Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[Ken-1122]

It's only the ToEite community that doesn't take this seriously,

Which are the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

there are scientists that understand this math and they publish this work.

What's preventing the vast majority of scientists worldwide from accepting these publications?

 

[Astrid]

Which are the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

What's preventing the vast majority of scientists worldwide from accepting these publications?

Seriously.
Neither the Illuminati nor the world wide
cabal of evolutionist fundies who reject
any counter info ( WWCOEFWRACI)
could stop the word getting out.

Imagine the delight of any researcher in any other field
whose work revealed the fatal flaw in ToE!

The researcher would be hailed for one of the
greatest scientific discoveries ever.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I haven't referred to the Kishony experiment. I repeatedly told you what I was referring to. If you are having this much trouble following along then this will be a rather short conversation.

You need to explain why when doing the calculation of a random process that it matters when that random process occurs. Do you think that replication of DNA in the past was different than the replication of DNA today? Do you think the mathematical behavior of the replication and evolution of DNA in the Kishony and Lenski experiments is different than in other replicators? If so, how and why?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Which are the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

What's preventing the vast majority of scientists worldwide from accepting these publications?

And the vast majority of scientists don't correctly explain the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution. If they did, they could correctly explain the mathematical behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiment and how drug-resistance evolves, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and how and why cancer treatments fail.

And to your question, there are many reasons, bias, confusion, ignorance, money,... I think that one of the reasons atheists embrace the ToE so tightly as part of their doctrine is that they see this as justification that they have no accountability to God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that one of the reasons atheists embrace the ToE so tightly as part of their doctrine is that they see this as justification that they have no accountability to God.

It took 20 pages but we finally get the whole "Atheists accept the theory of evolution because they want to sin!".

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It took 20 pages but we finally get the whole "Atheists accept the theory of evolution because they want to sin!".

I'm still waiting for the atheist explanation of how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work. It appears that explaining how drug-resistance evolves is not in the atheist doctrine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm still waiting for the atheist explanation of how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work. It appears that explaining how drug-resistance evolves is not in the atheist doctrine.

I don't really see why any atheist needs to, since you've never explained why the experiments don't work and why the theory of evolution doesn't work.
Although falling onto the old "Atheists accept the theory of evolution because they want to sin" canard really does mean that a lot of us, me included, do lose respect for you.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't really see why any atheist needs to, since you've never explained why the experiments don't work and why the theory of evolution doesn't work.
Although falling onto the old "Atheists accept the theory of evolution because they want to sin" canard really does mean that a lot of us, me included, do lose respect for you.

Really? The Kishony and Lenski experiments don't work? You should contact them immediately and inform them that their experiments have failed. And while you are at it, you should explain to them how to make their experiments work.

 

[Speedwell]

I think that one of the reasons atheists embrace the ToE so tightly as part of their doctrine is that they see this as justification that they have no accountability to God.

How self-serving and offensive. Atheists just plain don't believe that God exists and are thus not worried about accountability to Him. The rest of us just plain don't believe that our responsibility to God includes accepting a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Really? The Kishony and Lenski experiments don't work? You should contact them immediately and inform them that their experiments have failed. And while you are at it, you should explain to them how to make their experiments work.

Of course they worked. The conclusions which you draw from them not so much.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really? The Kishony and Lenski experiments don't work? You should contact them immediately and inform them that their experiments have failed. And while you are at it, you should explain to them how to make their experiments work.

I'm not making the claim that they don't work. You make the claim that they don't work, and the theory of evolution doesn't work. You're the one who's been claiming to have all the answers.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'm not making the claim that they don't work. You make the claim that they don't work, and the theory of evolution doesn't work. You're the one who's been claiming to have all the answers.

The ToE doesn't work to explain these experiments that do work. Now, when Kishony tries to run his experiment with two drugs simultaneously, it doesn't work and you don't understand why and the ToE doesn't give that explanation either.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The ToE doesn't work to explain these experiments that do work. Now, when Kishony tries to run his experiment with two drugs, it doesn't work and you don't understand why and the ToE doesn't give that explanation either.

"The Theory of Evolution doesn't work to explain these experiments that do work".
Do you even have an example of what you're talking about?

And you're the one who blathers non-stop about Kishony's experiments like his and Lenski's experiments are the be all and end all of evolutionary experiments, I'd have thought that you would have even been able to entertain the idea of how they could work.

 

[pitabread]

It took 20 pages but we finally get the whole "Atheists accept the theory of evolution because they want to sin!".

I was wondering when it was going to devolve into an "atheism vs theism" type discussion...

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Why are you so dead-focused on Kishony and Lenski? Do they owe you lunch money or something?

The reason I'm so "dead-focused" on the Kishony and Lenski experiments is that they are well-run demonstrations of the two processes of Darwinian evolution (competition and adaptation). There are very few real, measurable, and repeatable evolutionary experiments. There are lots of empirical examples of evolution in medicine and agriculture but they don't have the kind of measurements as found in these experiments such as identification of mutations, population sizes, and identification and control of specific selection conditions.

Now, I turn the question around, why are you so dead-set against these experiments? Why don't you make an attempt to understand how these experiments work?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The reason I'm so "dead-focused" on the Kishony and Lenski experiments is that they are well-run demonstrations of the two processes of Darwinian evolution (competition and adaptation). There are very few real, measurable, and repeatable evolutionary experiments. There are lots of empirical examples of evolution in medicine and agriculture but they don't have the kind of measurements as found in these experiments such as identification of mutations, population sizes, and identification and control of specific selection conditions.

Now, I turn the question around, why are you so dead-set against these experiments? Why don't you make an attempt to understand how these experiments work?

But as experiments that use and are used to try and explain the theory of evolution with bacteria, a theory which you say is wrong and incorrect, then you by your own words say that their experiments are wrong.

I'm not dead-set against these experiments and I never have been. Personally, biological science has never been my real forte, history is more of my thing, so I only possess a slighter higher than high school level knowledge of biology. I do try my best and understand it, but a lot of the specifics do go over my head.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it wasn't this, you would find some other reason. You have your own reasons for not wanting to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. If you don't want to accept my explanation, do your own research and figure it out yourself.

I've done my own research, or as much as I personally can in my own time and by my own effort, and I've seen enough to know that I can't really be swayed by one single person on the internet.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

But as experiments that use and are used to try and explain the theory of evolution with bacteria, a theory which you say is wrong and incorrect, then you by your own words say that their experiments are wrong.

I'm not dead-set against these experiments and I never have been. Personally, biological science has never been my real forte, history is more of my thing, so I only possess a slighter higher than high school level knowledge of biology. I do try my best and understand it, but a lot of the specifics do go over my head.

The first thing you need to learn is that DNA evolution for bacteria works the same way as for any other replicator. And to be more precise, what I have said is that Darwinian evolution is qualitatively correct but when you quantitate his theory, the notion the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematically irrational.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I've done my own research, or as much as I personally can in my own time and by my own effort, and I've seen enough to know that I can't really be swayed by one single person on the internet.

I don't mind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The first thing you need to learn is that DNA evolution for bacteria works the same way as for any other replicator. And to be more precise, what I have said is that Darwinian evolution is qualitatively correct but when you quantitate his theory, the notion the reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals is mathematically irrational.

I know how evolution works, and I've seen myself how therapod dinosaurs, specifically those of the dromaeosauridae family, could have evolved into modern day birds through the similar if not identical layout of certain parts of their skeletons. It's not just one single line of evidence for evolution of prehistoric fish into modern mammals, it is multiple.
What you claim as irrational, I see incredulity on your part. Someone said it before on here (can't remember who) that even if the odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1, it only takes the change happening the once to get the necessary mutations going.