Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Alan Kleinman]

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).

This is a common blunder that biologists and paleontologists make. They think that they can explain DNA evolution which occurs on a molecular scale using gross anatomy. That's like claiming that you can explain quantum mechanics with classical physics. Any interpretation of the fossil record without taking into context the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution is gross speculation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a common blunder that biologists and paleontologists make. They think that they can explain DNA evolution which occurs on a molecular scale using gross anatomy. That's like claiming that you can explain quantum mechanics with classical physics. Any interpretation of the fossil record without taking into context the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution is gross speculation.

But you have shown that you are not in a position to say that biologists or paleontologists, or any scientists at all, are wrong.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

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.

Your link didn't work and I also have a degree in biology. You ToEites would do well to learn something about thermodynamics. Here's are links that do work and show that DNA evolution is a Markov process and that Markov processes are entropy processes.
Models of DNA evolution
Entropy rates for Markov chains

And get over the ToE, it is a mathematically irrational belief system.

 

[Speedwell]

Your link didn't work and I also have a degree in biology. You ToEites would do well to learn something about thermodynamics. Here's are links that do work and show that DNA evolution is a Markov process and that Markov processes are entropy processes.
Models of DNA evolution
Entropy rates for Markov chains

And get over the ToE, it is a mathematically irrational belief system.

Which is all very well to say, but it doesn't tell us what you think happened instead.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But you have shown that you are not in a position to say that biologists or paleontologists, or any scientists at all, are wrong.

Oh? So you think you can explain evolution with the fossil records? Explain to us how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work based on your understanding of the fossil record. And explain to us why it takes a billion or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step in those evolutionary experiments. You won't because that's like trying to explain particle physics using classical physics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your link didn't work and I also have a degree in biology. You ToEites would do well to learn something about thermodynamics. Here's are links that do work and show that DNA evolution is a Markov process and that Markov processes are entropy processes.
Models of DNA evolution
Entropy rates for Markov chains

And get over the ToE, it is a mathematically irrational belief system.

No, my link works perfectly fine. But I'll give it again if you want, here. I'll even include the first paragraph, and possibly the most important paragraph:

"A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply."

And in the very first link you provide, to the Wikipedia page: "A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed." Proposed. Not taken as fact, but proposed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh? So you think you can explain evolution with the fossil records? Explain to us how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work based on your understanding of the fossil record. And explain to us why it takes a billion or more replications for each evolutionary adaptive step in those evolutionary experiments. You won't because that's like trying to explain particle physics using classical physics.

You keep saying that it takes billions or more replications but you have not explained how that's a negative, and you are so focused on Kishony's and Lenski's experiments that you read like you have more of a personal vendetta against them than any actual desire to explain your position or why your approached is more valid than any of the work done by any of the scientists in the world.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Which is all very well to say, but it doesn't tell us what you think happened instead.

Isn't it enough that I explain to you the correct physics and mathematics of evolution? If you want a scientific explanation of what happened, that I don't know. What I do know is that the ToEite explanation of what happened is pseudo-scientific, wrong, and harmful. That explanation obscures the correct physics and mathematics of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Isn't it enough that I explain to you the correct physics and mathematics of evolution? If you want a scientific explanation of what happened, that I don't know. What I do know is that the ToEite explanation of what happened is pseudo-scientific, wrong, and harmful. That explanation obscures the correct physics and mathematics of evolution.

So out of nothing but pure admiration of good science you show up in a chatroom to demolish the theory of evolution before an audience of awed laymen and you have nothing to replace it with?

 

[Astrid]

You keep saying that it takes billions or more replications but you have not explained how that's a negative, and you are so focused on Kishony's and Lenski's experiments that you read like you have more of a personal vendetta against them than any actual desire to explain your position or why your approached is more valid than any of the work done by any of the scientists in the world.

Its quite the ego to believe oneself so capable.

 

[Astrid]

So out of nothing but pure admiration of good science you show up in a chatroom to demolish the theory of evolution before an audience of awed laymen and you have nothing to replace it with?

Devil its due and all, some rockhound might
find a Cambrian bunny, and we'd not expect them to
come up with an explanation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, my link works perfectly fine. But I'll give it again if you want, here. I'll even include the first paragraph, and possibly the most important paragraph:

"A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply."

And in the very first link you provide, to the Wikipedia page: "A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed." Proposed. Not taken as fact, but proposed.

Ok, that link works and from that link:

Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures.

Read this link and find out how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to the DNA evolution of living creatures:
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process

And you are wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems.
Second law of thermodynamics
Go to the line that says "For open systems (also allowing exchange of matter):" and you will find the equation for entropy in an open system. The thing about entropy in living systems is that it is a highly non-equilibrium process making the calculations a little more difficult but it can be done if you read my paper on the Kishony experiment. You have some homework to do if you want to come up to speed on the physics and mathematics of evolution.

And finally, those "proposed" models of DNA evolution that I give you from the Wikipedia page are the models used by biologists and geneticists to do DNA phylogenetics. Of course, they do their math incorrectly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, that link works and from that link:

Read this link and find out how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to the DNA evolution of living creatures:
The Kishony Mega-Plate Experiment, a Markov Process

And you are wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems.
Second law of thermodynamics
Go to the line that says "For open systems (also allowing exchange of matter):" and you will find the equation for entropy in an open system. The thing about entropy in living systems is that it is a highly non-equilibrium process making the calculations a little more difficult but it can be done if you read my paper on the Kishony experiment. You have some homework to do if you want to come up to speed on the physics and mathematics of evolution.

And finally, those "proposed" models of DNA evolution that I give you from the Wikipedia page are the models used by biologists and geneticists to do DNA phylogenetics. Of course, they do their math incorrectly.

You've never shown how they do their math incorrectly, and no, I won't go trailing through a PDF document to find something for you. If you have something to offer, then show it, which would actually be a first for this thread.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

So out of nothing but pure admiration of good science you show up in a chatroom to demolish the theory of evolution before an audience of awed laymen and you have nothing to replace it with?

Oh no! It gives me practice explaining the correct physics and mathematics to a hostile audience. I only wish the questions were a bit tougher because this inspires me. And sorry, some things just don't have a good scientific explanation. Some things you have to take on faith. You should be careful in what you put your faith in. Putting your faith in the pseudo-scientific ToE only gives you drug-resistant infections, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and failed cancer treatments with no understanding of how and why this happens.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You've never shown how they do their math incorrectly, and no, I won't go trailing through a PDF document to find something for you. If you have something to offer, then show it, which would actually be a first for this thread.

You haven't read the Kishony paper that I link to. But since you won't understand the physics and mathematics of that paper, I'll have to give you the layman's explanation. The reason why biologists do their Markov calculations incorrectly is that they don't take into account population size in their calculations. What this does is implicitly assumes that DNA evolution is an equilibrium process (which it is not) and that evolutionary transitions remain constant (which they don't, they depend on population size). Read and study that paper and learn something about DNA evolution. The Kishony experiment is a good empirical example of the process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You haven't read the Kishony paper that I link to. But since you won't understand the physics and mathematics of that paper, I'll have to give you the layman's explanation. The reason why biologists do their Markov calculations incorrectly is that they don't take into account population size in their calculations. What this does is implicitly assumes that DNA evolution is an equilibrium process (which it is not) and that evolutionary transitions remain constant (which they don't, they depend on population size). Read and study that paper and learn something about DNA evolution. The Kishony experiment is a good empirical example of the process.

But you haven't SHOWN that they're wrong. You keep making claims that all the scientists in the world who study evolution are completely wrong, and you present nothing to show your claim is right except going "They're wrong! They don't follow physics or mathematics! They're wrong! They're wrong!".

So forgive me if I don't follow anything you say because you have not shown a single reason for me to accept that anything you say might even be remotely right.

 

[Astrid]

But you haven't SHOWN that they're wrong. You keep making claims that all the scientists in the world who study evolution are completely wrong, and you present nothing to show your claim is right except going "They're wrong! They don't follow physics or mathematics! They're wrong! They're wrong!".

So forgive me if I don't follow anything you say because you have not shown a single reason for me to accept that anything you say might even be remotely right.

After all this time its obvious there is no reason to
follow(read) any more. He's more than had his chance.

 

[Strathos]

The 2LoT argument? Really? That is wrong in so many ways, not least of which is that thermal entropy is not the opposite of 'complexity'. There's a lot less entropy in a single cell than there is in a human body.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You keep saying that it takes billions or more replications but you have not explained how that's a negative, and you are so focused on Kishony's and Lenski's experiments that you read like you have more of a personal vendetta against them than any actual desire to explain your position or why your approached is more valid than any of the work done by any of the scientists in the world.

Sorry, I thought that should be obvious. What it shows is that in order for DNA evolution to operate it takes vast population sizes to operate. That's because each adaptive step takes at least a billion replications (for mutation rates of E9) and that's for only a single selection pressure acting on the population at any given time. If multiple simultaneous selection pressures are operating, the number of replications required for each adaptive step goes up exponentially. And the number of transitional forms at each step will be a billion. So then, for example, some non-feather producing replicator must accumulate the mutations to produce feathers. Each one of those transitional steps will require a billion members and if it takes for example just 20 mutations, there would be 20 billion possible transition members in the fossil record. Where are all these transitional fossils when you have billions of members of this population making this transition? And where are all the transitional forms to account for the different respiratory systems, and different circulatory systems, and different excretory systems, and different musculoskeletal systems? How does a replicator accumulate all the mutations necessary to give these physiological properties? It certainly won't happen the way drug-resistance evolves or the way Lenski's bacteria adapt to starvation. And just how large was the population of our supposed primate precursor to give rise to chimps and gorillas and ToEites when there have been only about 100 billion humans in the entire history and 99% of humans have lived in the last 10 thousand years. And the reason humans have been able to achieve this population is by farming. Perhaps you think that the primate precursor that gave rise to all the different primates we see today was because there were gazillions of these primate precursors. Of course, you are going to present that proof in the fossil record... NOT!

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But you haven't SHOWN that they're wrong. You keep making claims that all the scientists in the world who study evolution are completely wrong, and you present nothing to show your claim is right except going "They're wrong! They don't follow physics or mathematics! They're wrong! They're wrong!".

So forgive me if I don't follow anything you say because you have not shown a single reason for me to accept that anything you say might even be remotely right.

Why don't you ask Joseph Felsenstein to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments? He says it would take too long. It doesn't take too long if you use the correct physics and mathematics.

By the way, have you learned yet that the 2nd law thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems? You just have to know how to write the equation.