.

 

[Astrid]

It's still lying to the kids. Though I guess for some creationists that's not a big deal. :/

OK??
Its calling, a highest duty

 

[Astrid]

I did not see the movie “expelled” but from what I’ve heard, it was about what happens in the United States. The TOE is much bigger than the United States, this theory is accepted by scientists all over the world so if someone disproved the TOE, this person would become rich and famous. Even if all the scientists in the US are in on a conspiracy to keep the flaws of Evolution a secret, and the truth hidden, what’s to stop all the scientists from other countries from telling the truth and getting the fortune and fame? Call me skeptical, but I just don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep the truth hidden for all of this time and nobody willing to take the fame and fortune that comes with telling the truth; and for what? To prevent the TOE from being discarded along with all the other disproved scientific theories that's been disproved over the years? I’m not convinced.

"Expelled" is comparable to propaganda from N Korea.
Its not remotely accurate and certainly is not about how things
are in the USA.
You might be interested in looking up the actual story.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because that happens in the Lenski experiment and Lenski and his team don't know why.

I'm not really concerned about Lenski and his team. What did you think about what I said? Care to answer my question?

 

[Ken-1122]

"Expelled" is comparable to propaganda from N Korea.
Its not remotely accurate and certainly is not about how things
are in the USA.
You might be interested in looking up the actual story.

No thank-you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Competition (sometimes called survival of the fittest and what Darwin called "the struggle for existence") and evolutionary adaptation are two distinctive physical processes. Competition is a 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy process). First, you have to understand that it takes energy to replicate. When you talk about the carrying capacity of an environment, what you are talking about is a limited amount of usable energy to reproduce. A good experimental example of this is the Lenski experiment where glucose is the energy source for his bacteria. His is an open system and the amount of glucose available on a daily basis will allow for about 5E8 bacterial replications. If he didn't add more glucose to his experiment, those bacteria would die off due to starvation. But what Lenski does is take 1% of that population each day and put those members into fresh glucose solution for the next day's replications. What his experiment does is select for the most effective users of the limited amount of glucose. The most effective users of glucose get fixed in the populations and those members are the candidates for the next beneficial mutation giving an even more effective user of the glucose. That is the adaptative component of the evolutionary process. Evolutionary adaptation is a 2nd law of thermodynamics process. The easiest way to know this is that random mutations are a disorganizing process where if there were no selection would lead to an equilibrium state where the frequency of the different bases in a genome would not change (genomes would end up being random sequences of bases). What selection does in this circumstance increases the frequency of those variants that have the best fitness to reproduce.

Consider the Kishony experiment which is a good example of evolutionary adaptation. Watch this short video and pay particular attention at about 1:40 where they draw in the phylogenetic trees for this evolutionary process:
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)
Each node on these phylogenetic trees is a colony with about a billion members where some lucky member gets a beneficial mutation enabling that member to start a new colony in the next higher drug concentration region. In other words, each transitional evolutionary step takes a billion replications in that lineage's particular evolutionary trajectory.

Now consider the claim made in the ToE that reptiles evolve into birds. That means a replicator that doesn't produce feathers must accumulate the mutations that would enable it to produce feathers. But it doesn't stop there, birds and reptiles have different respiratory systems, different circulatory systems, different excretory systems, different metabolisms, different musculoskeletal systems (pneumatic bones and flight muscles), and for each evolutionary transitional step from one form of replicator to the other will take a billion replications for each evolutionary transitional step and that is under the best of conditions when only a single selection is acting on the population at a time. If multiple selection conditions are acting simultaneously, the number of replications for each adaptive step goes up exponentially. The ToE simply doesn't have the population sizes necessary for such evolutionary transformation to have a reasonable probability of occurring.

Well, you definitely said a lot. Like, a lot of stuff that was wrong (no, evolutionary adaptation and evolution are not part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that has been a lie for many years now and has been rebuked and shown wrong many times, as shown here by Biologos. And no, birds didn't evolve from reptiles, they evolved from dinosaurs which are a distinct and separate reptilian species, the therapods of which show virtually the same traits and body plans of birds).

So why is it that I should trust the word of an anonymous, no-name individual on a website forum on evolution over the thousands of scientists across the world who have shown evolution to b true for over a century now?
I'll answer for myself: I really think I shouldn't.

 

[Astrid]

No thank-you.

It's not that interesting.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I did not see the movie “expelled” but from what I’ve heard, it was about what happens in the United States. The TOE is much bigger than the United States, this theory is accepted by scientists all over the world so if someone disproved the TOE, this person would become rich and famous. Even if all the scientists in the US are in on a conspiracy to keep the flaws of Evolution a secret, and the truth hidden, what’s to stop all the scientists from other countries from telling the truth and getting the fortune and fame? Call me skeptical, but I just don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep the truth hidden for all of this time and nobody willing to take the fame and fortune that comes with telling the truth; and for what? To prevent the TOE from being discarded along with all the other disproved scientific theories that's been disproved over the years? I’m not convinced.

You are right about that Ken-1122. There are scientists and publishers out there more interested in understanding the correct physics and mathematics of evolution than perpetuating some silly dogma of reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals. Do you know that Kishony has tried to perform his experiment with two drugs and he can't get it to work? If you understood the physics and mathematics of evolution, you would understand what it would take for that experiment to work, but since you don't, I'll give you the layman's explanation.

Let's say for one drug, mutation A1 is needed for that first adaptation step, and for the other drug, mutation B1 is needed for the first adaptation step for that drug. Kishony then innoculates a drug-sensitive founder onto the plate and a colony starts to grow. When that colony reaches about a billion members, he will have on average one A1 and one B1 variant in that colony. But that's not enough for any variant to grow in the two-drug region. An A1B1 variant must occur in order for it to grow in the first low two drug concentration region of the two drug experiment. What is needed is for that A1 variant to double about 30 times to give a billion A1 members and a high probability that at least one of those A1 members get a B1 mutation or the B1 variant to double about 30 times to give a billion B1 members and there to be a high probability that at least one of those B1 members gets an A1 mutation. The problem is, the original colony in which those first A1 and B1 variants occurred is also doubling 30 times. How's your arithmetic? How much is a (billion - 2)*2^30? That calculation will get you into the ballpark for the size of the colony needed to produce an A1B1 variant and make the first adaptive step for the two drug experiment. How large must Kishony make his petri dish for the two drug experiment to work?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not really concerned about Lenski and his team. What did you think about what I said? Care to answer my question?

You should be concerned because Lenski is performing one of the best evolutionary experiments that demonstrate the physics and mathematics of evolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Well, you definitely said a lot. Like, a lot of stuff that was wrong (no, evolutionary adaptation and evolution are not part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that has been a lie for many years now and has been rebuked and shown wrong many times, as shown here by Biologos. And no, birds didn't evolve from reptiles, they evolved from dinosaurs which are a distinct and separate reptilian species, the therapods of which show virtually the same traits and body plans of birds).

So why is it that I should trust the word of an anonymous, no-name individual on a website forum on evolution over the thousands of scientists across the world who have shown evolution to b true for over a century now?
I'll answer for myself: I really think I shouldn't.

If you think that evolutionary adaptation is not a 2nd law of thermodynamics process, you need to correct the biologists and geneticists that do genetic phylogenetics because they use Markov chain mathematics to do their DNA evolution calculations and Markov chains are entropy processes. Of course, these biologists and geneticists don't do their math correctly.

I'm not the anonymous no-name individual on this forum. Other than BobRyan who I don't believe is a ToEite post under what appears to be a real name, I haven't noticed any of the ToEites posting under their real names. Go check me out. You will find out that I'm a licensed physician and also a licensed engineer. I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and the major field for my PhD was thermodynamics. And in my medical practice, I have had to treat drug-resistant infections for years, no thanks to you ToEites.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you think that evolutionary adaptation is not a 2nd law of thermodynamics process, you need to correct the biologists and geneticists that do genetic phylogenetics because they use Markov chain mathematics to do their DNA evolution calculations and Markov chains are entropy processes. Of course, these biologists and geneticists don't do their math correctly.

I'm not the anonymous no-name individual on this forum. Other than BobRyan who I don't believe is a ToEite post under what appears to be a real name, I haven't noticed any of the ToEites posting under their real names. Go check me out. You will find out that I'm a licensed physician and also a licensed engineer. I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and the major field for my PhD was thermodynamics. And in my medical practice, I have had to treat drug-resistant infections for years, no thanks to you ToEites.

Even though I linked to a website of evolutionary biologists that say the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. It does not disprove evolution, as said by scientists.

Mechanical engineering and physician. So not a biologists or even a scientists. So you have nothing except an appeal to authority that we should take your word for it. And that really just cements my point further: you have nothing to stand on for us to say that your words can overthrow nearly a century of scientific work done worldwide.

I'm going to say: get over yourself.