The predictive power of evolution

[Oxyaena]

Much ado has been made by he who shall not be named over whether or not
today's evolutionary theory has any sort of predictive power, he argues
that because it can't explain what course evolution will take place in a
million years that evolutionary theory is incomplete at best and
rudimentary at worst because of it, underscoring the fact that he's
incredibly ignorant of how evolution actually works, since it doesn't
operate in a vacuum.

Evolution operates in a chaotic environment, earth, so while evolution
itself is a nonrandom process the course evolution will take throughout
history is determined by changes in the environment, which *are* random
to some degree, not to the point that you can't predict *anything* about
the future of life on earth, you can work out some broad strokes about
the future of evolution here on this planet but that's about it.

I would like to point to some examples of the predictive power of
evolutionary theory, specifically from Darwin. Darwin, for example, knew
that birds were closely related to dinosaurs and specifically evolved
from reptiles, so he predicted that a bird fossil would be found
displaying unfused fingers, turns out two years later this fossil was
discovered, it is the now famous transitional fossil of *Archaeopteryx*.

Darwin's theory was vindicated merely two years after the publication of
the *Origin*, this would be the first of many vindications to come. An
example relating to our own lineage with Darwin is how he predicted that
transitional fossils related to our own evolution will be found in
Africa, rather than Asia as believed at the time since he knew that our
closest living relatives, gorillas and chimps, were only found in
Africa. Lo and behold, with the discovery of *Australopithecus
africanus* by Raymond Dart and the subsequent discovery of numerous
different human and protohuman species and genera since then only
vindicating Darwin further.

As it turns out, evolutionary theory as it stands on its own *does* have
predictive power, and one doesn't need to resort to woo of some sort of
"mega-evolution" to realize evolutionary theory's strengths and weaknesses.
--
"I would rather be the son of an ape than be descended from a man afraid
to face the truth." - TH Huxley

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Now do the math and physics of Darwinian evolution.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Should we find Precambrian rabbit fossils?

“Asked what observation could conceivably disprove evolution, the
curmudgeonly biologist J. B. S. Haldane reportedly growled, “Fossil rabbits
in the Precambrian!” (That’s the geological period that ended 543 million
years ago.) Needless to say, no Precambrian rabbits, or any other
anachronistic fossils, have ever been found.”- Jerry Coyne * Why Evolution
is True*.

Even Popper backpedaled from his previous slams on natural selection given
its potential refutability by drift.

Selection has been found wanting (contra Panglossians) and despite some
creationist beliefs humans weren’t domesticating dinosaurs (Flintstones),
except birds now. And that merely shows the power of selection to mold body
form and behavior as pigeon fanciers have. Explaining that to you—
ostrich-boy the feathered dinosaur — is a fool’s errand.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Given Simpson’s stature, should you be calling mega-evolution “woo”? Based
on Wallace Arthur’s exegesis, this refers to bigly things like emergence of
tetrapods from lobe-fins or the chelonian girdle-ribcage carapace thing.
Pocket gopher level novelty may be less earth shattering than phylum level
bauplane.

“However, it is still unclear whether the mega-evolutionary changes
resulting in the origin of novel body forms are explicable simply in terms
of a similar ‘accumulation effect’ operating over an even longer
time-scale. Another possibility is that mega-evolution involves highly
unusual kinds of developmental variation that are normally absent from
populations on a short-term or mid-term basis. Put another way, we do not
yet know if evolution is a ‘scale-independent’ process. This is one of the
most important outstanding questions for evolutionary theory as a whole.”

Wallace Arthur _ Evolution : a developmental approach_

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hemi, you are being silly and you are the one burying your head in the sand. When you have mutations that occur at the frequency of the mutation rate, it's going to take a billion replications for each evolutionary step under ideal circumstances for improved fitness to just a single selection pressure. And the number of replications increase by multiple orders of magnitude for each evolutionary step for each additional selection pressure. That's the mathematical fact of life you are not willing to accept. What reptile can achieve those kinds of populations? Even hiv can't evolve efficiently to just three selection pressures targeting only two genes.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You have put yourself on a pedestal as the great critic of long term
diachronic evolution because instantaneously applied synchronic combination
therapy.

The vectors of the mobilome are termites eating away beneath your wooden
stage. Microbes are massively gregarious file-sharers putting Napster and
torrents to shame. Innovation isn’t thus limited to the precarious straits
of a single population under stringent aseptic lab protocol. Human
ingenuity countering novelties stem from multiple global sources.

Peanut butter and chocolate each had its own path until they fortuitously
crossed. A chocolate bar didn’t have to wait to evolve its own peanut farm
and processing plant to hybridize into Reese’s peanut butter cups. Your
view presumes chocolate bars magically evolving the novelty of peanut
butter within the isolated population.

[Oxyaena]

I was referring to Nyikos' take on the topic, he has a seemingly
different idea of what so-called "mega-evolution" entails than sane
people do. Take his favorite example of the extinction and replacement
of lycopods by seed bearing plants as the dominant type of tree, I put
his feet to the fire in a post explaining why that is so a month ago I
believe, it was due to lycopods going extinct due to the Carboniferous
Rainforest Collapse and Gymnosperms just took the opportunity to radiate
and fill the niches left vacant by the extinction of the giant club mosses.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

No Hemi, I'm claiming this is how evolution works. I'm presenting the thermodynamic principles and mathematics of those principles to explain how evolutionary competition and adaptation work. And I'm presenting the Kishony and Lenski experiments as empirical evidence of this explanation.

>
> The vectors of the mobilome are termites eating away beneath your wooden
> stage. Microbes are massively gregarious file-sharers putting Napster and
> torrents to shame. Innovation isn’t thus limited to the precarious straits
> of a single population under stringent aseptic lab protocol. Human
> ingenuity countering novelties stem from multiple global sources.

And that file-sharing also obeys mathematical principles. You should make an attempt to learn those mathematical principles.

>
> Peanut butter and chocolate each had its own path until they fortuitously
> crossed. A chocolate bar didn’t have to wait to evolve its own peanut farm
> and processing plant to hybridize into Reese’s peanut butter cups. Your
> view presumes chocolate bars magically evolving the novelty of peanut
> butter within the isolated population.

Your Peter Pan theory of evolution needs some pixie dust.

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution doesn't predict life to exist in the first place, so it has no predictive power.

[Glenn]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:55:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

If selection, fitness determined by advantage, is real, it applies to all life.
It must be painful for a darwinist to not visibly wince when downplaying natural selection in favor or other proposed mechanisms of evolution.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Do your principles apply your epistemic blinders in GIGO fashion?

>>
>> Peanut butter and chocolate each had its own path until they fortuitously
>> crossed. A chocolate bar didn’t have to wait to evolve its own peanut farm
>> and processing plant to hybridize into Reese’s peanut butter cups. Your
>> view presumes chocolate bars magically evolving the novelty of peanut
>> butter within the isolated population.
> Your Peter Pan theory of evolution needs some pixie dust.
>

No as ostrich boy you ignore the implications. Only an ideologue would
ignore the mobilomic vectors eating away at your foundations as what
Dennett called Darwinian universal acid. Evolution is cleverer than you
acknowledge.

This even has implications for the OP. Yes we can assume no rabbits in
precambrian. And pre-evolutionary Goethe predicted a skull bone based on
the archetype. Kudos.

Day before yesterday I hedged against future illness with a flu shot. But
evolution is cleverer than DrDr thinks. So a synchronical applied measure
as a flu shot is limited when diachronic evolutionary shifts occur.

Antigenic drift versus shift.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm

“Antigenic shift is an abrupt, major change in the influenza A viruses,
resulting in new hemagglutinin and/or new hemagglutinin and neuraminidase
proteins in influenza viruses that infect humans. Shift results in a new
influenza A subtype or a virus with a hemagglutinin or a hemagglutinin and
neuraminidase combination that has emerged from an animal population that
is so different from the same subtype in humans that most people do not
have immunity to the new (e.g. novel) virus.”

Drift is mundane cumulative point mutation. Shift from what I gather
derives novelty from an animal source such as bird or swine. And that makes
evolution cleverer than you think as flu vaccine makers are red queens
running to stand still and having epistemic limits regarding novel shifting
strains, which from a viral POV are paradigm shifting Kuhnian revolutions.
So a synchronical applied measure as a flu shot is limited when diachronic
evolutionary shifts occur. Even mundane drifting may present problems with
prediction, which not only confounds ostrich-boy the feathered dinosaur,
but also the OP because manufacturing effective flu vaccines can be a crap
shoot. The timing between predictive preparation and injection in early
Fall may not match well to the actual prevalence of strains.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If you think that reptiles or any replicator that doesn't have the genes and control modules necessary to grow feathers can evolve those genes and control modules present your empirical evidence and show your math. And Peter Pan with pixie dust is neither empirical nor mathematical evidence.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yet is it anthropomorphically ever scrutinizing?
“Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is
forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all
numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.”
Luke 12:6-7 -
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%2012:6-7&version=KJV

>
> It must be painful for a darwinist to not visibly wince when downplaying
> natural selection in favor or other proposed mechanisms of evolution.
>

Why? Drift and neutral alleles are not known things? That the significance
of Popper’s acknowledgement whooshes past you is very telling. I thought
you were supposed to be a master of the subtle (or was it taciturnity?)
easily dispatching t.o. regulars with mere punctuation. Your cape is
fraying.

[Glenn]

You've just identified evolution as a fantasy. In your defense though, you've misapplied Dennett's purpose.

[jillery]

Oy. General Relativity doesn't predict life to exist either.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[*Hemidactylus*]

How so?

> In your defense though, you've misapplied Dennett's purpose.
>

How so? As analogues to file sharing the mobilomic vectors that spread
independently derived innovations across bacterial populations mimic a sort
of “meme” flow. And these pesky little bits do as termites eat at DrDr’s
foundations. I couldn’t expect you to understand that. Maybe you should
stick to your exclamation points wielded like Thor’s hammer. Oh and if
mundane crane evolution is insufficient for DrDr he must, imperatively
derived too from Dennett, be hinting at implicit skyhooks.

[Oxyaena]

I don't see how that's relevant, we know life exists, evolution deals
with how life changes over time.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So, learn how evolution works. You can start by learning how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work.

[Glenn]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

Define "rock" then define "life".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Evolution doesn't predict life to exist in the first place, so it has no predictive power.

Since evolution has little* or nothing to do with the
existence of life, but rather with its changes over
generations, your comment seems a bit vacuous.

That said, evolution predicts that life will change to adapt
to changing environments; that prediction has been confirmed
repeatedly. So your comment is not only vacuous, but wrong.

* "little" because an argument can be made that the chemical
precursors of life were subject to selection rules, caused
by imperfect replication, similar to those to which life
later was subject.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

dimmy the boob is now going to predict the evolutionary behavior of the Lenski and Kishony experiments. Oh, sorry, dimmy the boob didn't get anything out of his two courses in statistics and admits he is not a scientist so all dimmy can do is be a boob.

[Oxyaena]

Why do whales have lungs and not gills?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Your evasive skills are amazing in how you stick your head in the sand when
confronted with the significance of antigenic shift for the power of
evolution and the problems of prediction of said evolution when it comes to
formulating vaccines. Surely you must be more familiar with these concepts
than I.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigenic_shift

“Antigenic shift, however, occurs only in influenzavirus A because it
infects more than just humans.[2] Affected species include other mammals
and birds, giving influenza A the opportunity for a major reorganization of
surface antigens... Some strains of avian influenza (from which all other
strains of influenza A are believed to stem[2]) can infect pigs or other
mammalian hosts. When two different strains of influenza infect the same
cell simultaneously, their protein capsids and lipid envelopes are removed,
exposing their RNA, which is then transcribed to mRNA. The host cell then
forms new viruses that combine their antigens; for example, H3N2 and H5N1
can form H5N2 this way. Because the human immune system has difficulty
recognizing the new influenza strain, it may be highly dangerous, and
result in a new pandemic.[3]”

According to that wiki it is possible the Spanish flu was a case of drift
though.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Don’t trouble him with facts of natural history. He doesn’t see this stuff
in his clinical practice or in his blinkered readings of Lenski and
Kishony, therefore they don’t exist. I wonder if he is familiar with “gill”
slit fistulas or branchial cysts.

Whales with gills would be an aberrant breach of Dollo’s law. They are
tetrapods who returned to the water.

From the hippies at Berkeley:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

“The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest
living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales.” DrDr
will now joke that hippies are induced by pot to be hungry hungry hippos
talking about evolving of whales from terrestrial ancestors, because that’s
right about at his level of maturity.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish. Now tell us what you think the selection pressure(s) was(were), the genes targeted and mutations required to evolve lungs and gills. And then I'll tell you that your claim is mathematically irrational because you don't understand how evolution works.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Why do you persist in being so silly? I've pointed out on numerous occasions the problems of using targeted therapies for example with cancers. Cancer cells as they replicate create a wide variety of diversity and if that diversity is in the target for that therapy, that therapy can fail. And if you understand the mathematics, you can predict the frequency of occurrence of these variants which in turn tells you how many targeted therapies will needed in the given circumstance. This is the same reason why antibiotics can fail, or targeted herbicides or pesticides. Now, if you think antigenic drift (I think genetic diversity is a better term) is the way reptiles grow feathers, present empirical and mathematical evidence of your claim.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Whales still have an inner fish, betrayed by a pharyngeal apparatus
developed in embryo. I’ve never seen a whale embryo, but like the revered
Poet Goethe (peace be upon him) with the intermaxillary, I can predict via
the vertebrate archetype that whale embryos will have certain things
because...wait for it...common ancestry.

But whales swim more like dogs run than fish swim, because prior
commitments:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

But Ostrich Boy will plug his spiracles so his ancient jaw derived ear
ossicles won’t conduct sound toward his ideologically trapped brain.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Blame it on my extensive training in mathematics and physics which you lack. I deal with drug-resistant infections and Peter Pan/pixie dust explanations of evolution don't cut it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Dredging up the old ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny concept again? Why don't you take a course in introductory probability theory and learn something about stochastic processes (like evolution)?

[*Hemidactylus*]

What will it tell me about morphology? von Baer, Owen, and Goethe were the
old masters. They didn’t need Lenski nor Kishony.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

And they didn't have any understanding of DNA. You can't use gross anatomy to explain what happens on a genetic (microscopic) scale.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And yet we have paleontology. Oh wait, my bad, you are right. Do the DNA
comparison of the great apes (especially humans, common chimps, and
bonobos) and get back to me.

[Bill]

Lamarck did it. It was science at the time but we now prefer
more unlikely explanations.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

The peanut gallery strikes out. Not quite Mighty Casey, but in that case we
would have to prove the character actually existed along with baseballs and
bats. It’s questionable Lamarck is anything more than a figment of Bill’s
hyperactive imagination or that there was a science of that time. Bill
assumes a lot to make such unsupported blatant assertions. Lamarck? Who dat
(in the Arcadian dialect)?

And how can Bill assert an explanation is unlikely without hypocritically
helping himself to a reality he habitually belittles?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

And you do realize that it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step under ideal conditions. Which one of these replicators had a sufficient number of replications to adapt to any selection condition?

[Glenn]

Offensive and racist. Apologize.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Why do humans *still* have remnant yolking genes? That makes no sense in
your unexpressed skyhook fantasy.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

In your "reality" reptiles can evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals. And you explain it with your Peter Pan/pixie dust mechanism of genetic tranformation. But the Kishony and Lenski experiments are not?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Reptifeatharians idea addressing DNA they don't know the function is to call it junk DNA. I'm not here to explain the function of every genetic sequence in a genome, I'm here to explain the physics and mathematics of genetic transformation. Take a course in introductory probability theory and you will understand my explanation. And that explanation shows you how drug-resistance evolves, how the Lenski experiment works and why 3 drug therapy is sufficient to treat hiv. Now, if you have any empirical evidence which contradicts this math, present it. And your Peter Pan/pixie dust example doesn't cut it.

[Bill]

This is one of those sloppy ad hominems I talked about
earlier.

Bill

[Oxyaena]

How did they got those lungs?

[Oxyaena]

Except what happens on the macroscopic scale reflects what happens on
the genetic scale.

[Oxyaena]

Bill, how do you know those ad hominems aren't figments of your
imagination as well?

>
> Bill

[Oxyaena]

You have expertise in petri dishes, that's about it.

[jillery]

You first.


--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

>Define "rock" then define "life".

[jillery]

But whales have fins and not legs. So why did whales evolve fins but
not gills?

>Now tell us what you think the selection pressure(s) was(were), the genes targeted and mutations required to evolve lungs and gills. And then I'll tell you that your claim is mathematically irrational because you don't understand how evolution works.

How is "evolution deals with how life changes over time"
mathematically irrational?

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> The peanut gallery strikes out.
>
>Offensive and racist. Apologize.

When did you become a spokesperson for peanuts?

[jillery]

Yes! Phylogeny based on gross anatomy is a fair match for phylogeny
based on genetics.

[jillery]

Not even that. He thinks size alone matters. Apparently "Evolution"
isn't the only class he slept through.

[Burkhard]

wrong Latin term, you mean "reductio ad absurdum" - i.e. Hemidactylus
shows that your position, if applied consistently, would lead to absurd
and self-defeating conclusions. Not an ad hom at all, simply a very
efficient way to show that a claim is patently wrong

[*Hemidactylus*]

It may works similarly to the liar’s paradox, in the form: One cannot
assert any arguments.

OTOH Popper pointed to the problem that reason itself cannot be
self-justified leading to what is in effect a bootstrapping leap of faith.
Let Boghossian and the street epistemologists and other assorted
neoatheists ruminate on that one for a bit.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta

>> >Evolution doesn't predict life to exist in the first place, so it has no predictive power.

>> Since evolution has little* or nothing to do with the
>> existence of life, but rather with its changes over
>> generations, your comment seems a bit vacuous.
>>
>> That said, evolution predicts that life will change to adapt
>> to changing environments; that prediction has been confirmed
>> repeatedly. So your comment is not only vacuous, but wrong.

<snip everything not related to the above>

Nothing left...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:40:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

<snip>

>> The peanut gallery strikes out.

>Offensive and racist. Apologize.

Glenn thinks peanuts are a race.

[erik simpson]

That's wrong. Peanuts have races of their own: Virginia, Spanish, Runner, etc.
They are also admirably inclusive, and there is no discrimination among them.
All in all, they are an example to us all of us.

[Oxyaena]

Of course phylogeny based on genetics is superior, see how for a long
time whales were thought to be cladistically speaking mesonychids rather
than artiodactyls, until the DNA evidence proved us wrong, corroborated
by fossil evidence such as the discovery of *Pakicetus* and *Indohyus*.
Also note how the toes deep embedded in the flippers of whales are only
four in number, interesting considering the number of toes artiodactyls
have is four, which is why they're called "even toed ungulates". Has
that little tidbit been included in the character sets or no?

Another instance could be how pangolins were previously thought to be
closely related to the xenarthrans of the Americans, only for it to be
discovered that they're actually the sister taxon of Carnivora.

However, overall phylogeny based on gross anatomy matches fairly well
with phylogeny based on genetics.
--

[jillery]

Keep in mind that genetic phylogenies were only recently possible,
thanks to the development of rapid and accurate and cheap genome
sequencing and computer data analysis. For most of 20th century and
before, fossil and anatomical phylogenies were all that could be done.
Given their limitations, the consilience of the different lines of
evidence is impressive IMO.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

[...]

>> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
>That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.

But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.

What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> [...]
> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>
> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.

A conclusion can't be made from what something seems to look like. Nor is it a "point". Nor did Alan claim that God made whales out of nothing.

>
> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.

And fish arriving on land could only rely on what they inherited -- gills.
Oh wait, Tiktaalik had both lungs and gills. But fish had to have something to work with before they got lungs and gills, so the explanation
that God created fish ex nihilo does fit, right?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
>> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>>
>> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
>> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
>> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.
>
>A conclusion can't be made from what something seems to look like.

It's a good place to start, though -- actually the only place you
*should* start, really.

> Nor is it a "point". Nor did Alan claim that God made whales out of nothing.

That's what he believes, although getting him to admit it is sometimes
like pulling teeth.

>>
>> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
>> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
>> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.
>
>And fish arriving on land could only rely on what they inherited -- gills.

LOL! So now gills are now so useful for land animals that they came
onto land without evolving an air-breathing apparatus?

>Oh wait, Tiktaalik had both lungs and gills.

But whales don't.

>But fish had to have something to work with before they got lungs and gills, so the explanation
>that God created fish ex nihilo does fit, right?

Not unless God refuses to efficiently "re-use" natural concepts like
"gills."

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
>> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>>
>> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
>> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
>> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.
>
>A conclusion can't be made from what something seems to look like. Nor is it a "point". Nor did Alan claim that God made whales out of nothing.

Since you mention it, nobody claimed Alan claimed...
More to the point, Alan refuses to say what he claims. But he has no
problems spamming his "reptifeatharian" epithet. So readers can't be
criticized when they make reasonable assumptions based on what Alan
says.

>> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
>> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
>> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.
>
>And fish arriving on land could only rely on what they inherited -- gills.
>Oh wait, Tiktaalik had both lungs and gills. But fish had to have something to work with before they got lungs and gills, so the explanation
>that God created fish ex nihilo does fit, right?

Wrong. There are lots of fish living today with gills and lungs.
There are even a few fish with legs.

[Oxyaena]

I've tried that with him, getting him to admit he is a creationist is
anathema to him, since his entire sham falls apart when that is exposed,
more than it has already done so of course. I once tried getting him to
explain where feathers came from and all he could come up with was
"evolution didn't do it."

So what did, Alan, can you explain that?

[Oxyaena]

Yea verily.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:05:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:40:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> The peanut gallery strikes out.
>>
>> >Offensive and racist. Apologize.
>>
>> Glenn thinks peanuts are a race.

>That's wrong. Peanuts have races of their own: Virginia, Spanish, Runner, etc.

But they all lose to jumping beans...

>They are also admirably inclusive, and there is no discrimination among them.
>All in all, they are an example to us all of us.

As you say. I guess we can all learn from Glenn's example of
"wokeness". As to *what* we can learn, however...

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It wasn't by Darwinian evolution. If you understood the Kishony and Lenski experiment, it would be clear to you, but you don't.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Sure, just like what happens on the macroscopic scale reflects what happens on the quantum mechanical level. But you can't use classical physics to describe quantum physics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

And you have no expertise in petri dishes and that explains your misunderstanding of evolution.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> [...]
> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>
> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.

Why don't you try and practice what you were trained in, physics? And the laws of physics govern evolution.

>
> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.

You should leave the speculation to the reptifeatharians.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
>> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>>
>> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
>> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
>> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.
>Why don't you try and practice what you were trained in, physics? And the laws of physics govern evolution.
>>
>> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
>> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
>> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.
>You should leave the speculation to the reptifeatharians.

Isn't it speculation to claim that God created life's diversity?

[Glenn]

It's speculation to claim anything that created life's diversity.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:57:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

I take it you meant "It's speculation to claim that anything created
life's diversity."

And it's not speculation to claim that life's diversity evolved, since
we have evidence that it did; but since we have no evidence for a
designer or design, invoking those ideas is pure speculation.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I would call it an issue of faith, that's why it shouldn't be taught in public schools. But it is stupid and dangerous to teach that reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals to naive school children. That kind of speculation (faith) is not only wrong, but it also confuses naive school children with an incorrect understanding of evolution. These children will need to understand how evolution works correctly if they want to deal with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

As a physicist, why don't you do the mathematics of the evolution of life's diversity? Why don't you start by explaining the evolution of diversity in the Lenski and Kishony experiments? Or did your training in physics tell you that all you had to know about objects in motion is that they just move around?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
>> >> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
>> >>
>> >> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
>> >> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
>> >> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.
>> >Why don't you try and practice what you were trained in, physics? And the laws of physics govern evolution.
>> >>
>> >> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
>> >> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
>> >> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.
>> >You should leave the speculation to the reptifeatharians.
>>
>> Isn't it speculation to claim that God created life's diversity?
>I would call it an issue of faith, that's why it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

At least we agree on that!

>But it is stupid and dangerous

LOL!

> to teach that reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals to naive school children. That kind of speculation (faith) is not only wrong,

So you accept on faith, not science, that God created all living
things?

> but it also confuses naive school children with an incorrect understanding of evolution. These children will need to understand how evolution works correctly if they want to deal with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

If they were really being harmed by learning about how life has
evolved, couldn't you just teach them to "use combination therapy when
needed," instead of trying to teach them more advanced concepts?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> Why do whales have lungs and not gills?
> >> >> >That's easy. Whales are mammals, not fish.
> >> >>
> >> >> But the point is, why can't whales have gills like fish do? It would
> >> >> seem to make things easier for whales if they did. So the explanation
> >> >> that God created whales ex nihilo doesn't fit.
> >> >Why don't you try and practice what you were trained in, physics? And the laws of physics govern evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> What *does* fit is the fact that evolution can only work with what
> >> >> it's got, and whales, as they evolved from land animals into
> >> >> water-dwellers, could only rely on what they inherited -- lungs.
> >> >You should leave the speculation to the reptifeatharians.
> >>
> >> Isn't it speculation to claim that God created life's diversity?
> >I would call it an issue of faith, that's why it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
>
> At least we agree on that!

And neither should be taught that reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals. That is stupid and mathematically irrational nonsense. And you should know that being train as a physicist. Here's how a well-trained physicist approaches the mathematics of evolution:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44149038?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
See if your training in physics enables you to understand this paper.

>
> >But it is stupid and dangerous
>
> LOL!

Not to people suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments, you stupid ass.

>
> > to teach that reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals to naive school children. That kind of speculation (faith) is not only wrong,
>
> So you accept on faith, not science, that God created all living
> things?

Vincent, science doesn't give you all the answers. The important issues are taken by faith. But faith does not have to be blind. Try applying your skill in physics to test your fail, if you are able.

>
> > but it also confuses naive school children with an incorrect understanding of evolution. These children will need to understand how evolution works correctly if they want to deal with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
>
> If they were really being harmed by learning about how life has
> evolved, couldn't you just teach them to "use combination therapy when
> needed," instead of trying to teach them more advanced concepts?

Telling naive school children that reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals is a lie and indoctrination. And any intelligent child would ask why does combination therapy work. And a physicist should ask himself is there a physical reason why this happens. Edward Tatum explained that reason more than half a century ago but reptifeatharians don't teach that:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1958/tatum/lecture/

[Glenn]

What you just said is speculation at best, faith at worst, claiming that "evolved" did "it".

You're the one pushing "God" into the argument. ID doesn't claim God did it.
It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It is worse than that. Vincent is one of those reptifeatharians whose profession is physics, yet he can't do the physics and mathematics of evolution. He either wasn't trained very well or isn't very good at his profession.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

I think it's already there; ID proponents just won't admit that
that's what's energizing their "research" into the topic.

> ID doesn't claim God did it.
>It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.

Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
without speculation?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Vincent, why don't you show us your skills in physics by answering this:

As a physicist, why don't you do the mathematics of the evolution of life's diversity? Why don't you start by explaining the evolution of diversity in the Lenski and Kishony experiments? Or did your training in physics tell you that all you had to know about objects in motion is that they just move around?

I'll even give you a hint. Competition is governed by the first law of thermodynamics and adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics phenomenon.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Does this involve your 1-(1-p)^n equation?

And why don't you do the mathematics of a Designer poofing living
things into existence?

>Why don't you start by explaining the evolution of diversity in the Lenski and Kishony experiments?

The Kishony bacteria evolved more diversity by gaining more and more
drug-resistant varieties. The Lenski experiment studied diversity
increases by observing the evolution of better functions in the
experiment he was doing.

>Do you Or did your training in physics tell you that all you had to know about objects in motion is that they just move around?

>
>I'll even give you a hint. Competition is governed by the first law of thermodynamics and adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics phenomenon.

Interesting. Please explain.

[Glenn]

Again, you and others like you are the ones pushing God into the argument.

>
> > ID doesn't claim God did it.
> >It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.
>
> Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
> without speculation?

I didn't say ID isn't speculative. I consider ID as a hypothesis. You dropped the "pure", and made assumptions not in evidence.

Surely you can be more deceitful than what you're trying above, Vincent.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If you are talking about evolutionary adaptation, yep. The probability of at least one occurrence of a particular mutation occurring is a fundamental principle of adaptation. That's how a member of a particular variant improves fitness. It is also the fundamental equation that defines any evolutionary trajectory.

>
> And why don't you do the mathematics of a Designer poofing living
> things into existence?

Now that is a stupid question to ask. You should ask what is the probability of a particular chemical sequence spontaneously occurring by some random process that can then self-replicate. That mathematics was done years ago by scientists at MIT.

>
> >Why don't you start by explaining the evolution of diversity in the Lenski and Kishony experiments?
>
> The Kishony bacteria evolved more diversity by gaining more and more
> drug-resistant varieties. The Lenski experiment studied diversity
> increases by observing the evolution of better functions in the
> experiment he was doing.

Are you one of those physicists who can't do math? Try deriving the governing equation for multiple steps on an evolutionary trajectory. And then study the mathematics that describes competition, for example, the Haldane and Kimura models.

>
> >Do you Or did your training in physics tell you that all you had to know about objects in motion is that they just move around?
> >
> >I'll even give you a hint. Competition is governed by the first law of thermodynamics and adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics phenomenon.
>
> Interesting. Please explain.

When considering competition, you have different variants competing for a limited resource necessary for replication. The more efficient user of that resource will increase in frequency while the less efficient user of that limiting resource will reduce in frequency.
Here's a paper that shows that Haldane's model is a conservation of energy calculation:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/9/3716.full.pdf
Kimura's model is based on a diffusion equation which you should understand how to derive using the first law of thermodynamics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1210364/pdf/713.pdf
If you look at equation (1), the term on the left side of the equal sign is the energy capacitance term, the first term on the right side of the equation is the diffusion term and the second term on the left is a convection term. I personally prefer Haldane's model. If you weren't shown how to derive such an equation, I can direct you toward texts which show you how to the derivations.
>
Evolutionary adaptation, on the other hand, is a Markov process. You didn't read the link I gave you a few posts back, try reading that link, here it is again:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44149038?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The evolutionary trajectory is a series of events in a Markov chain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
Associated with the Markov chain is entropy (or information). You can read something about this topic here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_rate
The correct distribution function to use in the Markov chain evolutionary trajectory is the binomial distribution.
>
When you apply these principles to the Lenski and Kishony experiment, you need to recognize that evolutionary adaptation for the Lenski experiment is occurring with competition superimposed. On the other hand, evolutionary adaptation is occurring in a minimally competitive environment but the same form of adaptive equations apply to both evolutionary experiments. Competition slows the adaptation process in the Lenski experiment and if you study and understand the math, it becomes apparent why this happens.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's because he doesn't have a good argument. Vincent and the rest of the reptifeatharians can't even explain how evolution works and refuse to see any sign of design in cells.

> >
> > > ID doesn't claim God did it.
> > >It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.
> >
> > Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
> > without speculation?
>
> I didn't say ID isn't speculative. I consider ID as a hypothesis. You dropped the "pure", and made assumptions not in evidence.
>
> Surely you can be more deceitful than what you're trying above, Vincent.

Vincent's problem is that he thinks that evolutionary adaptation is sufficient to explain the origin of all these biological systems. I'm trying to teach him the physics and mathematics of evolutionary adaptation but he may not have either the skill or training to understand this subject despite the fact he has a master's degree in physics.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Past tense, not present tense; "evolved" not "evolve". Your silly
word games illuminate your dishonesty.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:00:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

But you and others like you *do* believe the Designer is the
Christian god, right?

>> > ID doesn't claim God did it.
>> >It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.
>>
>> Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
>> without speculation?
>
>I didn't say ID isn't speculative. I consider ID as a hypothesis.

Okay; let's say that ID is a hypothesis. How do you intend to test
it?

>You dropped the "pure",

LOL! Consider it put back, all right?

>and made assumptions not in evidence.

Such as?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

sillery thinks that fish and reptiles have stopped evolving. Too bad sillery's brain hasn't evolved enough to understand introductory probability theory so that she might understand something about stochastic processes (like evolution).

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It doesn't matter Vincent when it comes to the physics and mathematics of evolution. Evolution can't even efficiently design a solution for hiv when subject to 3 selection pressures targeting only 2 genetic loci. And that evolutionary process doesn't even require the de novo evolution of new function. Why don't you make an attempt to understand the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Then you will understand how limited Darwinian evolution is.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:16:56 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

So asshole allie thinks reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into
mammals. Any intelligent child would ask why he plays his silly word
games.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

sillery, the physics and mathematics of evolution is way above your pay grade. Stick with indoctrinating naive school children with your stupidity.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 06:18:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

asshole allie, even school children know your silly word games are
stupid.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

sillery is just so boring.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:31:35 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

asshole allie would be less bored if he stopped playing with himself.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

sillery, I'd be less bored if you were less vulgar and less stupid. You haven't said anything interesting in this thread. And not much better anywhere on this forum. Since you can't give us anything interesting, let's try to make this thread more interesting. Let's see how much more vulgar and stupid you can be. Come on sillery, show us how vulgar and stupid you can be.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Only you would claim your nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine
ad-hominems aren't boring and vulgar. Let me know if you ever intend
to actually back up anything you post.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

sillery is too stupid and lazy to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. More boring from lazy sillery. Come on sillery, you and be more vulgar and stupid than this. Stop being lazy and put your vulgar and stupid mind to work and give us something interesting.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You first.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I did you inattentive dummy. I gave something interesting to discuss with Vincent in this post above:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/D_QCRraJXgE/E85m0TyNBQAJ
When I said to Vincent, "I'll even give you a hint. Competition is governed by the first law of thermodynamics and adaptation is a second law of thermodynamics phenomenon." Vincent then said, "Interesting. Please explain." And I did explain. You are neither trained nor skilled in this subject. You are just too stupid, vulgar, and lazy to engage in this discussion. So just stick with what you are skilled at and show us how stupid and vulgar you can be. See if you can make yourself interesting, not just plain boring.

[Peter Nyikos]

Vincent Maycock is his usual sophomoric self, saying "no evidence"
when the most he can say is "only much weaker evidence." Thus we have a
pure case of GIGO, with "pure speculation" as the GO (Garbage Out).

> > >What you just said is speculation at best, faith at worst, claiming that "evolved" did "it".
> > >
> > >You're the one pushing "God" into the argument.
> >
> > I think it's already there; ID proponents just won't admit that
> > that's what's energizing their "research" into the topic.

And Vincent just won't admit that atheism is what's energizing
his grandstanding about the topic. :-)

> Again, you and others like you are the ones pushing God into the argument.
> >
> > > ID doesn't claim God did it.

> > >It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.

In fact, I have held Steve Carlip in check for over two weeks now,
on one of the best arguments for EITHER an intelligent designer
of our universe OR a staggeringly enormous multiverse of which ours
is a vanishingly small portion. This is the fine tuning of physical
constants of the only universe we know.

Carlip has confined himself to one of the six constants
in the book _Just Six Numbers_, but his fans don't care about that.
They do care about diverting people's attention from the corner
into which I've squeezed Carlip on the thread below.

> > Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
> > without speculation?
>
> I didn't say ID isn't speculative. I consider ID as a hypothesis. You dropped the "pure", and made assumptions not in evidence.
>
> Surely you can be more deceitful than what you're trying above, Vincent.

Vincent can also be more useful to Burkhard if he takes over the
refuting of inept logic by Ron Dean in arguments about the fine
tuning of physical constants, on which Burkhard wasted his precious time:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0u86tt9vTgs/dWGO_AmZBAAJ
Subject: Re: The Ratio 1 (one) part to 10^120 parts Means Design?
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4a22e502-de0b-4dbc...@googlegroups.com>

In it I make the comment,

Didn't anyone ever tell you, "Go pick on somebody your own size"?

I made that comment because of my impression that Burkhard is a
Very Important Person (VIP) in talk.origins. That impression was
greatly strengthened by the reaction of regulars to my taking Burkhard to task
for some incredibly judgmental statements about me.

Who else can get a normally stolid person (and probable t.o. VIP) like
Bill Rogers to endorse such incredibly judgmental statements? or an
even more stolid probable VIP like Ernest Major to come up with similar statements?


On the other hand, all the MANY posts that I've seen from Vincent
Maycock over the years show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ron Dean
is right about "his own size". Vince is really out of his depth in arguing
with you and even with Kleinman.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:55:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2019 10:29 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

> >> > Evolution doesn't predict life to exist in the first place, so it has no predictive power.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't see how that's relevant, we know life exists, evolution deals
> >> with how life changes over time.
> >>
> >Define "rock" then define "life".
>
>
> You first.

Defining "life" is useless. Defining "life which has a good chance
of evolving into something as sophisticated as the simplest free-living
prokaryote within a billion years" is a good working definition
where talk.origins is concerned.

For one thing, we could start discussing whether a cell which meets
that description necessarily has mRNA coding for sophisticated protein enzymes
and not just simple structural proteins.


When I say "we" I certainly don't mean someone like you: I mean
people who know enough biochemistry to intelligently talk about
what I call the Catch-22 of "the protein takeover."

I'm not sure there are any such people around besides myself. "el cid"
died a month after you and I got acquainted with each other, and
"Roger Shrubber" quit talk.origins a long time ago.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

Do you disbelieve in a Christian God? Is that why you dismiss out
of hand events like the ones in the following statement by
someone who, like myself, is (actually, was) an agnostic?

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_

That's the real ID issue, and if you have the smarts to contribute
anything of value to this thread, you need to deal intelligently
with the question:

How can modern evolutionary theory (The Modern Synthesis, and the EES)
account for any mega-evolutionary changes when it is hamstrung by a
definition of "evolution" that confines itself to the change of
alleles in populations?

> >> > ID doesn't claim God did it.
> >> >It is not "pure speculation" to observe and hypothesize about intelligent and unintelligent processes.
> >>
> >> Okay; how do ID proponents do this and apply it to ID as we know it...
> >> without speculation?
> >
> >I didn't say ID isn't speculative. I consider ID as a hypothesis.
>
> Okay; let's say that ID is a hypothesis. How do you intend to test
> it?
>
> >You dropped the "pure",
>
> LOL! Consider it put back, all right?

In that case, you are guilty of pure GIGO. See my reply to the same
post to which you are replying, to see why:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/D_QCRraJXgE/6pswUmQYBgAJ
Subject: Re: The predictive power of evolution
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fe7b3568-6e95-45b7...@googlegroups.com>

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/