A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'"

[Kotatsu]

Mister Earl, how many pages have you read in the Annoying Creationist thread? There is a reason why it is 190+ pages long. Do you want me to start posting citations here as well?

Speaking as one who has followed that thread from post one, I can assure you that there is virtually nothing in the first 189 pages that isn't repeated in the last one. I write "virtually", because people other than Kleinman have varied their posts sometimes.

[kleinman]

That’s right Ashles, the very same Dr Schneider, whose peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Have you noticed that Dr Schneider who used to publicly discuss his more than 20 year old computer simulation no longer publicly discusses his model? We now know what his model shows.You aren't really getting this are you.

Evolution exists according to all observable data and all methods of testing.
Wrong Ashles, there is a huge amount of data available that shows exactly how mutation and selection actually works and Dr Schneider’s model isn’t the only model which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And this mathematical and empirical evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution.

What you evolutionists don’t grasp is that mutation and selection is simply a sorting process in which selection conditions determine which are beneficial and detrimental mutations. The way sorting algorithms work is that simple sorting conditions sort the easiest and most quickly and the more complex the sorting conditions, the much, much more slowly the process works. This is what Dr Schneider’s model shows and this is what the vast body of repeatable, measurable empirical data on mutation and selection shows. What ever you want to claim as evidence for the irrational and illogical theory of evolution is undermined by the fact that mutation and selection does not work the way evolutionists allege.
You are pointing to a single 20 year old mathematical model that (according to you) is no longer discussed even by its creator. The creator of that model believes evolution to be the mechanism of how life changes over time.
No, I am pointing to a peer reviewed and published mathematical model which has been scrutinized over and over not only by the peer review editors at Nucleic Acids Research, but also by mathematicians from all areas of science. Dr Schneider has defended his model against every criticism leveled at his model and rightly so, his mathematics is correct and it shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The empirical evidence also substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows as well.
He keeps saying the model itself proves evolution isn't possible. I'm just wondering what makes him think that. I can't get him to tell us.
That’s not what I said Mister Earl, you need to pay attention. What I said is that Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and that is exactly what the empirical evidence shows. I’ve been saying this for months and you evolutionists still don’t get it. Now why don’t you show us an example where multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution? Don’t forget to identify the selection pressures and the target genes for these selection pressures. This is a no mush zone.

[m_huber]

You can make all the lists you want, but evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit. The empirical evidence show that it doesn’t matter what kind of mutation is involved or whether there is recombination, combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. That is the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are having difficulty understanding.

I'm not making a list. But if you need one, look at UC Berkeley. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml) Notably, Darwin didn't have a mechanism. He had observations. The ones who are adapted well enough to the environment to have offspring will live. Those who are not will go extinct. That is all evolution boils down to. Run it over a long period of time, and you get large amounts of variation. Darwin, of course, couldn't have understood the full nature of change in life over time, because he didn't have the full picture. He only had the present to work with. As the fossil record became clear, science moved away from his phyletic gradualism position, and adopted punctuated equilibrium. This theory allows for long periods of stasis, with comparably rapid change in species when the environment is radically changed. We get both of these theories (PG and PE) from observations on the macro level. So, if you have a mechanism of evolution that doesn't work, you need to look somewhere else to find one that does, because evolution is observed to have happened. If you don't believe me, look at pictures of your relatives and play a game of "how many differences do you see in these pictures." Alan, that is evolution. If you want to argue against something besides that, come up with a different term to argue against.


That may be the case with inductive logic but deductive logic works the opposite to what you are saying. The vast number of real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of mutation and selection substantiates Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection.

So you place more emphasis on what is shown through mathematical logic statements than you do on physical evidence? Deductive reasoning starts with the principle and moves to the specifics; science doesn't do that. I am not aware of examples of mutation and selection that argue against evolution. Please provide a brief example.

[Mister Earl]

Wrong Ashles, there is a huge amount of data available that shows exactly how mutation and selection actually works and Dr Schneider’s model isn’t the only model which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And this mathematical and empirical evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution.
Can you state specifically why? Generalized statements like this prove nothing to me. I need a more definitive answer than "Because it does".

What you evolutionists don’t grasp is that mutation and selection is simply a sorting process in which selection conditions determine which are beneficial and detrimental mutations. The way sorting algorithms work is that simple sorting conditions sort the easiest and most quickly and the more complex the sorting conditions, the much, much more slowly the process works. This is what Dr Schneider’s model shows and this is what the vast body of repeatable, measurable empirical data on mutation and selection shows. What ever you want to claim as evidence for the irrational and illogical theory of evolution is undermined by the fact that mutation and selection does not work the way evolutionists allege.
Ok, we need more specifics, here. What is it you are claiming Evolutionists allege, and how does this contradict what you think you see here?


No, I am pointing to a peer reviewed and published mathematical model which has been scrutinized over and over not only by the peer review editors at Nucleic Acids Research, but also by mathematicians from all areas of science. Dr Schneider has defended his model against every criticism leveled at his model and rightly so, his mathematics is correct and it shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
Another generalization. WHERE does it show this? You never point that out. Again, "Because it does!" is not a valid answer.


[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]That’s not what I said Mister Earl, you need to pay attention. What I said is that Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
"Because it does!" is not a valid answer. Give me some specifics. Also, the paper you reference says it plain text that it doesn't use the vast majority of factors that would need to be added in order to accurately model organic evolution. Again you ignore this part.

What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and that is exactly what the empirical evidence shows. I’ve been saying this for months and you evolutionists still don’t get it. Now why don’t you show us an example where multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution? Don’t forget to identify the selection pressures and the target genes for these selection pressures. This is a no mush zone.
The burden of proof is on you, not us. The model you use does NOT prove what you think it does. It does not factor in an enormous amount of biological variables that would be needed to model evolution. It says so in the paper you continually reference as proof, yet ignore because it doesn't match what you say. You may want to re-read my "Radial tire peer-reviewed paper" analogy again. This is what you're doing here.

[kleinman]

That may be the case with inductive logic but deductive logic works the opposite to what you are saying. The vast number of real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of mutation and selection substantiates Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection.So you place more emphasis on what is shown through mathematical logic statements than you do on physical evidence? Deductive reasoning starts with the principle and moves to the specifics; science doesn't do that. I am not aware of examples of mutation and selection that argue against evolution. Please provide a brief example.
Sure, in fact I’ll provide about a half a dozen brief examples and if you want to see hundreds of more examples of combination selection pressures profoundly slowing evolution by mutation and selection, read the Annoying Creationists thread.
http://www.malariaandhealth.com/professional/abstracts.htm (http://www.malariaandhealth.com/professional/abstracts.htm)
The aim of this workshop was to issue updated practical recommendations for the rational use of the QingHaoSu (QHS) derivatives, (i.e. medicines really in use and not molecules still under development). 54 malariologists and other experts from Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia were invited, from research centers, universities, national administrations, military research centers or hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, etc., together with WHO and international agency observers. Thanks to working papers including the most recent available data, and particularly the Cochrane Center meta-analysis of clinical trials, several practical conclusions were agreed on by the participants (they are views of individuals and do not represent the opinions or recommendations of any official body or agency):

(1) In adults and children QHS derivatives are the most rapidly acting antimalarials against falciparum malaria, including multidrug resistant strains; (2) There has been no resistance identified so far, but this should not cause complacency in the use of QHS; (3) All the investigated QHS drugs have shown comparable efficacy. There is a serious practical risk associated with the appearance of substandard and inadequately labelled preparations on the international market; (4) QHS derivatives are well tolerated and there is no evidence so far of serious clinical toxicity in man. The neurotoxicity seen in animals after high doses of certain compounds has not been reported in man; (5) Whenever possible, these drugs should be used in combination with a second, longer-acting antimalarial to avoid or limit the risk of resistance; (6) QHS should not be used for chemoprophylaxis. It was agreed that for use in severe malaria IM artemether and probably IV or IM artesunate are at least as effective as quinine; rectal formulations of these drugs require further studies but seem very promising. Use in uncomplicated malaria or during pregnancy, pharmacokinetics, activity and tolerability, were also considered in detail.

The final conclusions were focused on GMP standards of quality, efficacy and safety and, in addition to their application to QHS derivatives and other antimalarials, they should be more generally employed to control all drugs used in Tropical Medicine.
And
Chlorproguanil-dapsone (Lapdap) is a novel antifolate combination which offers the potential for affordable treatment for Fansidar™-resistant falciparum malaria in Africa, and reduced selective pressure for drug resistance.

Laboratory work, which has underpinned the development of Lapdap, started in Kenya in the early 1980s. Chlorcycloguanil [CCG], the active metabolite of chlorproguanil [CPG], was shown to have high activity against both pyrimethamine-sensitive and -resistant parasites, and to act synergistically in combination with sulfonamides and sulphones. A pilot study of Lapdap at two sites in Kenya showed that parasitaemia was cleared by a single dose, although recrudescence was common. In 1987-88, the relationship between selective pressure for parasite resistance and elimination half-life was demonstrated at Kilifi, which established the potential advantage of a short half-life combination like Lapdap, and this was further supported by a comparison of the in vitro therapeutic indices of the available antifolate combination treatments, undertaken in Liverpool and Kenya in 1992. Current investigations aim to define the relationship between drug pharmacokinetics and susceptibility to antifolate action, of parasites with particular dhps and dhfr genotypes, and to define resistance to this class of drug at the molecular level.

To date, clinical trial work on Lapdap has been undertaken with scientific, rather than regulatory, aims in mind. The completed Kilifi trial compared Lapdap with pyrimethamine-sulfadoxine [PM/SD] in symptomatic childhood falciparum malaria. The trial studied both a single dose of Lapdap [1.2 mg kg-l and 2.4 mg kg-l of CPG and DDS respectively] and three doses at 24 hour intervals. A community control group was recruited to estimate the monthly incidence of new parasitaemia. Initial clinical response to Lapdap [both regimens] and PM/SD was similar. However, in comparison with the control group the relative risk of new parasitaemia was 2.10 [95%CI 1.66 to 2.65] after one dose of Lapdap, 1.31 [0.99, 1.73] after three doses and 0.63 [0.43, 0.93] after one dose of PM/SD. We interpret this trial to show that (a) one dose of this potent, but rapidly-eliminated, combination is inadequate, (b) three doses of Lapdap give an adequate response and (c) PM/SD provides a period of chemoprophylaxis with the disadvantage of high selection pressure for resistance. Pharmacokinetic work [done in parallel with this trial] suggested that, while the dose of DDS [2.4 mg kg- 1 daily] was probably satisfactory, the dose of CPG [1.2 mg kg- 1 daily] may have been too low, and rising dose tolerance studies subsequently established that a CPO dose of 2.0 mg kg-l was tolerable. Ongoing clinical trial work in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania [using 2.0 and 2.5 mg kg-1 of CPG and DDS respectively, daily for 3 days] will study (a) whether the lack of chemoprophylaxis after Lapdap confers disadvantage to the individual patient in comparison with PM/SD, and (b) whether Lapdap is as effective a salvage therapy in patients with "PM/SD-failure", as in-vitro data would predict.
And
Antimalarial drug development depends on the clear recognition of the importance of the differential susceptibility both of different stages and species of Plasmodium to drugs and the genetic versatility of these protozoa. Unlike most antimicrobial agents, antimalarial drugs may be targeted against different life cycle stages. Most compounds have a limited range of stages against which they are effective. In antibacterial chemotherapy, especially against chronic infections such as tuberculosis, it has long been accepted that polytherapy is essential in order either to overcome or restrict the emergence of drug-resistant organisms. This principle, in spite of many warnings, has only just started to gain acceptance in the antimalarial field. Antimalarial combinations may (1) target different life cycle stages, (2) reinforce drug action against specific metabolic pathways, (3) block the emergence of genetic variants or (4) reverse the pharmacological sequelae resulting from the selection of drug-resistant mutants. The first principle which was originally proposed by Guttman and Ehrlich in 1891 has recently been resurrected with the use of the artemisinin family against drug-resistant falciparum malaria and is currently a novel focus of attention by WHO. It is also of major importance in the prevention and treatment of chloroquine-resistant P. vivax by, for example, etaquine. The second principle became of significance after Hurly showed in 1959 that pyrimethamine and sulphadiazine potentiate each other's action against P. falciparum. It is currently being pursued by such trials as that of dapsone plus chlorproguanil. The third principle is exemplified by laboratory studies of combinations containing novel endoperoxides and clinical trials of benflumetol with artemether. The fourth principle, which is of wide application in cancer chemotherapy, may shortly provide rational new ways to treat patients infected with multidrug-resistant parasites. The consistent reluctance of physicians and health authorities to deploy rationally designed antimalarial drug combinations must be abandoned.
And
Co-artemether is a fixed combination antimalarial containing the artemisinin derivative artemether and the aryl amino alcohol benflumetol (lumefantrine). The combination exploits the rapid actions of the artemisinins and the more prolonged actions of benflumetol. Artemether exerts its antimalarial actions via the generation of reactive free radical species within the parasite's digestive food vacuole. These species are produced by the iron-dependent catalytic breakdown of the unusual peroxide bridge in this molecule. Benflumetol shares structural and physicochemical characteristics with other so called '"Class II blood schizontocides" such as mefloquine. As such, it is assumed that these drugs interact with some component of the haemoglobin degradation pathway characteristic of intra-erythrocytic parasites. The central importance of this pathway to benflumetol action has been established using a specific inhibitor of the initial haemoglobin cleavage event. The use of the combination has additional advantages in that the drugs have been shown to interact synergistically both in vitro against P. falciparum and in vivo against P. berghei and the use of drug combinations should reduce the rate of resistance development. The artemisinins are rapidly eliminated in man with elimination half-lives in the order of hours, whereas benflumetol shows variable bioavailability and a long elimination half-life. These pharmacokinetic differences between the two drugs will limit the importance of the synergy between the two drugs and may have an influence on the rate of resistance development.
And
Benflumetol (lumefantrine) and artemether are two new antimalarials developed in China. Both have good therapeutic effects against chloroquine-resistant Falciparum malaria. Benflumetol is a fluoremethanol, and is an active schizonticidal drug. It is formulated for oral administration as a solution in linoleic acid in the form of capsules. In China it has cure rates of above 95% against P. falciparum infections, but its onset of action is slow. It has low toxicity. Artemether is a derivative of artemisinin. It is characterised by its rapid onset of schizonticidal action, but has a relatively high rate of recrudescence.

A combination of the two drugs was developed in China in order to maintain their strong points while averting their shortcomings. This combination of artemether and benflumetol is synergistic. The synergistic indices were more than 5 and 6, calculated from ED50 and ED90 respectively, when tested against P. berghei in mice. The combination delayed the emergence of drug resistance and reduced the resistance level.

A regimen for clinical use was established. A fixed combination tablet comprising one part of artemether (20 mg) and six parts of benflumetol (120 mg) is in use. Four doses of four tablets taken at 0, 8, 24 and 48 hours had a satisfactory effect in patients with Falciparum malaria infections.

The treatment combines the benefits of both drugs, with a relatively short therapeutic course, rapid onset of action and high cure rate. It has low toxicity and is a well-tolerated drug for the treatment of malarial infections.
And
Antimalarial drug resistance is increasing throughout the tropical world. In some parts of Southeast Asia and South America there is complete resistance of P. falciparum to chloroquine and the combination of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine. There is also partial resistance to quinine and mefloquine in some areas. Resistance to artemisinin and its derivatives has not been reported, although when used alone, these compounds are associated with high recrudescence rates, particularly if used in courses of less than 5 days. In 1994, the combination of mefloquine plus artesunate was introduced on the western border of Thailand and since then it has retained excellent efficacy. In vitro tests have confirmed that there has been no further decline in P. falciparum sensitivity to mefloquine.

Drug resistance arises as a result of genetic mutation(s), which are selected under drug pressure and then transmitted from one host to another. Combining unrelated drugs reduces the chance that a resistant mutant will be selected by (i.e. survive) drug treatment. The artemisinin derivatives are the most active antimalarials available and will reduce the infecting parasite biomass by 10,000-fold each cycle (2 days).

There is evidence from laboratory and field studies that the rate of gametocyte carriage increases with declining antimalarial efficacy. A recrudescent (i.e. resistant) infection is more likely to present with patent gametocytaemia, and as a consequence more drug-resistant strains are more likely to be transmitted. The artemisinin derivatives markedly reduce gametocyte carriage. Combination treatment regimens that include artemisinin derivatives reduce the emergence of resistance, the transmission, and thus the spread of, drug-resistant strains of P. falciparum.
All these examples demonstrate what combination selection pressures do to an evolving population. These examples are for populations of Malaria parasites (which happen to do recombination) but you find this happens for all evolving populations including viruses, bacteria, parasites, rodents, weeds, cancer,… Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the ability of a population to evolve to these combined selection pressures. This is what Dr Schneider’s mathematical model shows and this is what the empirical evidence shows. Evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit

[m_huber]

Let's talk about combination therapy. "Combination selection pressures," when entered into a google search in quotes, results in your last post.

http://www.i-base.info/guides/starting/introduction.html

From what I gather, combination therapy is used to treat viruses in multiple ways, by inhibiting them on multiple fronts. This deals with the HIV life cycle, blocking it from screwing up the system of the infected patient. Please explain to me how this has anything at all to do with evolution.

Malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, and other viruses can be better fought off with multiple drugs, each designed specifically to inhibit their ability to function and reproduce. Remind me of how this says anything in reference to evolution.

You are using viruses that evolve to show that evolution doesn't happen. Amazing.

(And you chose to ignore the rest of my post, Alan.)

[Mister Earl]

Kleinman, you need to make up your mind as to what point you are trying to make here. Are you arguing against evolution, or monotherapy? Why is it when we press you for facts, you jump right back into monotherapy? That is neither here, nor there. Drug resistances in the way you are quoting doesn't tell me evolution is or isn't possible.

Combination therapy would be more effective, I believe. Not because evolution is or isn't possible, but simply because a larger and more variable amount of lethal agents are going to be more effective in killing things. If someone shot you, the bullet may not hit anything lethal, and you could stagger away. Now, If I did the same, but also introduced a nerve agent, a powerful muscle relaxant so you would stop breathing, and also several amperes, then I could be that much more certain the subject wouldn't survive.

Your allegation that multiple strong pressures slows evolution is contradictory to your own argument. You constantly ignore many facts in order to press your point. You claim that constant and severe multiple environmental stressors would slow mutation and selection. I can see this as pretty accurate (generally speaking), but that doesn't reflect our environment. Species face many stressors, but they're not always severe and not always constant. The environment is variable, and your argument that this paper:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794

... proves that evolution isn't possible is invalid. You intentionally downplay or ignore entire sections of the paper, including (direct quote):

Because half of the population always survives each selection round in the evolutionary simulation presented here, the population cannot die out and there is no lethal level of incompetence. While this may not be representative of all biological systems, since extinction and threshold effects do occur, it is representative of the situation in which a functional species can survive without a particular genetic control system but which would do better to gain control ab initio.

Then here's this part, which I believe is rather important:

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution. Another use of the program may include understanding the sources and effects of skewed genomic composition (4,7,30,31). However, this could be caused by mutation rates, and/or it could be the result of some kind(s) of evolutionary pressure that we don’t understand, so how one implements the skew may well affect or bias the results.

Notice the items he lists could be used with variations of the programs? He said, "Could be used." Not "Used." That means each of the items he listed there weren't used in the tests made in the creation of this paper. That's kinda important.

The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists (32) (R. Truman, http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm ; 08-Jun-1999) but only qualitatively addressed by biologists (33). The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy (H = –{Sigma}plog2p, {Sigma}p = 1) implies that neither can be negative (H >= 0), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequence and Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists.

No comment by me needed. Do you have a rebuttal for me, Kleinman? Or anything to add?

[Nogbad]

http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviewimgs/b/blazingsaddles_imgs/blazingsaddles_04.jpg

Remember the fight scene at the end?

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman, you already have a thread devoted to your whining and raving and lying.

What's the matter, aren't you getting enough attention?

Poor little man.

[Dr Adequate]

Could I mention to anyone who hasn't followed kleinman's little lie-fest --- the people arguing with him have already explained the bleedin' obvious to him, very slowly and patiently as one would to a stupid child.

Several times. Have a look at the link in my sig for some examples. His stupid innumerate blunders about Schneider's "ev" program were exposed over a year ago, but he still drools out the same pathetic whining about it. Over and over. Complusively. Day in, day out. You are wasting your breath if you suppose that any simple, and obvious statement of fact will make any impression on him.

On the other hand, some of his lies are quite funny in their awesome stupidity. My advice is to sit back and enjoy the show.

[kleinman]

Let's talk about combination therapy. "Combination selection pressures," when entered into a google search in quotes, results in your last post.

http://www.i-base.info/guides/starti...roduction.html
What the discuss on this link is correct.
From what I gather, combination therapy is used to treat viruses in multiple ways, by inhibiting them on multiple fronts. This deals with the HIV life cycle, blocking it from screwing up the system of the infected patient. Please explain to me how this has anything at all to do with evolution.
What you are blocking with HIV is the ability of the virus to adapt by mutation and selection. That adaptation is evolution. You need to remember that Dr Schneider was not designing a computer model to stifle the evolution of a virus yet his three selection condition model shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is stifled by his three selection conditions on all but the tiniest of genomes where the tiny search space enables the mutation and selection process to evolve the three selection conditions. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting/optimization process. Dr Schneider’s sorting algorithm demonstrates exactly how this process works. There are no selection conditions that cooperate with each other to speed up the evolutionary process. Combination selection pressures interfere with the sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations. Only with a single sorting condition directed at a single gene do you get rapid sorting.
Malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, and other viruses can be better fought off with multiple drugs, each designed specifically to inhibit their ability to function and reproduce. Remind me of how this says anything in reference to evolution.
Every one of these examples you list are examples of evolution by mutation and selection to targeted selection pressures. Selection pressures impair the fitness of members of the population to reproduce and drive the remaining population to new local optima on the fitness landscape unless the population goes extinct, this is classic Darwinian evolution. Don’t forget that cancer chemotherapy works this way, herbicides work this way, rodenticides work this way. There are no examples of mutation and selection where combination selection pressures targeted at multiple genes speed up the evolutionary process.
You are using viruses that evolve to show that evolution doesn't happen. Amazing.
Not quite right, what I am doing is using the evolution of viruses when subjected to monotherapy verses combination therapy to show that common descent can not occur by mutation and selection unless you want to argue that it occurs one gene at a time.
(And you chose to ignore the rest of my post, Alan.)
I’m responding to many evolutionists, what is it that you want me to respond to?
Kleinman, you need to make up your mind as to what point you are trying to make here. Are you arguing against evolution, or monotherapy? Why is it when we press you for facts, you jump right back into monotherapy? That is neither here, nor there. Drug resistances in the way you are quoting doesn't tell me evolution is or isn't possible.
I’ll say it as many times as you need to hear it Mister Earl. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is what Dr Schneider’s mathematical model shows and this is what the real, repeatable, measurable examples of mutation and selection shows. Evolution of drug resistance is classic Darwinian evolution. What is mathematically impossible in the theory of evolution is the concept of common descent, mutation and selection can’t do it unless you want to claim that it occurs one gene at a time.
Kleinman, you already have a thread devoted to your whining and raving and lying.
There’s my favorite annoyee, I wondered where you skulked of to. We have a whole new crop of mathematically incompetent evolutionists to introduce to your mythematics. Here’s Adequate’s mythematics of the mutation and selection process.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3974/genegraphhx4.jpg
The red line shows generations to achieve fixation of n alleles acted on by n selection pressures, the n+1th selection pressure being introduced only after the nth allele is fixed.

The blue line shows generations to achieve fixation of n alleles acted on by n selection pressures simultaneously.

All other features and parameters of the two models are identical. The model is designed so that the relative advantage of n+1 new genes over n (when selection is acting) is the same for all n, i.e. each new allele carries the same advantage.

Note how with simultaneous selection pressures the rate of evolution (fixations/generation) increases with the number of selection pressures.
And then Adequate goes on to say this:
More optimisation takes more time. This is what my model shows. This is what ev shows. This is what reality shows. This is freakin' obvious.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Could you give us a real example of your silly gif which shows that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution?
And
So far as I know, no-one has done the experiment.
and
and too bad you don’t have any empirical examples of your silly graph ...[quote="Adequate"]As I have explained to you, I produced the model because I've not heard of this precise experiment being done.
I enjoy annoying someone with a PhD in mythematics.

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman, remember, many of these people haven't picked through your heap of garbage. So although it's kind of you to post my clear and simple proof that you are wrong, perhaps you should explain to the good people what you're wrong about.

So far you've only convinced them that I'm right. But surely you also wish to convince them that you are wrong?

So tell the bleedin' lie, kleinman.

[kleinman]

Kleinman, remember, many of these people haven't picked through your heap of garbage. So although it's kind of you to post my clear and simple proof that you are wrong, perhaps you should explain to the good people what you're wrong about.

So far you've only convinced them that I'm right. But surely you also wish to convince them that you are wrong?
Are you still holding to your irrational and illogical mythematics that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures? That’s silly nonsense goes over well with mathematically incompetent evolutionists. Even you let it slip out that “More optimisation takes more time.”.
Could you give us a real example of your silly gif which shows that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution?
So far as I know, no-one has done the experiment.
and
and too bad you don’t have any empirical examples of your silly graph ...As I have explained to you, I produced the model because I've not heard of this precise experiment being done.
It is Adequate’s irrational an illogical assertion that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly that n selection pressures that qualifies as evolutionist mythematics. It fits well with the irrational and illogical theory of evolution. I like your clear and simple proof… that you have a PhD in mythematics.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Dr Adequate]

Are you still holding to your irrational and illogical mythematics that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures? That’s silly nonsense goes over well with mathematically incompetent evolutionists. Even you let it slip out that “More optimisation takes more time.”.


and

It is Adequate’s irrational an illogical assertion that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly that n selection pressures that qualifies as evolutionist mythematics. It fits well with the irrational and illogical theory of evolution. I like your clear and simple proof… that you have a PhD in mythematics.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif Since you have already quoted what I actually said, everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying about what I claim.

As, of course, do you.

Why do you lie when you know you're going to be caught?

[rocketdodger]

Is it just me or does it seem like Kleinman has more free time all of a sudden?

[kleinman]

Since you have already quoted what I actually said, everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying about what I claim.
You evolutionists always whine when I quote you. Nobody is stopping you from trying to squirm out of your irrational and illogical claim. Hey Adequate, when are you going to notify all the infectious disease experts not to use combination therapy to treat HIV, TB, Malaria,…, after all you said:
Note how with simultaneous selection pressures the rate of evolution (fixations/generation) increases with the number of selection pressures.
You need to correct all these ignorant infectious disease experts that think that combination therapy will slow if not stop the evolution of resistance to these multi-drug therapies.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Of course, we need to give Adequate some slack here, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem is not in his area of mythematics.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[m_huber]

So, to be clear, you are saying that medicines that stop viruses from mutating (by killing them, as nearly as I can tell) are proof that evolution doesn't happen, because if evolution did happen, then it would overpower the drugs that were fighting the virus? You're saying that combination therapy debunks the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, despite the fact that we have numerous fossils that demonstrate the pathway of evolution? What are you trying to argue for in place of evolution?

[kleinman]

So, to be clear, you are saying that medicines that stop viruses from mutating (by killing them, as nearly as I can tell) are proof that evolution doesn't happen, because if evolution did happen, then it would overpower the drugs that were fighting the virus? You're saying that combination therapy debunks the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, despite the fact that we have numerous fossils that demonstrate the pathway of evolution? What are you trying to argue for in place of evolution?
No m_huber, that is not what I am saying. First of all, there are no drugs which kill viruses, there are only drugs which impair the reproduction of the virus. What I am saying is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene. If you are going to argue that reptiles evolved into birds, you have two problems. First, you don’t have any selection pressure(s) that would accomplish such a massive genetic transformation and second, even if you could imagine such selection pressure(s), the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is so profoundly slow for more than a single selection pressure, you don’t have enough generations to accomplish this massive genetic transformation.

I have not tried to argue for anything in the place of evolution. I am only elucidating the proper basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Evolutionists have done an atrocious job in explaining how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and I am simply trying to correct this gross error on the part of evolutionists. Resistant microbes, pests, weeds… are going to be a greater problem in the future, the irrational explanation which evolutionists assert for mutation and selection is not going to help solve these problems.

[Dr Adequate]

You evolutionists always whine when I quote you. What a stupid lie. Everyone reading this thread can see that I was glad that you had quoted me, because it debunked your drooling, snivelling lies about my opinions without my having to lift a finger.

Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?

[Shalamar]

The problem is that Kleinman isn't wrong. Its also that he also isn't right.

He NEEDS evolution to be false. But he can't argue against it, so he lies, and insults, and takes studies out of context. He literally can not understand that pressures in nature are varied in strength, and number, and duration. It would destroy his world if it were so. So to him, it can not be so.

[kleinman]

You evolutionists always whine when I quote you.What a stupid lie.
Well then let’s quote you when you admit you know nothing about the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem.
And I, sir, am a mathematician, and I may be the greatest expert in the UK on certain aspects of non-associative algebras, and on absolutely nothing else …
Your ignorance of the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process shows. Anyone who claims that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures is surely a PhD in mythematics.
Please feel free to quote me at length. I'll just sit back and watch.
Thank you and I will oblige you. Now only if you would sit back, watch and learn the mathematics of mutation and selection then you wouldn’t have to say things like this.
Could you give us a real example of your silly gif which shows that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution?
So far as I know, no-one has done the experiment.
and
and too bad you don’t have any empirical examples of your silly graph ...As I have explained to you, I produced the model because I've not heard of this precise experiment being done.
And you would learn that Dr Schneider got the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem right and there hundreds of real examples of his mathematical model. The correct mathematics (not your silly gif Adequate) shows that the greater the number of selection pressures, the slower the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.

[Dr Adequate]

Well then let’s quote you when you admit you know nothing about the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem. Why do you lie when you know that you are going to get caught?

I "admitted" no such thing, and because you were once again kind enough to quote me, everyone can see that you're lying, and they think that you're a stupid liar who tells lies when you know you're going to get caught, and they wonder if you're mentally ill.

[Foster Zygote]

Why do you lie when you know that you are going to get caught?

I "admitted" no such thing, and because you were once again kind enough to quote me, everyone can see that you're lying, and they think that you're a stupid liar who tells lies when you know you're going to get caught, and they wonder if you're mentally ill.

So, this thread has come full circle.

[kleinman]

Well then let’s quote you when you admit you know nothing about the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem.Why do you lie when you know that you are going to get caught?
Not only did you admit it, you proved it when you posted your silly gif and claimed that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. What ridiculous assertions you have made about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem works. That’s why you can’t find a single real example of your silly drawing while I can post hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Of course that puts you in good company with joobz; he can’t give a single example of his cooperative chemistry. You two make a good team, he’s a PhD in alchemical engineering and you are a PhD in mythematics. You two should get together and write some stories for the SciFi channel.

[kleinman]

So, this thread has come full circle.
Haven’t you learned yet, the theory of evolution is a dead end.

[Dr Adequate]

Not only did you admit it ....I admitted nothing of the sort, you stupid liar, and everyone reading this thread can see that, you stupid liar, because you were stupid enough to quote what I actually said, you stupid liar, so they all know that you're a stupid liar, you stupid liar.

Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?

you proved it when you posted your silly gif and claimed that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures.

I claimed nothing of the sort, you stupid liar, and everyone reading this thread can see that, you stupid liar, because you were stupid enough to quote what I actually said, you stupid liar, so they all know that you're a stupid liar, you stupid liar.

Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?

[Prometheus]

:popcorn1 I'm gonna :popcorn1 run out of popcorn. :popcorn1 :popcorn1

[joobz]

Last I recalled, this thread was discussing the arguments Radrook was making. The lessons learned from him was that creationists will pretend to have a scientific argument against evolution, but never actually present one. At most they'll make up concepts like atheistic evolution. To this regard, the thread is over. It's merely beating a dead horse.


In the annoying creationist thread, it was learned that creationists will ignore assumptions in their model to believe what they want. I'm certain Kleinman would be more than willing to discuss why I'm wrong, but to do so in other threads on other topics would be merely intentional derails.

I would hope that kleinman would have the respect for others as to either post on topic or keep to threads of his own initiation.

[Dr Adequate]

I would hope that kleinman would have the respect for others as to either post on topic or keep to threads of his own initiation. Yes, it's finally happened ... it's the day we all knew would come ... he's broken free from his padded cell and is now rampaging freely about the forums drooling at the general populace.

I told you this would happen if you kept prodding him with that stick.

[Shalamar]

Yes, it's finally happened ... it's the day we all knew would come ... he's broken free from his padded cell and is now rampaging freely about the forums drooling at the general populace.

I told you this would happen if you kept prodding him with that stick.

Sorry. I think I broke him with my constant requests for the math which he never had.

[arthwollipot]

1) This is funny.
2) How exactly does irrational notion of mutation lead to anyone's death?

It seems pretty clear that Kleinman is either looking for a fight or looking for new material for a best-selling science joke book.

And I thought Radrook was amusing..Oh, believe me. He's not the weirdest creationist I've come across. There was this young chap from London who posted on a board that I was on who insisted that the sun went around the earth, and claimed to have proof. We played with him for a while before he gave up and went away.

My current favourite is someone who keeps claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - that the fact that there are very few fossils of the ancestors of bats (or angiosperms, or yucca moths, or whatever his current favourite is) means that no such ancestors existed. This is his one and only refrain.

Funny stuff.

:popcorn1 I'm gonna :popcorn1 run out of popcorn. :popcorn1 :popcorn1Here - have some of mine. I'm not going to be able to eat it all. :popcorn1:popcorn1:popcorn1:popcorn1

[m_huber]

Ah, this is fun.


No m_huber, that is not what I am saying. First of all, there are no drugs which kill viruses, there are only drugs which impair the reproduction of the virus. What I am saying is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene.


Wait.. Wait.. they don't kill the viruses, but they do inhibit reproduction? Effectively, what's the difference? Either way, this is pressuring the virus to go extinct (though you wouldn't normally use that terminology). If you don't allow reproduction, then evolution necessarily will not take place!


If you are going to argue that reptiles evolved into birds, you have two problems. First, you don’t have any selection pressure(s) that would accomplish such a massive genetic transformation and second, even if you could imagine such selection pressure(s), the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is so profoundly slow for more than a single selection pressure, you don’t have enough generations to accomplish this massive genetic transformation.


Perhaps this would be a good time to give your definition of "selection pressure."

Regardless, the conclusion that dinosaurs (not reptiles; they are morphologically distinct) evolved into birds was reached decades ago. You might look at this (http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/flight_evolution.htm) or this (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html) to see the fossil evidence for bird evolution.

The point is that evolution is empirical. I can look at modern morphological similarities, I can look at genetic divergence, I can look at the fossil record: they all point to common descent. You claim to have found a mechanism that doesn't work. That's fine. Science does that. It has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution.


I have not tried to argue for anything in the place of evolution. I am only elucidating the proper basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Evolutionists have done an atrocious job in explaining how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and I am simply trying to correct this gross error on the part of evolutionists. Resistant microbes, pests, weeds… are going to be a greater problem in the future, the irrational explanation which evolutionists assert for mutation and selection is not going to help solve these problems.

I'm still not clear on what you think evolution has wrong. Resistant microbes are resistant because they evolved to resist the various agents that killed them in the past. Weeds are not really a major problem for modern farmers as they were in times past because of modern practices and genetically engineered plants, which are both advances of science and related to the theory of evolution. I don't know what pests have to do with anything -- that is simply a distinction of some animal that gets in the way of human production.

What do assertions of scientists who accept evolution have to do with solving any global crises? You do realize that scientists study specific problems, right, Alan? You know that we don't just sit in recliners and think, "Hm, we all must have evolved." Scientists make their livings by discovering things that people didn't know before, or giving evidence of things we thought we knew before. You seem to be asserting that all scientists are the same and that the theory of evolution somehow dominates the thought process of scientists. While it is a useful mode of thinking, there is no dogma in science that says that all problems must be solved in such a way that they back up evolutionary theory.

Oh, believe me. He's not the weirdest creationist I've come across. There was this young chap from London who posted on a board that I was on who insisted that the sun went around the earth, and claimed to have proof. We played with him for a while before he gave up and went away.

My current favourite is someone who keeps claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - that the fact that there are very few fossils of the ancestors of bats (or angiosperms, or yucca moths, or whatever his current favourite is) means that no such ancestors existed. This is his one and only refrain.

Funny stuff.


It seems like all creationists have some form of "magic trump card" that they think defeats the theory of evolution once and for all, as if 150 years of scrutiny could be undone with a sentence or a small study or a borrowed principle. It would be fun to collect these different pet theories, but then, why make a catalogue of ignorance?



I wonder how long Alan will go on before he starts putting people on ignore like Radrook did. Maybe he will be more fair about that sort of thing.

[Ashles]

Well he claims he can show us "exactly where he (Dr Schneider) makes his blunder in his interpretation".

Still waiting for this too.


Last night I remembered what all of this reminded me of.

I had to do an English exam once and one of the passages was about a journalist who had been interviewing Roger Bannister - the first man to break the 4 minute mile mark.
The journalist described talking to a colleague (I can't remember who this colleague was - a mechanical engineer or biologist or something) who had calculated, taking 'everything' into consideration, muscle strength, tendon elasticity, bone length, joint friction etc. that a man could not have run the mile faster than 4 minutes.

This is what really annoyed me even at age 12: the journalist said "I went through all of his calculations and he was right! Yet still Roger had broken that 4 minute barrier".

Firstly there was the implication that the calculations couldn't possibly be correct until he, a journalist had checked them.
Secondly - they are obviously demonstrably wrong in some assumption! But that doesn't matter because it's maths! And maths 'proves' things! Even it the things it proves are obviously incorrect.

I don't know what point he was trying to make. Had Roger Banister perfected a form of biological wormhole technology just to shave a couple of seconds off his time?

Anyway - it just goes to emphasise my bumble bee point.

You could have the most complex and compelling calculaion in the world, but if the result disagrees with reality, then the calculation is flawed in some way.

Obviously this is for the benefit of lurkers. Kleinman has shown himself to be past hope.

[Dr Adequate]

I wonder how long Alan will go on before he starts putting people on ignore like Radrook did. Maybe he will be more fair about that sort of thing. He doesn't know how to use the forum controls, so he just ignores people.

In fact, he is unique amongst the woos I have encountered in that he doesn't even bother to read his own posts.

How can this be? --- you ask. He must read them, because surely he writes them?

Well no, as a matter of fact, he doesn't.

Let us hear it from the man himself.

Kleinman, is there a reason you continuously misspell joobz name as joozb? This is not intended to address your little quibble here. I've noticed that you've done the same misspelling constantly for the last few posts. I was just wondering if it is intentional or a very consistent typo. If intentional, is it meant to mean something, because I'm not seeing it. :confused:


Nothing intentional meant here. I use macros and do a lot of cutting and pasting because the same points are raised over and over. I misspelled his name unintentionally in an earlier post and it just has been carried forward.

Perhaps this is one reason why he has so much trouble noticing how stupid his posts are --- he may well have forgotten what it is they say.

[Dr Adequate]

You could have the most complex and compelling calculaion in the world, but if the result disagrees with reality, then the calculation is flawed in some way. You appear to be under the impression that kleinman has done some mathematics of some form.

He has not, and indeed one of the more amusing things about his little comic turn is his chronic innumeracy.

See my sig, and also this little gem:

You are confusing the probability of a particular event occurring which must have a value between 0 and 1 with probability that a particular event may occur by a series of mutually exclusive events which can have probabilities greater than 1.

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3.

[Ocelot]

Glad to oblige you. Take a look at the Annoying Creationist thread; I’m going through the mathematics—again right now. You don’t have to read all 190+ pages of the thread, you can check out the last couple of days worth of posts. I’m showing how Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed a published simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Much of the rest of the thread shows citations of real empirical examples of mutation and selection which substantiates the results of Dr Schneider’s computer model.

I've just read the reast of this thread. I fear engaging with you on the subject will not be productive for either of us.

I susspect you have neither the mathematics nor manners for a civilised discussion. I bid you good day,

[Ashles]

I just read your sig Dr Adequate. It's worse than I previously thought.

So to recap, the calculations Kleinman thinks he understands, he doesn't understand; in the 20 years since the original calculations no-one apart from Kleinman has reached his conclusions; he has done no calculations himself; the originator of the calculations on which he is basing his conclusion has come to a different conclusion to Kleinman; and the conclusion Kleinman has come to based on misunderstanding calculation assumptions that he cannot follow is contrary to what we already know from observing reality.

My goodness - I wonder what his real agenda is - it appears to be rather deep rooted.

[Henners]

You're saying that combination therapy debunks the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, despite the fact that we have numerous fossils that demonstrate the pathway of evolution? What are you trying to argue for in place of evolution?

That's right.

He's saying that if you want to model an ecosystem, a sick human is an excellent model to use, and generates viable conclusions, whether you understand them or not.

[joobz]

Yes, it's finally happened ... it's the day we all knew would come ... he's broken free from his padded cell and is now rampaging freely about the forums drooling at the general populace.

I told you this would happen if you kept prodding him with that stick.
Actually, he seemed to haave snuck out when we stopped prodding him. He must have grown lonely.

Who would have known that we were the gate keepers blocking his passage to all other threads?

[Mister Earl]

I think where I went wrong, Dr. Adequate, was giving Kleinman the benefit of a doubt to begin with. I should have seen that red flag waving in my face when he completely ignored the fact that the same paper he uses to say proves evolution is impossible also states that a multitude of factors required to simulate life weren't used. I'll take your advice, grab my own popcorn, and just let him rage against his imaginary holy crusade.

[kleinman]

Actually, he seemed to haave snuck out when we stopped prodding him. He must have grown lonely.
Not quite correct master speculator, I responded on this thread because articulett was gossiping on this thread.
I think where I went wrong, Dr. Adequate, was giving Kleinman the benefit of a doubt to begin with. I should have seen that red flag waving in my face when he completely ignored the fact that the same paper he uses to say proves evolution is impossible also states that a multitude of factors required to simulate life weren't used. I'll take your advice, grab my own popcorn, and just let him rage against his imaginary holy crusade.
Mister Earl, you went wrong when you bought in to the irrational and illogical theory of evolution. Just because a collection of mathematically incompetent evolutionists claim that mutation and selection transforms lizards into birds doesn’t make it a fact. What is a mathematical and empirical fact is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model or random point mutations and natural selection shows exactly how this process works. It doesn’t work like Adequate’s mythematics where he claims that his silly gif shows that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. Adequate is taking an excursion into the irrational and illogical. If he thought he was correct, he would be telling infectious disease experts that combination therapy for HIV is only accelerating the evolution of the virus. Adequate’s has made a silly and irrational claim and he has been caught with his knickers down around his knees.

Oh, by the way, I am going step by step through the mathematical analysis of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process on the Annoying Creationist thread. That is something that Adequate won’t do for his silly and irrational claims. He is too busy trying to pull up his knickers.

[Prometheus]

kleinman, do you have a special button on your keyboard that spits out, "mutation and selection sorting/optimization process" with a single keystroke, or do you actually type out the whole phrase everytime you use it? How about a nice acronym--MASSOP? The complete phrase hurts my brain everytime I read it.

[Ashles]

"MYTHematics" Haha I get it. Brilliant.

You see what he did there? He took the word "MATHematics", and combined it with the word "MYTH" and hey presto - hilarity ensued!

*wipes tears from eyes*

Oh mercy.

(Of course as a 'gag' it is slightly subject to the law of massively diminishing returns, but not to worry. I'm sure there's no danger of him overusing the 'joke'.)

[kleinman]

kleinman, do you have a special button on your keyboard that spits out, "mutation and selection sorting/optimization process" with a single keystroke, or do you actually type out the whole phrase everytime you use it? How about a nice acronym--MASSOP? The complete phrase hurts my brain everytime I read it.
No macro button for that one, “mutation and selection sorting/optimization process” just flies off my finger, through the keyboard and is aimed right at your reticular activating system.
"MYTHematics" Haha I get it. Brilliant.
Now the question is, did that occur by random mutation?

[Ashles]

Now the question is, did that occur by random mutation?

???

Answers on a postcard please to the usual competition address.

[joobz]

"MYTHematics" Haha I get it. Brilliant.

You see what he did there? He took the word "MATHematics", and combined it with the word "MYTH" and hey presto - hilarity ensued!

*wipes tears from eyes*

Oh mercy.

(Of course as a 'gag' it is slightly subject to the law of massively diminishing returns, but not to worry. I'm sure there's no danger of him overusing the 'joke'.)
It's funny cause it's true.:D

[Prometheus]

No macro button for that one, “mutation and selection sorting/optimization process” just flies off my finger, through the keyboard and is aimed right at your reticular activating system.

Now the question is, did that occur by random mutation?

YOU'RE the one who's been poking my reticular activating system? I thought it was that Voodoo princess I dated in college! This explains so much! :D

[kleinman]

No macro button for that one, “mutation and selection sorting/optimization process” just flies off my finger, through the keyboard and is aimed right at your reticular activating system.YOU'RE the one who's been poking my reticular activating system? I thought it was that Voodoo princess I dated in college! This explains so much!
No voodoo, just the mathematical and empirical facts which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[Ashles]

No voodoo, just the mathematical and empirical facts which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

This is starting to remind me of maatorc clinging to his "Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable" phrase like some kind of crucifix keeping the vampires away.

[Mister Earl]

Mister Earl, you went wrong when you bought in to the irrational and illogical theory of evolution. Just because a collection of mathematically incompetent evolutionists claim that mutation and selection transforms lizards into birds doesn’t make it a fact.
Not quite. Where I went wrong was the moment I assumed you'd actually provide proof and/or math. You've given neither. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, and I now regret that.

What is a mathematical and empirical fact is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model or random point mutations and natural selection shows exactly how this process works.
Only when you read a tenth of the paper, and ignore the fact that the paper itself says it isn't a good model for biological processes because there are far too many variables that weren't modeled. You ignore this part because you know to include it would require the invalidation of your assertions. You put the cart before the horse. You pick an assertion based on your ill-informed world view, and cherry-pick data and take things out of context to confirm to that assertion. Are you a creationist, Kleinman?

It doesn’t work like Adequate’s mythematics where he claims that his silly gif shows that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. Adequate is taking an excursion into the irrational and illogical. If he thought he was correct, he would be telling infectious disease experts that combination therapy for HIV is only accelerating the evolution of the virus. Adequate’s has made a silly and irrational claim and he has been caught with his knickers down around his knees.
Do you have proof that he was wrong, or is it a figment of your imagination, like the math you keep promising to deliver on? Will you welch on this as well?

Oh, by the way, I am going step by step through the mathematical analysis of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process on the Annoying Creationist thread. That is something that Adequate won’t do for his silly and irrational claims. He is too busy trying to pull up his knickers.
You've been promising me this for several days. You have yet to deliver. And if what Dr. Adequate has says is correct, then you've been promising the same thing to everyone else for several years.

Tell me, Doctor. Are you a creationist? If you are neither creationist, nor evolutionist, then what do you believe? I may understand your point of view better if you would state what that is.

[joobz]

Not quite. Where I went wrong was the moment I assumed you'd actually provide proof and/or math. You've given neither. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, and I now regret that.


Only when you read a tenth of the paper, and ignore the fact that the paper itself says it isn't a good model for biological processes because there are far too many variables that weren't modeled. You ignore this part because you know to include it would require the invalidation of your assertions. You put the cart before the horse. You pick an assertion based on your ill-informed world view, and cherry-pick data and take things out of context to confirm to that assertion. Are you a creationist, Kleinman?


Do you have proof that he was wrong, or is it a figment of your imagination, like the math you keep promising to deliver on? Will you welch on this as well?


You've been promising me this for several days. You have yet to deliver. And if what Dr. Adequate has says is correct, then you've been promising the same thing to everyone else for several years.

Tell me, Doctor. Are you a creationist? If you are neither creationist, nor evolutionist, then what do you believe? I may understand your point of view better if you would state what that is.
Don't bother. he knows he's wrong. the most you can hope for is he'll say something stupid like
"natural selection is simply a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics".

[kleinman]

No voodoo, just the mathematical and empirical facts which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.This is starting to remind me of maatorc clinging to his "Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable" phrase like some kind of crucifix keeping the vampires away.
Nope, just simple arithmetic which shows that your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; you do remember your mathematics courses? Those were the classes that you evolutionists barely passed and gave a sigh of relief when they were over and you thought you would never have to see that stuff again.
Mister Earl, you went wrong when you bought in to the irrational and illogical theory of evolution. Just because a collection of mathematically incompetent evolutionists claim that mutation and selection transforms lizards into birds doesn’t make it a fact.Not quite. Where I went wrong was the moment I assumed you'd actually provide proof and/or math. You've given neither. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, and I now regret that.
No need to live with regrets Mister Earl, I’m giving a remedial course in the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for mathematically incompetent evolutionists (are there any other type of evolutionists?) on the Annoying Creationists thread.

[Ashles]

Nope, just simple arithmetic which shows that your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; you do remember your mathematics courses? Those were the classes that you evolutionists barely passed and gave a sigh of relief when they were over and you thought you would never have to see that stuff again.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[Mister Earl]

This is the part that shows me what a nutbag you are. (Pardon the Ad Hominem, but considering the amount of sneering I've had to endure, I believe this is fully justifiable)
What is a mathematical and empirical fact is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model or random point mutations and natural selection shows exactly how this process works.
You both confirm and deny evolution in one single sentence. Not to mention the 100th posting of "mathematical and empirical fact" and the 100th time you haven't posted those facts. Then there is "Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model or random point mutations and natural selection shows exactly how this process works." I love how great the pains you take just to ignore half the paper so it'll fit your assertions. That's like using the periodic table of elements to prove noble gases don't exist, then refer people to view the Lanthanides.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are either a creationist stooge, a serious and honest person suffering from psychosis, or a twelve year old looking to amuse himself by seeing how long you can keep a crazy conversation going without proving anything. I question your motives. Your own posts are rife with fabrications and misdirection. Do you honestly expect me to take your "evidence" without verification or explanation?

[Mister Earl]

No need to live with regrets Mister Earl, I’m giving a remedial course in the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for mathematically incompetent evolutionists (are there any other type of evolutionists?) on the Annoying Creationists thread.
Guess it would be asking too much for you to post the math itself instead of dozens of posts of you saying you will post the math?

[kleinman]

Nope, just simple arithmetic which shows that your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; you do remember your mathematics courses? Those were the classes that you evolutionists barely passed and gave a sigh of relief when they were over and you thought you would never have to see that stuff again.Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
I’m doing just that on the Annoying Creationists thread.
No need to live with regrets Mister Earl, I’m giving a remedial course in the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for mathematically incompetent evolutionists (are there any other type of evolutionists?) on the Annoying Creationists thread.Guess it would be asking too much for you to post the math itself instead of dozens of posts of you saying you will post the math?
F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc

Where,

n = population size
G = genome length
g = number of sites
mr = mutation rate
nsp = number of selection pressures
gfc = generations for convergence

There is the equation and I’m showing exactly how you do the analysis of such an equation. Didn’t they teach you about these types of equations in your dumbbell math courses?

[Ashles]

I’m doing just that on the Annoying Creationists thread.

It appears you missed the point. Again.

[Mister Earl]

Well, Nutbag, I can't help but note that you do not have any mechanism in that equation for factoring in the strength of selection pressures. Is it your intention to state that strength of selection pressures are not a factor in evolution? Are you refusing to account for selection pressures that are variable?

But tell you what, go ahead and use your formula and plug some numbers in for me. Use it in the way that shows you that evolution is impossible. I want to look at what you believe you are seeing. Draw a line in the sand for me, and then we'll take it from there. This ought to be interesting, if nothing else. I can't wait until we go over nylon eating bacteria.

[kleinman]

I’m doing just that on the Annoying Creationists thread.It appears you missed the point. Again.
Ashles, you have never had a point. You have only mathematically baseless speculation, the stuff from which irrational and illogical theories are made.

[kleinman]

Well, Nutbag, I can't help but note that you do not have any mechanism in that equation for factoring in the strength of selection pressures. Is it your intention to state that strength of selection pressures are not a factor in evolution? Are you refusing to account for selection pressures that are variable?
It’s there in Dr Schneider’s mathematical model you who is slow to understand. If you want to include this variable in the functional equation, show us the data that makes your irrational and illogical theory to be mathematically possible.

[Ashles]

Ashles, you have never had a point. You have only mathematically baseless speculation, the stuff from which irrational and illogical theories are made.

You really do not appear to comprehend how firmly and repeatedly you are making my point for me. Please carry on.

Bonus points if you use the phrase "mutation and selection sorting/optimization process" again. Or if you accuse everyone else in the world of not having studied maths.

[sol invictus]

kleinman has already admitted (in another thread) that he doesn't understand math.

Of course he's just demonstrated that again here, since he seems to think "F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc" is a meaningful equation.

[Mister Earl]

It’s there in Dr Schneider’s mathematical model you who is slow to understand. If you want to include this variable in the functional equation, show us the data that makes your irrational and illogical theory to be mathematically possible.

Even better, I'll give you a real life example.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=345072&blobtype=pdf

Take your time with that. It describes, in great detail, the discovery and description of a bacterium that was discovered at about April of 1984. It described how a random mutation of a gene within flavobacterium gave it the ability to subsist off of nylon oligomers. Read that again. This species evolved the capability to subsist of a man-made compound. One that has NEVER existed in nature.

Now, if evolution is a fabrication, tell me how this is possible? Feel free to use the link to read over what I'm bringing in to the table.

[kleinman]

Ashles, you have never had a point. You have only mathematically baseless speculation, the stuff from which irrational and illogical theories are made.You really do not appear to comprehend how firmly and repeatedly you are making my point for me. Please carry on.
If there is a point that you are making it is that you have no mathematical explanation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. If you did, you wouldn’t be an evolutionist. You would realize how irrational and illogical your theory is.
Bonus points if you use the phrase "mutation and selection sorting/optimization process" again. Or if you accuse everyone else in the world of not having studied maths.
Do I get double bonus points if I use the phrase mutation and selection sorting/optimization process in large type. I’ll do it even if I don’t get bonus points just because it hurts Prometheus’s head. Oh, and I don’t accuse evolutionists of not having studied mathematics, I accuse you of barely passing your dumbbell math courses and then of abandoning mathematics for your mathematical deficient irrational and illogical theory of evolution.
kleinman has already admitted (in another thread) that he doesn't understand math.
Don’t be silly, I’m showing exactly how the mathematics is done.
Of course he's just demonstrated that again here, since he seems to think "F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc" is a meaningful equation.
Not only is it a meaningful equation, it describes the relationship of the variables in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Didn’t you get this mathematics in your dumbbell math courses at Mathishard University?

[kleinman]

Take your time with that. It describes, in great detail, the discovery and description of a bacterium that was discovered at about April of 1984. It described how a random mutation of a gene within flavobacterium gave it the ability to subsist off of nylon oligomers. Read that again. This species evolved the capability to subsist of a man-made compound. One that has NEVER existed in nature.
Mister Earl, we have already discussed this example extensively on the Annoying Creationists thread. All it shows is that a polymerase can evolve into a polymerase. Now do you want to try to extrapolate this to how lizards evolve to birds?

[Mister Earl]

All it shows is that a polymerase can evolve into a polymerase.
Just to clarify, here, are you now telling me evolution does exist? If so, then what point have you been trying to make, here?

Now do you want to try to extrapolate this to how lizards evolve to birds?
The fossil record isn't good enough for you?

#EDIT, addition: What is your argument with this, for my own clarification? Are you questioning the evolution of birds, or how or why they evolved? You're not making your argument clear.

[Ashles]

Do I get double bonus points if I use the phrase mutation and selection sorting/optimization process in large type. I’ll do it even if I don’t get bonus points just because it hurts Prometheus’s head. Oh, and I don’t accuse evolutionists of not having studied mathematics, I accuse you of barely passing your dumbbell math courses and then of abandoning mathematics for your mathematical deficient irrational and illogical theory of evolution.

Fish, meet barrel, meet gun.

It's like he's stuck in one of those finger puzzles.

[m_huber]

I’m doing just that on the Annoying Creationists thread.

F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc

Where,

n = population size
G = genome length
g = number of sites
mr = mutation rate
nsp = number of selection pressures
gfc = generations for convergence

There is the equation and I’m showing exactly how you do the analysis of such an equation. Didn’t they teach you about these types of equations in your dumbbell math courses?

Oh, it's so funny! It's hilarious!

F(a) = b

lol!

Alan, of course it's a function! What is the relationship of population size to genome strength to number of sites to mutation rate to number of selection pressures? This all combines somehow to give generations for convergence, but of course, you haven't even described what 'generations for convergence' even means. What are we converging to? What are we converging from? Definitions or clear positions would be helpful.

F(a) = b :D



I wonder if I'm ignore now, since my last post was quite extensive and received no reply...

[Mister Earl]

M_Huber, I get the distinct impression that Kleinman is giving us the electronic equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and hollering "BLAH BLAH BLAH". I don't even know what he's arguing for anymore. He says he can prove evolution doesn't exist, then he tells me All it shows is that a polymerase can evolve into a polymerase.
He's saying he can prove evolution doesn't exist, and then makes statements like that. Then the whole reptile-and-birds comment. Is his main issue evolution itself, or the standard scientific definition of evolution? Is he saying evolution doesn't exist at all? Or is he saying that it just works in a different way? I'm wondering if he can clarify that before we move on. It's like trying to poke fog.

[sol invictus]

Don’t be silly, I’m showing exactly how the mathematics is done.

No, you're making yourself look even more stupid.

Not only is it a meaningful equation, it describes the relationship of the variables in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Didn’t you get this mathematics in your dumbbell math courses at Mathishard University?

If I were charitable, I might interpret that equation as indicating what variables you think the generations required for convergence can depend on. Of course if so it's patently false, since it's missing many variables that real evolution obviously depends on. Furthermore it contains no information whatsoever on HOW it depends on those variables you did include, making it utterly meaningless.

Of course we already know from the other thread that you don't understand probability, the difference between rate and time, the meaning of the parameters in the evolution simulator you love to mention, statistics, or much else, so this isn't exactly a surprise.

[Ashles]

*awaits the inevitable response...*

[m_huber]

M_Huber, I get the distinct impression that Kleinman is giving us the electronic equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and hollering "BLAH BLAH BLAH". I don't even know what he's arguing for anymore. He says he can prove evolution doesn't exist, then he tells me
He's saying he can prove evolution doesn't exist, and then makes statements like that. Then the whole reptile-and-birds comment. Is his main issue evolution itself, or the standard scientific definition of evolution? Is he saying evolution doesn't exist at all? Or is he saying that it just works in a different way? I'm wondering if he can clarify that before we move on. It's like trying to poke fog.

Here's an equation that might work:

Natural World - Evolution = Creationism
Creationism - God = "I dunno, but it ain't evolution!"

So, simply by observing the natural world, then removing both natural and supernatural explanations for what you see, you get total chaos! It's as simple as that. Radrook did the same thing for a long time, really. His argument against evolution was different (but equally unintelligible), but he tried to steer the conversation away from God for some strange reason.

Alan hasn't brought God up yet, so the jury is still out for the time being.

Life is so much easier when YEC's admit they are YEC's; but it isn't as much fun. :D

[kleinman]

… F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc …Alan, of course it's a function! What is the relationship of population size to genome strength to number of sites to mutation rate to number of selection pressures? This all combines somehow to give generations for convergence, but of course, you haven't even described what 'generations for convergence' even means. What are we converging to? What are we converging from? Definitions or clear positions would be helpful.
Dr Schneider has defined a computer simulation which defines the relationship between these variables in this functional equation. In case you were not aware of this, this computer simulation has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. In addition, Dr Schneider called for this exact type of parametric study with his model and I have done this and it shows your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible. Why is your theory of evolution mathematically impossible? It is because Dr Schneider’s model shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This mathematical finding is also seen in hundreds of real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection. m_huber, you haven’t been following the Annoying Creationists thread very closely if at all. Paul and Dr Schneider have defined two convergence conditions for their model and ultimately, Paul has said that convergence on “perfect creature” is the only valid convergence condition.
I wonder if I'm ignore now, since my last post was quite extensive and received no reply...
I’m not ignoring you, in fact, I’ll show you how to analyze this functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc.

[Ashles]

Bingo.

Welcome everyone to the Möbius thread.

[Mister Earl]

Dr Schneider has defined a computer simulation which defines the relationship between these variables in this functional equation. In case you were not aware of this, this computer simulation has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. In addition, Dr Schneider called for this exact type of parametric study with his model and I have done this and it shows your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.
So are you back to saying evolution isn't possible at all, or do you have a differing theory of evolution? Which is it already? And while we are at it, if this is the "groundshaking proof that evolution isn't possible" then I highly suggest you actually take the time to put up the formulas you say prove it. Generic terms in a poorly written formula with the comment that we'd have to review someone else's paper to finish it is shoddy and lazy. We are obviously not seeing what you are seeing, so. Once again, PLEASE POST THE FORMULA YOU SAY YOU HAVE THAT PROVES EVOLUTION ISN'T POSSIBLE. Don't point to this paper, that paper, hand us a few variables and then send us off to someone else's work and then tell us to figure it out for ourselves. We've tried that and none of us are seeing what you are seeing.

Why is your theory of evolution mathematically impossible? It is because Dr Schneider’s model shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Yawn. Same thing you've been saying for weeks, and still just as wrong. We've asked you to prove this, and you can't. You can't.

This mathematical finding is also seen in hundreds of real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection.
Care to list the references? Funny how "hundreds" of experiments have "proven" evolution to be wrong, yet nobody ever hears of this.

m_huber, you haven’t been following the Annoying Creationists thread very closely if at all. Paul and Dr Schneider have defined two convergence conditions for their model and ultimately, Paul has said that convergence on “perfect creature” is the only valid convergence condition.
And you ignore the part where he says he didn't take into account nearly enough variables to accurately model biological evolution. Shoddy work on your part.

I’m not ignoring you, in fact, I’ll show you how to analyze this functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc.
... and? Where is it?

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider has defined a computer simulation which defines the relationship between these variables in this functional equation. In case you were not aware of this, this computer simulation has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. In addition, Dr Schneider called for this exact type of parametric study with his model and I have done this and it shows your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.So are you back to saying evolution isn't possible at all, or do you have a differing theory of evolution?
So, not only are you mathematically incompetent, you are grammatically incompetent. I did not say evolution is impossible, what I said is the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

[Mister Earl]

Ok, so when are you going to get around to proving that? Holding your hands over your ears and shouting "But it is! It is it is it IS!" doesn't make it so. That's all you've been doing here. Ball's in your court, nutbag. Give us the proof already. Better yet, pose a theory of evolution that fits observation BETTER than the current model. Can you do this, or not?

And for the record, try to give me a coherent reply that isn't full of childishly insolent remarks. You either have the proof or you don't. Insulting me or anyone else isn't helping your case any.

[kleinman]

Ok, so when are you going to get around to proving that? Holding your hands over your ears and shouting "But it is! It is it is it IS!" doesn't make it so. That's all you've been doing here. Ball's in your court, nutbag. Give us the proof already. Better yet, pose a theory of evolution that fits observation BETTER than the current model. Can you do this, or not?
Not only can I give you the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, I am doing it right now on the Annoying Creationists thread. Read the last three days worth of posts and perhaps you can come up to speed on this mathematics.
And for the record, try to give me a coherent reply that isn't full of childishly insolent remarks. You either have the proof or you don't. Insulting me or anyone else isn't helping your case any.
I’ll try my best nutbag.

[Mister Earl]

Nice. I'm reading over the other thread now. I have also nominated Rocketdodger. His riposte completely shuts down your argument, kleinman. It appears to me that he's addressed every point you made regarding EV. Are you planning on any counterpoints at all? Or are you just going to make the same mistakes, and post the same results as "proof"?

[articulett]

Don't bother. he knows he's wrong.

Actually, I don't think he does. One of the symptoms of many mental disorders and personality disorders is an inability to know that you are "abnormal" or ill or delusional. The brain is not equipped to recognize it's own deficiencies... (as in my sig). I'm not saying Kleinman is schizophrenic... I'm just saying that there are many mentally illusions where people can NOT perceive their deficits or aberrancies.

With schizophrenics, they often think the people trying to help them are really trying to poison them or double cross them or "part of the conspiracy", for example. Their delusions are so real to them, they can only imagine sinister intent on your part in telling them that it isn't true. Part of skepticism is learning that your eyes and thoughts and brains can perceive things incorrectly and that you can be wrong while being convinced you are right-- so you learn to look at evidence... measurable replicable reality... to continually test whether you might be misperceiving objective reality. You try to falsify your belief because it lends strength when it cannot be falsified.

Kleinman believes he is using objective tools like math to prove his point... but to the rest of us, he's using facts to confirm his belief that evolution couldn't have happened (and the silly creationist strawman about "info. being added to the genome via point mutation"). He has provided no method to himself to discovery if he could be wrong... no testing the null hypothesis. He has not considered what how he would come to know if he was mistaken.

Science is the opposite... scientists and skeptics are always testing to see if they are mistaken... it's the best way to get the clearest and most useful understanding of our natural world and achieve goals in that world. But people like Kleinman don't trust this world or facts or evidence or others to inform him if he's mistaken. He trusts his own subjective experiences above all that. In this way, he can shield himself from understanding he's wrong. I don't think he does it on purpose... just as I don't think schizophrenics are distrustful of people trying to help them on purpose-- I just think that the brain has evolved some very strong ego protection mechanisms to keep it from learning it might be wrong. It is convinced that the truth it interprets or creates is "more true" and better than all that objective stuff.

I was listening to a show on anosognosia http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/751101

It makes me more sympathetic towards Kleinman. (not that he wants it or not that I think he's schizophrenic). It's just hard to tell what is going on inside the head of people out in cyberland... and you cannot trust them to know themselves. FWIW, I don't think Kleinman does know he's wrong anymore than a Conspiracy Theorist knows their wrong or a person performing an exorcism or a person who truly believes aliens are visiting them. Other people call Kleinman a liar. But suppose he had a little tumor or something going on in his head that he didn't know about... something that made him really believe his perceptions of the world... then, although he would still be "lying"... and "wrong"... he wouldn't have any means of actually realizing or knowing this.

I always wonder how deprogrammers work... or how to go about "breaking the spell" (belief in belief) as Dennett talks about. Brilliant people can be delusional (John Nash)... and laughing at them beats beating your head on a wall in frustration... but I'm interested in learning what sorts of things actually "work" on the rare occasions when something "works".

[m_huber]

Dr Schneider has defined a computer simulation which defines the relationship between these variables in this functional equation. In case you were not aware of this, this computer simulation has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. In addition, Dr Schneider called for this exact type of parametric study with his model and I have done this and it shows your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible. Why is your theory of evolution mathematically impossible? It is because Dr Schneider’s model shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This mathematical finding is also seen in hundreds of real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection. m_huber, you haven’t been following the Annoying Creationists thread very closely if at all. Paul and Dr Schneider have defined two convergence conditions for their model and ultimately, Paul has said that convergence on “perfect creature” is the only valid convergence condition.

I’m not ignoring you, in fact, I’ll show you how to analyze this functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc.

You are correct, Alan. I have no desire to involve myself in more than one anti-evolution tread at a time. This is my form of entertainment; it takes the place of watching a movie. To follow two would be like watching two movies at the same time, and I don't want to do that.

Convergence on the "perfect creature" (no link so I'm going to guess that the definition is as straightforward as "ideal creature to fill a particular niche") is what evolution is. A polar bear is not the "perfect creature" to live in Hawaii. But it is an ideal creature for the Arctic. Dinosaurs lived quite happily when the earth was warmer and had a higher oxygen content, but catastrophe struck and they went extinct, leaving plenty of niches for mammals of new and interesting types to fill. As climate has changed, the mammals adapted for the cold have gone extinct, and warm-weathered animals (such as ourselves) have spread out a bit.

Funny as the jokes about it may be, I would still like a clear definition of "Mutation and Selection sorting/optimization process."

And F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc is an equation similar to the Drake Equation, where F(R*, fp, nc, fl, fi, fc, L) = N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation). Unfortunately, we can't use the drake equation to measure the probability of life -- we don't know what any of the numbers for the variables actually are.

If we say F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc is the same as gfc = n x G x g x mr x nsp, then more selection pressures would result in more generations for convergence on the ideal lifeform. Of course, this is expected. If there is only 1 selection pressure or criteria for the gfc being attained, then as soon as you have that, you are done. If nsp = 2, then a lifeform will have to converge on one, then the other, or do both at the same time, which would take a larger number of generations anyway.

Of course, if I had to guess, I would think the equation would look something like:

gfc = (G x nsp x g x n) / (mr)

Since mutation rate being higher would result in faster evolution, thus fewer generations to converge on an ideal lifeform. Is that it?

[kleinman]

Convergence on the "perfect creature" (no link so I'm going to guess that the definition is as straightforward as "ideal creature to fill a particular niche") is what evolution is. A polar bear is not the "perfect creature" to live in Hawaii. But it is an ideal creature for the Arctic. Dinosaurs lived quite happily when the earth was warmer and had a higher oxygen content, but catastrophe struck and they went extinct, leaving plenty of niches for mammals of new and interesting types to fill. As climate has changed, the mammals adapted for the cold have gone extinct, and warm-weathered animals (such as ourselves) have spread out a bit.
Dr Schneider and Paul’s definition for a “perfect creature” in ev is simply a creature that has adapted to all the selection pressures applied. It is a creature with 0 mistakes.
Funny as the jokes about it may be, I would still like a clear definition of "Mutation and Selection sorting/optimization process."
Certainly I’ll define this for you. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations with the selection conditions optimizing for the most fit creatures. As with all sorting algorithms, the simpler the sorting conditions, the easier it is to do the sort. What the mathematics of this process shows is that if you have more than a single sorting condition, it confounds the populations ability to evolve to all the sorting conditions simultaneously. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life. This is why combination therapy confounds the ability of HIV to evolve resistance to 3 drugs simultaneously. Now if you want to accelerate the evolutionary process, give the drugs as monotherapy, sequentially and you will very rapidly evolve a virus that is resistant to all three drugs. Unfortunately, this is what was done for the first 5 years as clinicians attempted to treat HIV and introduced huge numbers of resistant viruses into the gene pool.
And F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc is an equation similar to the Drake Equation, where F(R*, fp, nc, fl, fi, fc, L) = N. Unfortunately, we can't use the drake equation to measure the probability of life -- we don't know what any of the numbers for the variables actually are.
Dr Schneider seems to think that he has modeled the essential variables properly to describe the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and I agree with him. You certainly can introduce other variables into the model but Dr Schneider has already included the dominant variables in the model. Other variables will not cause massive differences in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The dominant variable in this sorting process is the number of selection conditions.
If we say F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc is the same as gfc = n x G x g x mr x nsp, then more selection pressures would result in more generations for convergence on the ideal lifeform. Of course, this is expected. If there is only 1 selection pressure or criteria for the gfc being attained, then as soon as you have that, you are done. If nsp = 2, then a lifeform will have to converge on one, then the other, or do both at the same time, which would take a larger number of generations anyway.
You can not express the functional relationship used to describe the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process as a simple product of all the variables. If you study Dr Schneider’s model you would find that the relationship of these variables is strongly nonlinear.
Of course, if I had to guess, I would think the equation would look something like:

gfc = (G x nsp x g x n) / (mr)

Since mutation rate being higher would result in faster evolution, thus fewer generations to converge on an ideal lifeform. Is that it?
You can not express the relationship of these variables in simple algebraic terms. What you don’t understand is that functional relationships of variables can be analyzed and solved even though you don’t have an explicit algebraic expression for the function. I learned these techniques in upper division advanced engineering mathematics courses and used these principles in my PhD thesis and other engineering work that I have done. I’m demonstrating this type of analysis for the functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc and I am trying to put it into terms that people who don’t understand functional equations can understand. It’s not easy to describe such abstract mathematical concepts but I will try to demonstrate it to those interested in how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[rocketdodger]

Nice. I'm reading over the other thread now. I have also nominated Rocketdodger. His riposte completely shuts down your argument, kleinman. It appears to me that he's addressed every point you made regarding EV. Are you planning on any counterpoints at all? Or are you just going to make the same mistakes, and post the same results as "proof"?

He will invariably post the statement I made long ago about "finding a set of parameters but forgetting what they were :(" in an attempt to make it look like I don't know what I am talking about.

He will invariably then include Dr. Adequate in the assault, because Adequate has also made honest statements that can be taken totally out of context and grossly misrepresented.

He will invariably follow all this up with an animated gif of a laughing dog.

[kleinman]

Nice. I'm reading over the other thread now. I have also nominated Rocketdodger. His riposte completely shuts down your argument, kleinman. It appears to me that he's addressed every point you made regarding EV. Are you planning on any counterpoints at all? Or are you just going to make the same mistakes, and post the same results as "proof"?He will invariably post the statement I made long ago about "finding a set of parameters but forgetting what they were " in an attempt to make it look like I don't know what I am talking about.
Rocketdodger, you don’t know what you are talking about.

You are free to show what ever you know about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process or what ever else you want to say. Instead, you look for ways to censor me. Do you want me to post those quotes?
He will invariably then include Dr. Adequate in the assault, because Adequate has also made honest statements that can be taken totally out of context and grossly misrepresented.
I’m not trying to censor you, represent your ideas. Of course when you try, it will reveal that you don’t know what you are talking about. Both you and Adequate have explicitly said that you can model a mutation and selection sorting process where n+1 selection conditions evolve more rapidly than n selection conditions. Prove it. In the meantime, I have shown with Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection that it contradicts your irrational and illogical assertion. In addition, I have presented hundreds of real, repeatable, measurable examples of mutation and selection which substantiates the results from Dr Schneider’s model. This shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
He will invariably follow all this up with an animated gif of a laughing dog.
I knew I forgot something.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[m_huber]

Dr Schneider and Paul’s definition for a “perfect creature” in ev is simply a creature that has adapted to all the selection pressures applied. It is a creature with 0 mistakes.


What does "0 mistakes" mean? Humans have tons of mistakes. So does every other living organism. If it is impossible to achieve "convergence," then stopping the mathematical model prematurely would be necessary. This would mean that a lack of convergence would not hinder the ability of life to continue to reproduce, as, clearly, life does reproduce.



Certainly I’ll define this for you. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations with the selection conditions optimizing for the most fit creatures. As with all sorting algorithms, the simpler the sorting conditions, the easier it is to do the sort.

Is this, then, a programming term that is used only in the algorithm, or is this a reflection of some biological process? If so, then what are the mechanisms, and why does this imply that things don't evolve?

Moreover, Alan, change of an organism from "imperfect" to "perfect" would be evolution, by definition. Since "perfect" changes depending on the environment (assuming "perfect" means "a creature that has adapted to all the selection pressures applied" which equates to "best possible adaptation to an organism's given environment"), this would be a continual process of changing to become "perfect" as the environment continually changed. Many scientists believe that this happens. They call the process "evolution."



Dr Schneider seems to think that he has modeled the essential variables properly to describe the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and I agree with him. You certainly can introduce other variables into the model but Dr Schneider has already included the dominant variables in the model. Other variables will not cause massive differences in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The dominant variable in this sorting process is the number of selection conditions.

You can not express the relationship of these variables in simple algebraic terms. What you don’t understand is that functional relationships of variables can be analyzed and solved even though you don’t have an explicit algebraic expression for the function. I learned these techniques in upper division advanced engineering mathematics courses and used these principles in my PhD thesis and other engineering work that I have done. I’m demonstrating this type of analysis for the functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc and I am trying to put it into terms that people who don’t understand functional equations can understand. It’s not easy to describe such abstract mathematical concepts but I will try to demonstrate it to those interested in how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

What I want to see is what the relative relationships are. You have five variables that relate to your final gfc. Is gfc directly or indirectly or logarithmically proportional to your five variables? Surely you can come up with an expression that gives at least a hint of what the relative importance of these variables is, and how they affect the final gfc.

If you can't express the relationship in an equation, you aren't doing math. If it requires some fancy symbols, that's ok. If it doesn't involve multiplication, division, powers, integrals, derivatives, addition, or subtraction, I would be interested to know what kind of math relates these five variables.

You have stated that these are put together in an algorithm, so there must be a mathematical relationship. Personally, I have yet to see either a link to a page that describes this magical relationship or the actual relationship itself. Perhaps you could provide a program where I can insert values and get a gfc at the end?

[Ashles]

Remember every time kleinman uses an animated gif of a laughing dog, an angel gets their wings.

In the meantime, I have shown with Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection that it contradicts your irrational and illogical assertion. In addition, I have presented hundreds of real, repeatable, measurable examples of mutation and selection which substantiates the results from Dr Schneider’s model.

Now this is the bit (for fun) I am interested in.
It has obviously, repeatedly been demonstrated why poor Dr Schneider's model and calcuations are not in any imaginable way appropriate for displaying the kind of conclusions kleinman bizzarrely believes they are. The Drake Equation reference by m-huber is an excellent comparison to explain why.

Dr Schneider's peer reviewed and published blah, blah, blah, etc. model cannot lead us to any conclusions regarding the possibility of evolution or Darwin's theory. And it doesn't. For anyone. Including the author himself.
Even though he apparently made a glaring blunder that kleinman alone in the world has identified. And still not identified despite repeated requests.

But in the spirit of youthful fun let's put all that aside. Let's leave the maths to people who understand maths (and I think we all know where we would place kleinman in that little Venn diagram...).

Kleinman appears to believe Dr Schneider's calculations prove evolution by the mechanism of 'survival of the fittest' is impossible.
He also claims to have
hundreds of real, repeatable, measurable examples of mutation and selection which substantiates the results from Dr Schneider’s model

So, okay Kleinman. Please provide THREE "real, repeatable, measurable examples of mutation and selection" that disprove Darwin's theory of evolution.

And by real I mean, er, real. Not you simply repeating how you are misunderstanding a mathematical model.

[rocketdodger]

Prove it.

We have proven what we claim. That is probably why everyone here except you agrees with us, and probably why everyone here except you will continue to agree with us despite anything you say. Even the people here who are notoriously argumentative with each other completely agree that you are an idiot.

The fact that you are now unemployed and have the time to do nothing but troll forums and repeat the same paragraph over and over doesn't change the reality that you are a stupid lying fool -- despite how much you obviously wish it would.

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider and Paul’s definition for a “perfect creature” in ev is simply a creature that has adapted to all the selection pressures applied. It is a creature with 0 mistakes.What does "0 mistakes" mean? Humans have tons of mistakes. So does every other living organism. If it is impossible to achieve "convergence," then stopping the mathematical model prematurely would be necessary. This would mean that a lack of convergence would not hinder the ability of life to continue to reproduce, as, clearly, life does reproduce.
Dr Schneider uses a weight matrix (in the default case the matrix is 1x5) that is traversed along each genome in the population. In certain parts of the genome, a match of this vector constitutes and error and is counted as a mistake, in other portions of the genome the failure of the weight matrix to find a match constitutes and error. This matrix is the way Dr Schneider models the binding protein that would initiate DNA transcription of a protein. You want this protein to bind at the proper location and not bind on improper locations. Convergence occurs when all binding sites have been properly identified and all improper binding locations have been removed (when all three selection conditions are imposed).
Certainly I’ll define this for you. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations with the selection conditions optimizing for the most fit creatures. As with all sorting algorithms, the simpler the sorting conditions, the easier it is to do the sort.Is this, then, a programming term that is used only in the algorithm, or is this a reflection of some biological process? If so, then what are the mechanisms, and why does this imply that things don't evolve?
The mutation and selection process in biological systems is exactly analogous to mathematical sorting algorithms. Dr Schneider’s sorting algorithm though not perfect does a good job in modeling the essential features of these types of sorting processes.
Moreover, Alan, change of an organism from "imperfect" to "perfect" would be evolution, by definition. Since "perfect" changes depending on the environment (assuming "perfect" means "a creature that has adapted to all the selection pressures applied" which equates to "best possible adaptation to an organism's given environment"), this would be a continual process of changing to become "perfect" as the environment continually changed. Many scientists believe that this happens. They call the process "evolution."
I believe this process occurs as well but in a much more limited sense than evolutionists do. It is a mathematical impossibility to achieve common descent by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for two reasons. The first is that you don’t have the selection conditions that would for example transform a lizard into a bird and second, even if you did have the selection pressures, the process of transformation of the thousands of genes simultaneously would take an astronomically large number of generations. You would have to do the transformation one gene at a time, that’s the only way you can get rapid evolution. You simple don’t have enough time (generations) to achieve such a transformation.
Dr Schneider seems to think that he has modeled the essential variables properly to describe the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and I agree with him. You certainly can introduce other variables into the model but Dr Schneider has already included the dominant variables in the model. Other variables will not cause massive differences in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The dominant variable in this sorting process is the number of selection conditions.

You can not express the relationship of these variables in simple algebraic terms. What you don’t understand is that functional relationships of variables can be analyzed and solved even though you don’t have an explicit algebraic expression for the function. I learned these techniques in upper division advanced engineering mathematics courses and used these principles in my PhD thesis and other engineering work that I have done. I’m demonstrating this type of analysis for the functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc and I am trying to put it into terms that people who don’t understand functional equations can understand. It’s not easy to describe such abstract mathematical concepts but I will try to demonstrate it to those interested in how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.What I want to see is what the relative relationships are. You have five variables that relate to your final gfc. Is gfc directly or indirectly or logarithmically proportional to your five variables? Surely you can come up with an expression that gives at least a hint of what the relative importance of these variables is, and how they affect the final gfc.
You can only see this relationship in tabular form (you could take the data and view it graphically). In some cases the variables are related in a fairly linear manner, in other cases the relationship is somewhat paraboloid; in other cases this relationship is highly exponential. I’m in the process of presenting in tabular form the data from ev on the Annoying Creationists thread. Start from this post where I explain how you can analyze the data http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3335243#post3335243 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3335243#post3335243) . If you can't express the relationship in an equation, you aren't doing math. If it requires some fancy symbols, that's ok. If it doesn't involve multiplication, division, powers, integrals, derivatives, addition, or subtraction, I would be interested to know what kind of math relates these five variables.
Here’s where your lack of training and inexperience in advanced mathematic is showing. There are many scientific problems where you don’t have an explicit algebraic equation to describe the relationship of the variables yet you can still analyze and solve such implicit functional equations. This all probably sounds abstract to you but engineers do this all the time. I’ll show you how this is done with the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem. Click on the above link and read my posts on the last two pages of the thread and you will get an introduction to the analysis of implicit functional equations.
You have stated that these are put together in an algorithm, so there must be a mathematical relationship. Personally, I have yet to see either a link to a page that describes this magical relationship or the actual relationship itself. Perhaps you could provide a program where I can insert values and get a gfc at the end?
Dr Schneider has written the algorithm and an online version of Dr Schneider’s algorithm was written by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, a moderator on this very forum. You can find the algorithm at http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/) . On this web page there is a hot spot that looks like this:
Click Here to Start the Evj Model (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evjava/index.html)

Note that you must have your browser Java enabled. If you don’t have Java for your browser, you can download the software free at http://www.java.com/en/ (http://www.java.com/en/) .

Have fun with Dr Schneider’s algorithm and learn how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and it doesn’t work like evolutionists allege.

[m_huber]

So, you do know that the inability to converge on a single, mistake-free genome is because there are multiple mutations at each iteration, right? Any number higher than 2 will result in the genome not 'converging' on a 'perfect' organism. That models real organisms. And there are no 'perfect' real organisms.

Incidentally, Alan, the model that you link to uses math quite extensively. Functions that aren't defined are not treated kindly by computer models. You could have said up front that the math was too complicated to put in a single post, and you could have linked the program up front. Having used it now, I see why you didn't.

Oh, and did you read this:
Briefly, what is Ev? Ev is a computer program that allows one to model the way that information is gained in living organisms by natural selection. The example used is the patterns in DNA to which proteins bind to regulate genes. This is a well-understood system and so it makes a good demonstration of evolution. Also, the mathematics is precise and gives quantitative results that match the results seen in nature.

If this model somehow contradicted evolution, don't you think the guy who made it would either 1) change the program or 2) announce that he had found a fatal flaw in evolution?

I kind of like you, Alan. You're funny.

[joobz]

So, you do know that the inability to converge on a single, mistake-free genome is because there are multiple mutations at each iteration, right? Any number higher than 2 will result in the genome not 'converging' on a 'perfect' organism. That models real organisms. And there are no 'perfect' real organisms.

Incidentally, Alan, the model that you link to uses math quite extensively. Functions that aren't defined are not treated kindly by computer models. You could have said up front that the math was too complicated to put in a single post, and you could have linked the program up front. Having used it now, I see why you didn't.

Oh, and did you read this:


If this model somehow contradicted evolution, don't you think the guy who made it would either 1) change the program or 2) announce that he had found a fatal flaw in evolution?

I kind of like you, Alan. You're funny.
That feeling will pass. Much like Yakoff smirnoff, He's a one trick pony.

[m_huber]

That feeling will pass. Much like Yakoff smirnoff, He's a one trick pony.

In Soviet Russia, biology evolves you!

[Dr Adequate]

I've just read the reast of this thread. I fear engaging with you on the subject will not be productive for either of us.

I susspect you have neither the mathematics nor manners for a civilised discussion. I bid you good day,

So to recap, the calculations Kleinman thinks he understands, he doesn't understand; in the 20 years since the original calculations no-one apart from Kleinman has reached his conclusions; he has done no calculations himself; the originator of the calculations on which he is basing his conclusion has come to a different conclusion to Kleinman; and the conclusion Kleinman has come to based on misunderstanding calculation assumptions that he cannot follow is contrary to what we already know from observing reality.

This is the part that shows me what a nutbag you are ... I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are either a creationist stooge, a serious and honest person suffering from psychosis, or a twelve year old looking to amuse himself by seeing how long you can keep a crazy conversation going without proving anything. I question your motives. Your own posts are rife with fabrications and misdirection. Do you honestly expect me to take your "evidence" without verification or explanation?

Oh, it's so funny! It's hilarious.

No, you're making yourself look even more stupid ...

Of course we already know from the other thread that you don't understand probability, the difference between rate and time, the meaning of the parameters in the evolution simulator you love to mention, statistics, or much else, so this isn't exactly a surprise.

Your new audience has caught on quickly, kleinman. They've already realised that you're innumerate, stupid, ignorant, boorish, ridiculous and above all wrong; and have already begun to speculate on the precise nature of your mental illness.

If you were capable of learning things, you could learn something from that.

[Dr Adequate]

Both you and Adequate have explicitly said that you can model a mutation and selection sorting process where n+1 selection conditions evolve more rapidly than n selection conditions. Everyone reading this thread knows that you're lying, remember?

Why do you lie when you know you're going to get caught?

[Olowkow]

After dizzily following the "other thread", I now understand the basic jist, and the sillininess, of the... umm, debate, and it is due to "m_huber's" very eloquent and plain English explanations. Thanks.:)

[arthwollipot]

I can see yet another fatal flaw in Kleinman's argument - as if it needs another - that hasn't yet been addressed. The flaw is summed up in these two passages:

The first is that you don’t have the selection conditions that would for example transform a lizard into a bird...

...Have fun with Dr Schneider’s algorithm and learn how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and it doesn’t work like evolutionists allege.

Kleinman thinks that evolution is supposed to work in a particular way. He thinks that evolution suggests that lizards turn into birds. This is what he thinks evolutionists allege.

Of course it doesn't, and they don't. But admitting that would be as likely as him admitting that his maths is wrong.

This is actually an extremely common characteristic of evolution deniers. They deny what they think evolution suggests, not what it actually suggests. And no matter how hard you try, you can't get them to understand what evolution actually suggests, because their entire argument rests on what they think it suggests. Kleinman is no different from many other creationists of my experience, although his claims are somewhat more grandiose.

[rocketdodger]

You want this protein to bind at the proper location and not bind on improper locations.

Yet the most basic part of your theory is contingent upon ignoring the latter. Go figure.

Convergence occurs when all binding sites have been properly identified and all improper binding locations have been removed (when all three selection conditions are imposed).

When does convergence occur if only one selection condition is imposed?

[m_huber]

After dizzily following the "other thread", I now understand the basic jist, and the sillininess, of the... umm, debate, and it is due to "m_huber's" very eloquent and plain English explanations. Thanks.:)

That's flattering! I appreciate the appreciation. :)

[sol invictus]

Of course, if I had to guess, I would think the equation would look something like:

gfc = (G x nsp x g x n) / (mr)

Since mutation rate being higher would result in faster evolution, thus fewer generations to converge on an ideal lifeform. Is that it?

Actually, the scaling with the number of selection pressures is logarithmic, at least in simple mathematical models such as ev (the program kleinman likes to refer to). I can show you the math if you'd like - it's pretty simple.

That's why the rate of evolution (per pressure) increases rather rapidly with the number of pressures. Unfortunately kleinman either can't understand or won't admit that.

[arthwollipot]

I can show you the math if you'd like - it's pretty simple.It would probably be a good idea - since this is exactly what kleinman is not doing.

[m_huber]

Actually, the scaling with the number of selection pressures is logarithmic, at least in simple mathematical models such as ev (the program kleinman likes to refer to). I can show you the math if you'd like - it's pretty simple.

That's why the rate of evolution (per pressure) increases rather rapidly with the number of pressures. Unfortunately kleinman either can't understand or won't admit that.

That was really a wild guess on my part. I would appreciate if you would post the math. I was getting the impression it was too much to put in a single post.

[Cuddles]

There is already a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67385) for discussing the EV program. Do not continue to derail this one with the same discussion.

[sol invictus]

OK, here it is:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3347760#post3347760

[bokonon]

I remember when this thread was interesting.

[Dr Adequate]

There is already a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67385) for discussing the EV program. Do not continue to derail this one with the same discussion. Eh, okay. I guess you're the moderator.

Edited for civility. Also - if discussing mod actions, please do so in the approriate subforum.

Well, isn't that partly what the JREF forums stand for?

[HghrSymmetry]

Dead thread revival rating: 5.3

Even when you are caught in a bald-faced lie you respond with denial and forced indignation. It is clearly obvious to everyone that you are placing people on ignore because of your inability to respond to their points without admitting error. You can feign personal insult all you like, but you have shown yourself an intellectual coward and a liar.

That's an interesting side point. A curious* development seems to occur whenever someone makes an attempt at engaging woo.

If you dance around the subject, give deference, walk and egg shells, and even flat out agree...you may never end up on ignore (virtual or otherwise).

However, the more reason, logic, and rationality you use, the more likely they will deploy the "button."

Summary: enjoy your first few exchanges, they will soon come to an end.

(*Well, OK, perhaps not so much curious as much as predictable. )

[Perpetual Student]

In my view, being a scientist in the 21st century and rejecting the theory of evolution is an indication of mental disease.

[MG1962]

In my view, being a scientist in the 21st century and rejecting the theory of evolution is an indication of mental disease.

Or you didn't have to take biology to get your degree ;)

[Subduction Zone]

Or you didn't have to take biology to get your degree ;)

Or geology:D