Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

Try to model the transformation of a reptile genome to a bird genome. You simply don’t have the selection pressures, population sizes and time to accomplish such transformations on these large genomes by mutation and selection.This is false. Unnamed's alternative selection algorithm substantially increases the evolutionary performance of ev, such that it is fast enough to satisfy the necessary generational constraints -- even using only random point mutations. Add to that the other potential mutation classes and evolution is more than fast enough to produce whatever real-world changes are required to produce the variety of speciation that has occurred since life arose on Earth.

[cyborg]

Ah, a new lie.

I notice that Dr Schneider says no such thing. Really, if you want to deceive people about what he said, quoting him is rather stupid, don't you think?

kleinman doesn't get the difference between computational time and model time?

BWAHAHHAHAHA, I knew there was a reason I still read this thread. What a dumbass.

[kleinman]

Ev only models one reproduction per generation per creature.Now wait a second, I entered this discussion because you pushed quite fervently the idea that ev modelled real world evolutionary processes and HIV triple therapy was the perfect example of this real world modelling showing that three selection pressures so thoroughly slowed the process that evolution was not possible. You gave ground finally on the fact that HIV triple therapy does not stop evolution but allows resistance to develop and now it is quite apparent that ev could never model the effects of triple therapy on HIV in the first place. So do you now deny the validity of HIV triple therapy as a real world example for ev?
If you had read this thread, you would find that I have repeatedly said the ev represents a plausible model of mutation and selection. It is Dr Schneider and Paul (until he found out what ev really shows) who have said that ev models reality. What Dr Schneider has done is captured important mathematical principles of mutation and selection. Those principles that he has captured is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, increasing the genome length slows the evolutionary process and increasing population accelerates the evolutionary process but not at markedly high rates. All these factors are well illustrated by the use of combination therapy to treat HIV. These same principles are demonstrated with the use of combination therapy to treat TB and the consequences of monotherapy for the treatment of MRSA, Gonorrhea, pseudomonas and other microbes. If these examples are not enough to demonstrate the validity of the ev model, consider the examples of combination pesticides, herbicides and rodenticides which were presented earlier. All these examples show that multiple selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of life forms to these selection pressures. Ev shows how the important elements of mutation and selection work and they don’t have the capability of doing what you evolutionists allege. The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
Why have you been wasting my time with all of the misrepresentations?
Whining does not change the results from ev and the numerous real examples of how mutation and selection works.
In addition, ev shows that a single selection pressure evolves far more rapidly that all three selection pressures in combination. The same is seen with monotherapy of HIV.Why do you keep repeating this since I haven't questioned it? It isn't actually correct, though, since a single pressure can result in extinction
I keep repeating this because this is the reason the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Unless you are going to contend that reptiles evolved into birds by a single selection pressures applied sequentially, there is no mathematical possibility for these genomes to morph from one to another in the time available and the small populations.
Don’t forget, HIV is an extremely short genome when compared to even the smallest genome in a free living creature.Which matters how? In the early stages of life all genomes would have been short, and they would have had extremely short generation times producing multiple copies each -- especially if origins included peptides which RNA used as a template. With bacteria we already see other forms of lateral information transfer, which allowed one species to "solve" an evolutionary problem and pass it to the next guy, a process that dramatically sped the evolutionary process. In such a scenario, how do we even know how many real selection pressures acted at any one time in the early biosphere?
If you had read this thread, you would know that this topic has already been addressed. The smallest genome for any free living organism is about 500k base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genomes but these life forms are dependent upon a host for essential metabolic processes. HIV is totally dependent on a host to reproduce. There is no evidence or reason to believe that there were life forms in your primordial world with short genomes. The theory of evolution is dependent on speculation and unscientific extrapolation. Do you want us to believe that the tens of thousands of different genes that we see in life forms all developed on life forms with tiny genomes and then assembled to make the modern life forms we see today? The insulin gene is about 12k base pairs, what size genome did this gene appear?
The problem for you evolutionists is that creatures with large genomes and small populations don’t have sufficient generations to accomplish any significant macroevolutionary changes.What? Since when did asexual reproduction and only mutation become the norm for evolutionary change in large genomes with small populations?
Since you haven’t read this thread, I will remind you that recombination without error can not and does not increase the information in the gene pool. Recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information from the gene pool by the loss of alleles.
You do realize that most of the mutations that cause changes in animals occur in genes that regulate development. Small changes in early development result in huge potential changes in adults.
Why don’t you give us some examples of this? All the examples I can think of are very destructive to the creature that have these mutations. I guess you can call this huge potential changes in adults. I’d also like to here the explanation how these mutations occur simultaneously in both males and females.
Bacteria can not and does not sustain the reproductive rates you suggest for more than a few hours.They do if they are under multiple strong selection pressures killing them off left and right. Isn't that the point here?
If the bacteria are being killed off left and right then you don’t have huge populations and that is one of the few parameters that accelerates evolution. Don’t forget, selection pressures suppress the fitness of living things to reproduce. What makes you think bacteria will reproduce every 15 minutes when subjected to selection pressures. Some bacteria produce spores when subject to selection pressures and the generation times can extend out to years.
Bacteria can accomplish microevolutionary changes in relatively short periods of time as seen with the development of drug resistance but the same phenomena as seen with HIV is seen with bacteria. That is, multiple drug therapy slows the evolution of drug resistant strains of the bacteria.So now that you cannot support the idea of HIV triple therapy being a realistic real world example this turns into a microevolution vs. macroevolution debate?
You still don’t understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. What ev shows is that with a single selection pressure, the rate of evolution to this selection pressure is much less sensitive to genome length. When you have multiple selection pressures, the length of the genome has a much greater effect on the rate of evolution. You should run some cases with ev, it will give you an education on the mathematics of mutation and selection. You know it is a peer reviewed and published model of mutation and selection.
If you had read this thread, you would have seen that I suggested that ev be modified to more exactly model the evolution of drug resistance with HIV, I suggested this more than once.OK, then you admit that ev was not a good model for HIV triple therapy and yet the entire thrust of your argument when I joined this thread was that HIV triple therapy was the perfect model of three selection pressures stopping evolution just like ev shows.
Oh, ev is not an exact model of HIV triple therapy but the model does show what happens with three selection conditions and what happens to the mathematics of mutation and selection as you lengthen the genome. This fundamental mathematical behavior of mutation and selection is applicable to what is seen with combination therapy for HIV, combination therapy for other microbes such as TB, the consequences of monotherapy for the treatment MRSA, Gonorrhea, pseudomonas and other microbes and the use of combination pesticides, herbicides and rodenticides. Ev properly models this mathematical behavior.
In other words, you lied to me, Dr. Kleinman. You knowingly and deliberately misrepresented what you now claim to know as the truth. You lied to all of us, Dr. Kleinman. And now you are left with no real world example of your precious three selection pressures.
I keep telling you evolutionists that I neither need to nor want to lie to you, I have the mathematics of a peer reviewed and published computer simulation of mutation and natural selection to make my point, that and numerous real examples of this mathematics. So if you think that multiple selection pressures do not slow the evolution of resistant strains of HIV, why don’t you advocate monotherapy for this disease? Perhaps you want to call for monotherapy for the treatment of TB? Perhaps you think that agriculture scientists are wrong when they say that combination herbicides slow the evolution of resistant strains of weeds? Do you want to argue the same for pesticides and rodenticides? I’ll be patient with you and show you how the mathematics of mutation and selection works. Once you understand this mathematics, you will understand why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
When you are talking about fitness in the theory of evolution, you are talking about reproduction and it takes energy to reproduce. Those creatures which use more of the available energy to reproduce are more fit. Natural selection works to make best use of the available energy to reproduce.Exactly. It is the efficiency of reproduction. See, you need an additional rule or two on top of the laws to explain the mechanism behind evolution. Therefore, natural selection isn't a simple "restatement of the 1st law."
Why don’t you tell us what the additional rule or two are?
Try to model the transformation of a reptile genome to a bird genome. You simply don’t have the selection pressures, population sizes and time to accomplish such transformations on these large genomes by mutation and selection.This is false. Unnamed's alternative selection algorithm substantially increases the evolutionary performance of ev, such that it is fast enough to satisfy the necessary generational constraints -- even using only random point mutations. Add to that the other potential mutation classes and evolution is more than fast enough to produce whatever real-world changes are required to produce the variety of speciation that has occurred since life arose on Earth.
Oh really little gator? Does Unnamed’s alternative selection algorithm satisfy the necessary generational constraints? The last time I checked, Dr Schneider’s model was peer reviewed and published. Even Unnamed questions his own selection process in this exchange:
In addition, there is no selection process for a partially completed gene.I don't think that's true, but if it were, then my change would be meaningless.
Kjkent1, how do you select for something that is not functioning such as a partially completed gene? There is no selection process that can select for something that does not exist.
kleinman doesn't get the difference between computational time and model time?
Don’t you mean generations computed in the model and real generation time? I’ll let Dr Schneider answer this one; this is from his ev blog page:
Schneider lets slip that there is another unrealistic element in his (and indeed all) computer simulations in that it (they) "does not correlate with time":So? Run the program slower if you want. Make one generation per 20 minutes to match rapid bacterial growth. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FINIAL RESULT!
Hey Cyborg, don’t you want to explain your cruft theory of evolution to Ichneumonwasp?

[joobz]

Why don’t you tell us what the additional rule or two are?


I don't know...
How about starting with the maximization of available reproductive energy (RE); dRE=0.

assuming that this energy term can account for the entirety of successful reproductive outcomes for a single species in an ecosystem.

[kleinman]

Why don’t you tell us what the additional rule or two are?How about starting with the maximization of available reproductive energy (RE); dRE=0.
That’s what Delphi’s Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape is all about. Natural selection is seeking an optimum on that fitness landscape. That optimum occurs when the amount of energy available for reproduction is maximized, what you call dRE=0.
assuming that this energy term can account for the entirety of successful reproductive outcomes for a single species in an ecosystem.
What other variable accounts for reproductive fitness? Every activity of life requires energy. The more of the available energy that can be dedicated to reproduction, the more fit that creature is. This principle applies to recombination and natural selection as well as mutation and natural selection. Selection pressures put demands on the energy resources of a creature. Multiple selection pressures put increased demands on the creature’s energy resources, at the same time making adaptation to these multiple pressures by mutation and selection more difficult.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some of the regulatory genes altered between chimp and human (we can only tell the differences between the two extant species and not the common ancestor, obviously) -- FOXP2 and the regulatory regions near the protocadherin gene. Different variants of the gene product for FOXP2 are, in part, responsible for human language use and likely also effect vocal structures. Differences in timing of protocadherin are responsible for other morphological changes in brain. Proteomic interactions are only at an embryonic stage of explanation. No real explanation for many of the bigger regulatory alterations will emerge until we have a better understanding of the impact that timed expression of different protein species produces. It is becoming clearer that mutations needn't even involve exons to produce dramatic effects -- witness the devestating results of Friederich's ataxia, a triplet repeat disease involving an intron. Witness also the altered protein folding that can result from "silent" mutations. Consider the enormous variety of gene product resulting form alternate splicing -- and the unbelievably complex interactons among these gene products, especially in relation to development.

You seem to have an extremely truncated understanding of genetics and proteomics if you think morphologic change is the result only of copy error in exons. You have heard of this little thing called "crossing over" that transpires in sexual reproduction -- you know that little process by which a promoter region can be placed near a region that was previously "pseudogene", or how a new promoter region may be created by this process? Ev doesn't model those processes. Ev doesn't account for the proteomic interactions that result in actual morphology. You cannot think of bare information in the genome and have any sense of what happens in the real world as a result of that genome functioning through the production of proteins and their various interactions.

Ev was designed to model information gain. It does that. That is what both Dr Schneider and Paul referred to when they stated that ev models reality. Neither said that ev models all of reality as it relates to evolution. You have quoted Dr. Schneider repeatedly in that regard. Paul says the same thing. the surrogate measure for enough information gain does not correlate with survival in the real world necessarily, so looking at generations to convergence is nice, but not an accurate model for all situations. HIV clearly cannot be modelled by ev.

The rest of your post is simply a repeat of the same lies. They can remain where they are.

[joobz]

That’s what Delphi’s Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape is all about. Natural selection is seeking an optimum on that fitness landscape. That optimum occurs when the amount of energy available for reproduction is maximized, what you call dRE=0.
That's wonderful. But then why did you claim that natural selection was a restatment of the 1st law?

Why did you claim that probability can be greater than 1?

Why do claim to have a mathematical basis, when you fail to present any math?

[kleinman]

Some of the regulatory genes altered between chimp and human (we can only tell the differences between the two extant species and not the common ancestor, obviously) -- FOXP2 and the regulatory regions near the protocadherin gene. Different variants of the gene product for FOXP2 are, in part, responsible for human language use and likely also effect vocal structures. Differences in timing of protocadherin are responsible for other morphological changes in brain. Proteomic interactions are only at an embryonic stage of explanation. No real explanation for many of the bigger regulatory alterations will emerge until we have a better understanding of the impact that timed expression of different protein species produces. It is becoming clearer that mutations needn't even involve exons to produce dramatic effects -- witness the devestating results of Friederich's ataxia, a triplet repeat disease involving an intron. Witness also the altered protein folding that can result from "silent" mutations. Consider the enormous variety of gene product resulting form alternate splicing -- and the unbelievably complex interactons among these gene products, especially in relation to development.
Do you want to explain what the selective pressure were that led to the differences between the human and chimp genes and how these transformations were accomplished because mutation and selection is a profoundly slow mechanism as shown by ev.
You seem to have an extremely truncated understanding of genetics and proteomics if you think morphologic change is the result only of copy error in exons. You have heard of this little thing called "crossing over" that transpires in sexual reproduction -- you know that little process by which a promoter region can be placed near a region that was previously "pseudogene", or how a new promoter region may be created by this process? Ev doesn't model those processes. Ev doesn't account for the proteomic interactions that result in actual morphology. You cannot think of bare information in the genome and have any sense of what happens in the real world as a result of that genome functioning through the production of proteins and their various interactions.
It is not that my view is truncated; it is that your view of mutation and selection is grossly over-extrapolated. My view is supported by a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and your view is a collection of observations that has no mathematical foundation. Crossing over does not create new information in the gene pool, you can change the way the information is expressed by crossing over. Are you going to argue that reptiles evolved to birds by crossing over? Do you think that humans and chimps evolved from the primate precursor by crossing over? Humans and chimps don’t even have the same number of chromosomes. You can not create new information in the gene pool without mutation and selection. There is no other mechanism for creating new genes and there is no selection pressure that can create a gene from the beginning. Recombination can alter the way genes are expressed but you can not create new genes this way. Recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles (and thus reduce the diversity of a species). That is what “crossing over” gives to the theory of evolution. Feel free to put recombination with crossing over in ev. You will find you can’t create new genes this way.
Ev was designed to model information gain. It does that. That is what both Dr Schneider and Paul referred to when they stated that ev models reality. Neither said that ev models all of reality as it relates to evolution. You have quoted Dr. Schneider repeatedly in that regard. Paul says the same thing. the surrogate measure for enough information gain does not correlate with survival in the real world necessarily, so looking at generations to convergence is nice, but not an accurate model for all situations. HIV clearly cannot be modelled by ev.
Well, the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research don’t seem to agree with you. Paul has back pedaled markedly on his view of ev, Dr Schneider has been silent about ev since this thread has started, but what has he said about the reality of this model previously? How about this quote from his ev-faq page:
Why don't you do a real biological experiment instead of just a computer model?The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me.
And Dr Schneider also said the following in response to Stephen Jones:
Stephen E. Jones[/COLOR] (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/)"]"Schneider's paper is misleadingly titled: "Evolution of biological information". But it is just a *computer* simulation. No actual *biological* materials (e.g. genomes of nucleic acids, proteins, etc) were used, nor does Schneider propose that his simulation be tested with *real* genomes or proteins Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986 (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986)
So, Ichneumonwasp, you appear to be a Dr Schneider’s mind reader and should win the James Randi $1 million paranormal challenge.
The rest of your post is simply a repeat of the same lies. They can remain where they are.
You evolutionists wished what I say was a lie but the truth has much more power than a lie, which is why your theory of evolution is kaput, it is based on a lie. Your theory is mathematically impossible.
That’s what Delphi’s Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape is all about. Natural selection is seeking an optimum on that fitness landscape. That optimum occurs when the amount of energy available for reproduction is maximized, what you call dRE=0.That's wonderful. But then why did you claim that natural selection was a restatment of the 1st law?
Because that is what it is.
Why did you claim that probability can be greater than 1?
I initially made the error that the effect of population was additive of the probability that a good mutation would occur at a particular locus. Myriad corrected my error and I acknowledged the correction. The effect of increasing population on the probability that a good mutation occurs at a particular locus is less than additive. This explains why huge populations don’t accelerate evolution like you evolutionists like to allege. This is shown by ev. I don’t mind at all talking about this. You are probably still making this same error. You evolutionists don’t accept correction.
Why do claim to have a mathematical basis, when you fail to present any math?
Certainly I have presented “math”, it is Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and selection, and it shows that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Of course, you alchemical engineers think anything is possible, that’s your proof for abiogenesis.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you want to explain what the selective pressure were that led to the differences between the human and chimp genes and how these transformations were accomplished because mutation and selection is a profoundly slow mechanism as shown by ev.

It is not that my view is truncated; it is that your view of mutation and selection is grossly over-extrapolated. My view is supported by a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and your view is a collection of observations that has no mathematical foundation. Crossing over does not create new information in the gene pool, you can change the way the information is expressed by crossing over. Are you going to argue that reptiles evolved to birds by crossing over? Do you think that humans and chimps evolved from the primate precursor by crossing over? Humans and chimps don’t even have the same number of chromosomes. You can not create new information in the gene pool without mutation and selection. There is no other mechanism for creating new genes and there is no selection pressure that can create a gene from the beginning. Recombination can alter the way genes are expressed but you can not create new genes this way. Recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles (and thus reduce the diversity of a species). That is what “crossing over” gives to the theory of evolution. Feel free to put recombination with crossing over in ev. You will find you can’t create new genes this way.

Well, the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research don’t seem to agree with you. Paul has back pedaled markedly on his view of ev, Dr Schneider has been silent about ev since this thread has started, but what has he said about the reality of this model previously? How about this quote from his ev-faq page:

And Dr Schneider also said the following in response to Stephen Jones:

So, Ichneumonwasp, you appear to be a Dr Schneider’s mind reader and should win the James Randi $1 million paranormal challenge.

You evolutionists wished what I say was a lie but the truth has much more power than a lie, which is why your theory of evolution is kaput, it is based on a lie. Your theory is mathematically impossible.

Because that is what it is.

I initially made the error that the effect of population was additive of the probability that a good mutation would occur at a particular locus. Myriad corrected my error and I acknowledged the correction. The effect of increasing population on the probability that a good mutation occurs at a particular locus is less than additive. This explains why huge populations don’t accelerate evolution like you evolutionists like to allege. This is shown by ev. I don’t mind at all talking about this. You are probably still making this same error. You evolutionists don’t accept correction.

Certainly I have presented “math”, it is Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and selection, and it shows that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Of course, you alchemical engineers think anything is possible, that’s your proof for abiogenesis. No new lies here.

For a confirmed fantasist, you're peculiarly lacking in imagination.

[Dr Adequate]

I keep telling you evolutionists that I neither need to nor want to lie to you So why do you keep doing so?

Demonic possession, perhaps?

[Dr Adequate]

kleinman doesn't get the difference between computational time and model time? Evidently not.

Look at his reply to you.

Don’t you mean generations computed in the model and real generation time? I’ll let Dr Schneider answer this one; this is from his ev blog page:Schneider lets slip that there is another unrealistic element in his (and indeed all) computer simulations in that it (they) "does not correlate with time":So? Run the program slower if you want. Make one generation per 20 minutes to match rapid bacterial growth. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FINIAL RESULT!

:dl:

[joobz]

So why do you keep doing so?

Demonic possession, perhaps?
Maybe he's applying "The Secret." Evolution is true because he didn't believe in creationism enough.

[kleinman]

Maybe he's applying "The Secret." Evolution is true because he didn't believe in creationism enough.
There’s no “The Secret” here joobz, there is Dr Schneider’s model of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection and there are numerous real examples that show he got the model correct. The auditors are here and your theory of evolution books do not balance. Your theory is bankrupt.

[kjkent1]

Oh really little gator?Yes, small man.Does Unnamed’s alternative selection algorithm satisfy the necessary generational constraints?You certainly seemed to think so at the time it was introduced into this thread. Your objection was that the method ignored the non-binding-site region of the genome. However, Unnamed's post of the algorithm shows that it doesn't do anything other than weight each mistake by the value contained in the weight matrix, instead of simply providing a fixed selective weight to the mistake.

Schneider's original algorithm treats each mistake as effectively of equal selective weight. Paul A's mods to the java version permit the weights of mistakes occurring in different regions to be varied. Unnamed's algorithm treats each mistake as having a destructive/constructive value to the organism equal to the mistake's weight as evaluated by the weight matrix.

The point is that it is highly likely that not all mistakes/mutations have equal selective power, because a mistake in a junk region may be selectively neutral while a mistake in another region could produce instant cell death. No one, including Dr. Schneider has determined any model that accurately models this selective power.

You are claiming that ev cannot evolve fast enough to produce the sort of speciation which is found in nature. Assuming this is true, it could easily be because the selection method does not accurately reflect the selective power of individual mistakes. From examining the differences between Schneider's original algorithm, Paul's mods and Unnamed's algorithm, it is obvious that selective weight has a substantial effect on evolutionary change.

The last time I checked, Dr Schneider’s model was peer reviewed and published.You can continue to harp that ev is peer reviewed, but so what? The original algorithm is plausable -- this doesn't mean it is a perfect replica of natural evolution, nor does it need be in order to be acceptable for publication. Ev may be a "worst case" scenario, but it still proves information gain, and that's all it needs to prove to show that evolution is possible.Kjkent1, how do you select for something that is not functioning such as a partially completed gene? There is no selection process that can select for something that does not exist.You claim ev is a plausable model. Ev begins with a random genome, containing unselected material. This is substantially the same as a junk dna region. Given that as a premise, it is an observed fact that genomes of independent life forms exhibit the Rseq ~ Rfreq relationship. So, selection does not need to be for some external function. Selection need only produce genetic sequences where Rseq -> Rfreq, because that apparently is a fundamental property of living organisms.

You may immediately ask why should that be? You may as well ask why the cosmological constant is 2E-121. It doesn't matter why. It only matters that it is so.

I really don't care what your personal beef with Schneider is. If you think he's defamed you, then you should sue his ass and prove your case.

But, on the subject of evolution, there is no doubt that it occurs. The evidence is everywhere. If you want each speciation change to be the product of divine intervention, you can certainly believe that to be true. But, no amount of microscopic examination will show God's index finger pushing base pairs around.

All anyone will ever observe is accidental changes which create speciated life forms.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you want to explain what the selective pressure were that led to the differences between the human and chimp genes and how these transformations were accomplished because mutation and selection is a profoundly slow mechanism as shown by ev.


So, ev says it couldn't happen, so it didn't happen, is that the thrust of your question?

So increased brain size with larger frontal and temporal lobes with consequent improvements in cognitive ability and communication skills improving our hunting ability is not enough? You want something more than that do you mean?

This is getting silly. You misinterpret Dr. Schneider and continually use him in some weird surrogate appeal to authority anytime anyone claims that perhaps ev doesn't quite model all of evolutionary reality. Dr. Schneider has said, himself, that ev does not model all of evolutionary reality. Whenever we show you some aspect of the real world you trot out ev and say "Well, that can't happen because ev says it's impossible". I'm sorry, bud, but I'm going with the real world.

The model models what it models. It doesn't do windows.

It is not that my view is truncated; it is that your view of mutation and selection is grossly over-extrapolated.

How's that? My view is that mutation and selection does not cover the entire field of endeavor. You cannot disregard these other spheres. Well, let me rephrase that, since you most assuredly have ignored them -- you shouldn't ignore the real world and the way the genome actually works.

My view is supported by a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection

Your view consists of the misapplication of a computer model that demonstrates increase in information via mutation and selection. It does not cover wide swaths of the real world, as Dr. Schneider repeats and you continue to quote. It does, most assuredly model the real world -- as it relates to the ability of mutation and selection to account for information gain.

your view is a collection of observations that has no mathematical foundation.

There is plenty of mathematical foundation for the current theory of evolution. I have no idea to what you refer.

In the mean time, I have yet to see these equations you contend that you have. How about showing us? Show us your mathematics so that we can apply them to real world situations. Pretty please?

Crossing over does not create new information in the gene pool, you can change the way the information is expressed by crossing over.

I just gave you in that previous post two mechanisms by which crossing over can increase information. You did read that post, did you not? If so, then what in the world are you talking about?

Are you going to argue that reptiles evolved to birds by crossing over?

There really are some brands with less caffeine these days, Dr. Kleinman. You should try one of them. Or, perhaps you could understand what an example is. And understand that I was referring to your simplistic attempt to suggest that no new information can arise from sexual reproduction. The steps from reptile to bird included several changes, including alterations in one of those big modulatory gene families I earlier mentioned -- hox genes. I would have to look at what has been worked out to see what we know and what we don't know. You'll have to forgive me for having an actual life with a real job. I know my field and not all others. It is easy to ask questions and play dumb and not so easy to know all the answers. I do not pretend to know all the answers. But this really has nothing to do with our topic of discussion originally -- the inadequacy of your claim that ev models HIV triple therapy. You still haven't responded to that issue with any clarity. I have seen hand waving.

Do you think that humans and chimps evolved from the primate precursor by crossing over?

Who knows? Some of the gene changes might have involved that mechanism. It's difficult to tell. That is not the point. You're trying to make it into a big point is rather pointless and excessively silly. Please continue though.

Humans and chimps don’t even have the same number of chromosomes.

You're completely lost now aren't you? Do you honestly think that crossing over has something to do with chimps and humans mating? Have we really sunk to that level of ridiculousness?

You can not create new information in the gene pool without mutation and selection.

Sure you can. New information means new proteins. New proteins can arise through numerous mechanisms, including alternative splicing. New information may take the form of protein a being in contact with protein b during development (when previously they were expressed at completely different times), a change that depends on a feedback mechanism that determines the timing of expression. That change can occur in an intron rather than an exon, so mutations needn't involve exons at all for alterations in the real world to happen. There are many different ways that "junk" DNA adds to the regulation of promoter regions. Increase production of a protein and that gene can go from what we call recessive to what we call dominant. Move a promoter to a region that was not previously expressed and presto we've got a new gene just waiting to do its thing. Copy promoters all over the place and new proteins sprout like daisies on a warm summer day. Nature is just cool like that.

There is no other mechanism for creating new genes

Complete and utter BS. Hey, I've got a classic one for you -- just copy a gene and let the new copy mutate. That's lots of new information with no loss of information. That should satisfy you. But, whoa, what if the DNA sequence is a promoter region and it is copied several times in front of a piece of DNA that was never used before in that species but is perfectly capable of producign a protein. Whoops, there we go with that new information sprouting up.

there is no selection pressure that can create a gene from the beginning

What selection pressure is needed aside from the new gene itself? If it makes copies, it can. Selection.

Recombination can alter the way genes are expressed but you can not create new genes this way.

Only if you think one dimensionally. Get real. You do know something about genetics don't you?

Recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles (and thus reduce the diversity of a species). That is what “crossing over” gives to the theory of evolution. Feel free to put recombination with crossing over in ev. You will find you can’t create new genes this way.


You're really funny sometimes, Dr. Kleinman. Someone might actually think you are being serious with completely ignorant statements like this, but you aren't really serious, are you?

Well, the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research don’t seem to agree with you.

Don't seem to agree with me how? Now let's see, what was the title and the first lines of that abstract again? Oh Yeah:


Evolution of biological information
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information.

It's a model of information gain. It does not model evolution in all its particulars, as Dr. Schneider repeatedly says. In particular the model does not say that the only means of gaining information is through mutation and selection. What he said is that it is a way of gaining information because creationists argued that no information could possibly be gained through this means. He proved the creationists wrong. You are wrong for inappropriately applying his model. Shame on you, Dr. Kleinman.

[kleinman]

Does Unnamed’s alternative selection algorithm satisfy the necessary generational constraints?You certainly seemed to think so at the time it was introduced into this thread. Your objection was that the method ignored the non-binding-site region of the genome. However, Unnamed's post of the algorithm shows that it doesn't do anything other than weight each mistake by the value contained in the weight matrix, instead of simply providing a fixed selective weight to the mistake.
Now don’t forget to mention these quotes:
In addition, there is no selection process for a partially completed gene.I don't think that's true, but if it were, then my change would be meaningless.
It seems Unnamed has abandoned this debate as well as his unrealistic selection scheme. He probably realized there is no way to select for a gene that is not functional.
Schneider's original algorithm treats each mistake as effectively of equal selective weight. Paul A's mods to the java version permit the weights of mistakes occurring in different regions to be varied. Unnamed's algorithm treats each mistake as having a destructive/constructive value to the organism equal to the mistake's weight as evaluated by the weight matrix.
What Unnamed is doing with his selection process is equivalent to setting the weight factor for spurious binding to zero. I point this out to Unnamed and we had the following exchange.
Unnamed, what you are doing here is ignoring errors in the non-binding site region.No I'm not, unless I was doing it by mistake.
I think if you keep track of the value of valuation[p] in the following equation,
sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);
you will see that this number will be much larger in the binding site region due to the good match of the weight matrix. In the non-binding site region this value will remain small. You are effectively giving a higher weight to good mutations in the binding site region than to harmful mutations in the non-binding site region. You can achieve the same effect if you set the value for the variable gene=1 and nongene=0 and still sort on the variable “mistakes”.

Unnamed abandoned the discussion after this exchange. It seems that evolutionists don’t like the debate on the mathematics of mutation and selection.
The point is that it is highly likely that not all mistakes/mutations have equal selective power, because a mistake in a junk region may be selectively neutral while a mistake in another region could produce instant cell death. No one, including Dr. Schneider has determined any model that accurately models this selective power.
Of course selection pressures can have varying intensities. The way Paul has varied the intensity ignores the fact that highly potent selection pressures will suppress reproduction by increasing the death rate. Increasing selection pressures in ev does not affect death rates. In fact, if you increase the weights uniformly, you get the same generations for convergence no matter what the weights are. Intense selection pressures will slow evolution more, ev does not include this effect.
You are claiming that ev cannot evolve fast enough to produce the sort of speciation which is found in nature. Assuming this is true, it could easily be because the selection method does not accurately reflect the selective power of individual mistakes. From examining the differences between Schneider's original algorithm, Paul's mods and Unnamed's algorithm, it is obvious that selective weight has a substantial effect on evolutionary change.
Reducing the number of selection pressures as Unnamed did does accelerate evolution.
The last time I checked, Dr Schneider’s model was peer reviewed and published.You can continue to harp that ev is peer reviewed, but so what? The original algorithm is plausable -- this doesn't mean it is a perfect replica of natural evolution, nor does it need be in order to be acceptable for publication. Ev may be a "worst case" scenario, but it still proves information gain, and that's all it needs to prove to show that evolution is possible.
Ev shows how microevolution occurs and that macroevolution is impossible. How does ev show this? It shows this by revealing how rapidly single selection conditions evolve even on longer genomes and how slowly multiple selection conditions evolve even on short genomes. There are numerous real examples of this.
Kjkent1, how do you select for something that is not functioning such as a partially completed gene? There is no selection process that can select for something that does not exist.You claim ev is a plausable model. Ev begins with a random genome, containing unselected material. This is substantially the same as a junk dna region. Given that as a premise, it is an observed fact that genomes of independent life forms exhibit the Rseq ~ Rfreq relationship. So, selection does not need to be for some external function. Selection need only produce genetic sequences where Rseq -> Rfreq, because that apparently is a fundamental property of living organisms.
Selection is a response to an external function. Turn off selection in ev and see what happens to Rseq.
You may immediately ask why should that be? You may as well ask why the cosmological constant is 2E-121. It doesn't matter why. It only matters that it is so.
Oh tell me why the stars do shine?
I really don't care what your personal beef with Schneider is. If you think he's defamed you, then you should sue his ass and prove your case.
I don’t have a beef with Dr Schneider; in fact, I may be the last person on earth that believes he modeled mutation and selection properly. IDers questioned the validity of ev for years and now evolutionists are abandoning his work in droves including his own programmer. The only thing I take issue with Dr Schneider is his use of an extremely short genome and an extremely high mutation rate to estimate the rate of information gain for a human genome. This was a big boo boo. I actually think ev is a useful tool that can me modified to more exactly model HIV treatment and drug resistance.
But, on the subject of evolution, there is no doubt that it occurs. The evidence is everywhere. If you want each speciation change to be the product of divine intervention, you can certainly believe that to be true. But, no amount of microscopic examination will show God's index finger pushing base pairs around.
All anyone will ever observe is accidental changes which create speciated life forms.
Now if only ev showed this was mathematically possible.
Do you want to explain what the selective pressure were that led to the differences between the human and chimp genes and how these transformations were accomplished because mutation and selection is a profoundly slow mechanism as shown by ev.So, ev says it couldn't happen, so it didn't happen, is that the thrust of your question?
Think of ev as an accounting tool. What ev does is keep track of beneficial, neutral and detrimental mutations. Sequencing of human and chimp DNA shows at least 35,000,000 base substitutions in the homologous regions of the genomes. You have about 500,000 generations to accomplish all these changes. Ev shows that even on short genomes, 500,000 generations are not sufficient to evolve binding sites (100 loci) on a 32k genome and human and chimp genomes number in the billions of base pairs. The mathematics just doesn’t work out.
So increased brain size with larger frontal and temporal lobes with consequent improvements in cognitive ability and communication skills improving our hunting ability is not enough? You want something more than that do you mean?
Mutation and selection does not explain these differences. Does it require mutation and selection to achieve the changes you describe? Maybe you should argue these type of differences can be achieved with recombination and selection.
This is getting silly. You misinterpret Dr. Schneider and continually use him in some weird surrogate appeal to authority anytime anyone claims that perhaps ev doesn't quite model all of evolutionary reality. Dr. Schneider has said, himself, that ev does not model all of evolutionary reality. Whenever we show you some aspect of the real world you trot out ev and say "Well, that can't happen because ev says it's impossible". I'm sorry, bud, but I'm going with the real world.
Mutation and selection is a bookkeeping problem. When you apply these rules of bookkeeping, you can not account for all the genetic differences between living things. In particular, multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical fact shown by ev and there are numerous real examples of this including the use of combination therapy to treat HIV.
The model models what it models. It doesn't do windows.
Ev gives us a window on mutation and natural selection. You ought to take a look through this window.
It is not that my view is truncated; it is that your view of mutation and selection is grossly over-extrapolated.How's that? My view is that mutation and selection does not cover the entire field of endeavor. You cannot disregard these other spheres. Well, let me rephrase that, since you most assuredly have ignored them -- you shouldn't ignore the real world and the way the genome actually works.
Mutation and selection can accomplish small events such as drug resistance with microbes. There are real examples of these phenomena. However, to extrapolate these types of phenomena to the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans and chimps from a primate ancestor by mutation and selection has no mathematical foundation. You simply do not have sufficient number of generations and populations to accomplish all the genetic changes required. In the real world, the books have to balance. In addition to the fact that multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, there are no selection pressures that can evolve a gene from the beginning. You are the one ignoring the real world and you do this by extrapolating mutation and selection far beyond what it is mathematically capable of doing.
My view is supported by a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection.Your view consists of the misapplication of a computer model that demonstrates increase in information via mutation and selection. It does not cover wide swaths of the real world, as Dr. Schneider repeats and you continue to quote. It does, most assuredly model the real world -- as it relates to the ability of mutation and selection to account for information gain.
I did exactly what Dr Schneider suggested publicly and privately to me. I varied genome length, selection pressures, mutation rates, population as well as other parameters in his program. What it showed was that genome length and the number of selection pressures are the dominate variables in the mutation and selection process. There are many real examples which demonstrate this finding. Look through the window and see.
your view is a collection of observations that has no mathematical foundation.There is plenty of mathematical foundation for the current theory of evolution. I have no idea to what you refer.
Where is this mathematics of mutation and selection you are talking about?
In the mean time, I have yet to see these equations you contend that you have. How about showing us? Show us your mathematics so that we can apply them to real world situations. Pretty please?
I have the mathematics of a peer reviewed and published computer model of mutation and natural selection. Now where is this mathematical cornucopia that forms the foundation of your theory?
Crossing over does not create new information in the gene pool, you can change the way the information is expressed by crossing over.I just gave you in that previous post two mechanisms by which crossing over can increase information. You did read that post, did you not? If so, then what in the world are you talking about?
Crossing over does not increase information in a genome; it is simply a rearrangement of existing genes in the gene pool. You not created any new genes.
Are you going to argue that reptiles evolved to birds by crossing over? There really are some brands with less caffeine these days, Dr. Kleinman. You should try one of them. Or, perhaps you could understand what an example is. And understand that I was referring to your simplistic attempt to suggest that no new information can arise from sexual reproduction. The steps from reptile to bird included several changes, including alterations in one of those big modulatory gene families I earlier mentioned -- hox genes. I would have to look at what has been worked out to see what we know and what we don't know. You'll have to forgive me for having an actual life with a real job. I know my field and not all others. It is easy to ask questions and play dumb and not so easy to know all the answers. I do not pretend to know all the answers. But this really has nothing to do with our topic of discussion originally -- the inadequacy of your claim that ev models HIV triple therapy. You still haven't responded to that issue with any clarity. I have seen hand waving.
What you continue to have difficulty with is the mathematics of mutation and selection. The massive number of differences between reptile and bird genomes can not be accomplished by mutation and selection. Not only is there no selection pressure that would do this, there is no way to account for all the required changes needed by mutation and selection. One unique gene difference between birds and reptiles is enough to prove the impossibility of evolution. What is the selection pressure that would evolve this unique gene?
Do you think that humans and chimps evolved from the primate precursor by crossing over?Who knows? Some of the gene changes might have involved that mechanism. It's difficult to tell. That is not the point. You're trying to make it into a big point is rather pointless and excessively silly. Please continue though.
This seems to be the sum total of the evolutionist argument, you don’t know how it happened but you know it did. Well, I know it didn’t happen by mutation and selection, ev shows how slow this process is and that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible.
Humans and chimps don’t even have the same number of chromosomes.You're completely lost now aren't you? Do you honestly think that crossing over has something to do with chimps and humans mating? Have we really sunk to that level of ridiculousness?
What still hasn’t sunk in with you is that recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool and that recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information in the gene pool due to loss of alleles.
You can not create new information in the gene pool without mutation and selection.Sure you can. New information means new proteins. New proteins can arise through numerous mechanisms, including alternative splicing. New information may take the form of protein a being in contact with protein b during development (when previously they were expressed at completely different times), a change that depends on a feedback mechanism that determines the timing of expression. That change can occur in an intron rather than an exon, so mutations needn't involve exons at all for alterations in the real world to happen. There are many different ways that "junk" DNA adds to the regulation of promoter regions. Increase production of a protein and that gene can go from what we call recessive to what we call dominant. Move a promoter to a region that was not previously expressed and presto we've got a new gene just waiting to do its thing. Copy promoters all over the place and new proteins sprout like daisies on a warm summer day. Nature is just cool like that.
Really now, do you think this occurs with reproduction? You are now extrapolating the production of immunoglobins to reproduction. And do you want to explain how coping promoters all over the place speeds up the evolutionary process?
There is no other mechanism for creating new genes.Complete and utter BS. Hey, I've got a classic one for you -- just copy a gene and let the new copy mutate. That's lots of new information with no loss of information. That should satisfy you. But, whoa, what if the DNA sequence is a promoter region and it is copied several times in front of a piece of DNA that was never used before in that species but is perfectly capable of producign a protein. Whoops, there we go with that new information sprouting up.
Copy a gene and you have two copies of the same gene. A new gene requires mutation. So now you have a copy of a gene that is slightly altered and low and behold, it performs an entirely new function like growing feathers on a lizard. It requires mutations to make a new gene and ev shows this is a profoundly slow process even if you have a selection process that could make the new gene and you don’t. You are in complete denial of the mathematics of mutation and selection and how it works. Study ev and learn how the mathematics of mutation and selection works instead of making your wild unscientific extrapolations.
there is no selection pressure that can create a gene from the beginningWhat selection pressure is needed aside from the new gene itself? If it makes copies, it can. Selection.
I haven’t posted this for a while so for your benefit, I will repost why your concept is impossible.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.
Recombination can alter the way genes are expressed but you can not create new genes this way.Only if you think one dimensionally. Get real. You do know something about genetics don't you?
In which dimension do you dwell where recombination can create a new gene?
Recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles (and thus reduce the diversity of a species). That is what “crossing over” gives to the theory of evolution. Feel free to put recombination with crossing over in ev. You will find you can’t create new genes this way. You're really funny sometimes, Dr. Kleinman. Someone might actually think you are being serious with completely ignorant statements like this, but you aren't really serious, are you?
Simple enough, tell us how recombination without error can create new genes and I’ll tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles. Of course you can’t tell us how recombination without error can create new genes but I can tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles.
Well, the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research don’t seem to agree with you.Don't seem to agree with me how? Now let's see, what was the title and the first lines of that abstract again? Oh Yeah:
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information.
You really need to read beyond the abstract for this one, if you had you would have seen:
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.
If you had investigated ev as Dr Schneider suggested, you would have more than a superficial understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection. Anything more than a superficial investigation of ev reveals the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution.
It's a model of information gain. It does not model evolution in all its particulars, as Dr. Schneider repeatedly says. In particular the model does not say that the only means of gaining information is through mutation and selection. What he said is that it is a way of gaining information because creationists argued that no information could possibly be gained through this means. He proved the creationists wrong. You are wrong for inappropriately applying his model. Shame on you, Dr. Kleinman.
If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider. If you had read these threads you would have seen from the very beginning that I acknowledged that you can gain information by mutation and selection. The only shame in this is that you think you can understand the mathematics of mutation and selection without doing your homework. Read Dr Schneider’s works completely and read these threads completely, otherwise you reveal that you are superficial in your analysis, of course, that is the only type of analysis the theory of evolution can stand up to.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Reducing the number of selection pressures as Unnamed did does accelerate evolution.
Are you sure he did that?


If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider.
Now you're just being ridiculous.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I did exactly what Dr Schneider suggested publicly and privately to me. I varied genome length, selection pressures, mutation rates, population as well as other parameters in his program. What it showed was that genome length and the number of selection pressures are the dominate variables in the mutation and selection process.
Hey Dr. Adequate, you have to assign this a lie number. Kleinman didn't know he could vary the mistake counts until a few weeks ago. Before that, the goalpost was somewhere else.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

I think if you keep track of the value of valuation[p] in the following equation,
sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);
you will see that this number will be much larger in the binding site region due to the good match of the weight matrix. In the non-binding site region this value will remain small. You are effectively giving a higher weight to good mutations in the binding site region than to harmful mutations in the non-binding site region. You can achieve the same effect if you set the value for the variable gene=1 and nongene=0 and still sort on the variable “mistakes”.Little man, you're inventing what you think the algorithm does.

The code line that you quote above is exactly the same in the portion of the algorithm that deals with binding sites (siteInd[p]) as it is in the portion that deals with the non-binding sites (!siteInd[p]). In both cases, the algorithm gives the creature a selective value (sv) equal to the absolute value of the location minus the threshold.

Thus, Unnamed's algorithm treats both binding and non-binding site regions identically as to mistake weight.

What the algorithm does to speed up the evolutionary process, is to use the absolute value difference between the weight at the binding site location and the threshold value, whereas Schneider's original algorithm treated every mistake and binding as worth one (1) point.

So, when the algorithm sorts the creatures, creatures with mistakes are killed faster, and creatures without live longer, because they are more harshly penalized for their errors.

And, until you can quantify how important an error vs. no error is to a creature's survival, you can't say whether Schneider's approach or Unnamed's is more reasonable.

What you CAN say, is that harsher selective pressures speed up evolution.

Which, by the way, is proof of exactly the opposite of what you contend with your multiple selctive pressures slowing evolution argument.

[kleinman]

Reducing the number of selection pressures as Unnamed did does accelerate evolution.Are you sure he did that?
Yes, and this is the equation that does this:

sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);

valuation[p] (the value of the dot product of the weight matrix with the positions on the genome) will almost always be a small number in the nonbinding site region of the genome. This is equivalent of ignoring the spurious binding in the nonbinding site region.
If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider.Now you're just being ridiculous.
So, since you are Dr Schneider’s coworker, why don’t you tell us what he meant when he said this:
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.
He must have meant that only variations that support the theory of evolution should be investigated. Paul, I love it when you squirm.
I did exactly what Dr Schneider suggested publicly and privately to me. I varied genome length, selection pressures, mutation rates, population as well as other parameters in his program. What it showed was that genome length and the number of selection pressures are the dominate variables in the mutation and selection process.Hey Dr. Adequate, you have to assign this a lie number. Kleinman didn't know he could vary the mistake counts until a few weeks ago. Before that, the goalpost was somewhere else.
Righto Mr Rcapacity, you don’t lie, you just back pedal at the speed of light. Oh, that’s right; you evolutionists go faster than the speed of light. Let’s see, it started less than two years ago when you said this:
I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.
Then you said this:
It works like real life in a simulation of a limited situation. It covers maybe 1/100 of 1% of the complexity of real life.
Then you said this:
You seem to be saying something different than what Dr Schneider has said and what I have heard evolutionists say for years, that is random mutation and natural selection is the driving force for evolution. Now you are saying that random mutation and natural selection covers only 1/100 of 1% of the complexity of real life. That's not what I said at all. I said that Ev only simulates a tiny fraction of the richness of the evolutionary landscape.
Then you said this:
Are you going to retract your extrapolation that 16 binding sites on a 100k genome take 200,000,000 generations to evolve?Why? It is an extrapolation using the Ev model. We don't know how much it has to do with real life.
And so your view of ev evolves.

Just what does ev show now? You certainly aren’t saying the same thing that the author of the program has said which is unfortunate because I think he got this mathematical model of mutation and selection correct. Since random point mutation and natural selection represents 1/100 of 1% of your theory of evolution, care to tell us what the other 99.99% is?
The code line that you quote above is exactly the same in the portion of the algorithm that deals with binding sites (siteInd[p]) as it is in the portion that deals with the non-binding sites (!siteInd[p]). In both cases, the algorithm gives the creature a selective value (sv) equal to the absolute value of the location minus the threshold.
Why don’t you tell us what valuation[p] is computing?

You all have a good weekend, and don’t let your view of ev evolve too much. Dr Schneider won’t have anything left to advertise.

[joobz]

Ugh, Dr. Kleinman, you've become boring again. You've reverted to your original goalpost lies which have already been exposed and discounted.

Please be a little more inventive. Otherwise, this thread will die.

[kjkent1]

Yes, and this is the equation that does this:

sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);

valuation[p] (the value of the dot product of the weight matrix with the positions on the genome) will almost always be a small number in the nonbinding site region of the genome. This is equivalent of ignoring the spurious binding in the nonbinding site region.That's really funny. Since the entire genome is being randomly mutated and selected for/against at the same time, but only the binding site region is being monitored for threshold bindings, why would any portion of the genome produce smaller or larger selective valuations?

Answer: they wouldn't. The only differnce between the results in the binding and non-binding region is that the program is tracking the results in one and not in the other.

And, if you run ev and look at the valuations in the non-binding site region, you will immediately recognize that there are just as many large valuations therein as occurs in the binding site region. So, your conclusion above is false. Unnamed's algorithm does not ignore the non-binding site region.Why don’t you tell us what valuation[p] is computing?I don't need to, because you just explained it at the beginning of your last post.

It's really a pity that you don't take anyone seriously other than yourself. You might actually help make a contribution to society, if you weren't so dead set on trying to overcome your self esteem issues.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Think of ev as an accounting tool. What ev does is keep track of beneficial, neutral and detrimental mutations. Sequencing of human and chimp DNA shows at least 35,000,000 base substitutions in the homologous regions of the genomes. You have about 500,000 generations to accomplish all these changes. Ev shows that even on short genomes, 500,000 generations are not sufficient to evolve binding sites (100 loci) on a 32k genome and human and chimp genomes number in the billions of base pairs. The mathematics just doesn’t work out.


Last time I checked you said that we should not compare apples and oranges, but that is precisely what you are doing.

Ev begins with random "bases" in no particular order and evolves sequences that fit predefined binding site information. It begins from scratch, so to speak, and moves toward a defined pre-set goal (as a way to determine the emergence of information).

The change from chimp to human begins with approximately 25,000 to 35,000 already pre-existing genes. A small number of those genes change over time, with most of the alterations occurring in regulatory regions or in feedback loops concerned with the timing of gene expression during development. There is no "de novo evolution of binding sites". The alterations occur and if they allow more offspring to survive, then they are expressed at higher frequency. Many of the changes were in gene deletions or gene duplications with and without modification. A simple gene duplication near a promoter that is active at a different time of development you would see as no new information (same gene), but the reality is that considerable morphological change can occur with gene expressions at different times (see bone morphogenic protein for a stark example). Other changes are single base substitutions, as with FOXP2, not the evolution of completely novel binding sites from scratch using a simple mutation and selection. The comparison with ev is absolute and complete bunk. Analogies don't work when they are not analogous.

Ev basically models what the early biosphere could have been like. It has set genome lengths and only allows mutations with no other sharing of genetic material between varying entities. Yet, under these extremely restricted conditions, it shows that information can develop over time. It's relationship to evolution of primates or any animal -- almost zero.

Mutation and selection does not explain these differences. Does it require mutation and selection to achieve the changes you describe? Maybe you should argue these type of differences can be achieved with recombination and selection.


What is your point? You recently told me that no new information could arise from recombination and selection. Yet now you wish to tell me that increased brain size and new communications abilities arise from the very situation that you earlier claimed could not create information? What?

So, let's look at the actual information. FOXP2 underwent a base substitution to become the new gene that it is. So, whoops, mutation and selection can account for that change. The protocadherin story is more complicated but may well simply result from mutation as well. There are desert regions surrounding the gene family that are thought to be involved in regulatory functions. They are probably transcription factor binding sites, etc. that are involved in regulating the expression of this and other local genes. The change in protocadhedrin is not in the protein itself -- that is conserved -- but in those regulatory regions that are considered otherwise non-coding, changing the expression of this protein during development. The big changes between chimp and human brain are in the networks of proteins involved in the developmental process. If you only look at the genes and do not consider the local milieu or the extraordinary differences that arise from alternative splicing the you only will see a bare fraction of what is responsible for the difference between us and chimps.

Mutation and selection is a bookkeeping problem. When you apply these rules of bookkeeping, you can not account for all the genetic differences between living things. In particular, multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical fact shown by ev and there are numerous real examples of this including the use of combination therapy to treat HIV.


So, you've just shot yourself in the foot? Yes, mutation and selection cannot account for all the genetic differences between living things. That is one of the things I am trying to tell you. Thank you for arguing my side. What this shows is that your "mathematical fact" of ev is no fact at all, but complete bunk. If you cannot account for all the genetic differences by use of your model that uses only mutation and selection, then the answer is clear. The model cannot account for all genetic differences. The model is insufficient. You cannot use the model to argue the impossibility of evolution. You have just proved wrong your entire premise and hung yourself with your own words.

End of story.

I'll get to the rest later. This looks like it will need to be a very long post, though I'm not sure there is much sense in continuing since even you seem to see that your argument is fundamentally flawed. An inadequate model is an inadequate model. The model (ev) was very good for what it was designed to to -- in fact I think it was brilliantly conceived -- but it is, even by your own admission, inadequate for the task you have set it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mutation and selection can accomplish small events such as drug resistance with microbes. There are real examples of these phenomena. However, to extrapolate these types of phenomena to the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans and chimps from a primate ancestor by mutation and selection has no mathematical foundation. You simply do not have sufficient number of generations and populations to accomplish all the genetic changes required. In the real world, the books have to balance. In addition to the fact that multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, there are no selection pressures that can evolve a gene from the beginning. You are the one ignoring the real world and you do this by extrapolating mutation and selection far beyond what it is mathematically capable of doing.


Load of bunk. Mutation and selection can accomplish small events, big events, grand events, deathly events, whatever. It all depends on what genes and gene networks are involved. You are again showing your incredibly one-dimensional view of the genome. Single base changes in regulatory genes or in regions for promoter or transcription factors can have a huge impact on morphology. It is absolute and complete misrepresentation to say anything else.

I am not extrapolating mutation and selection beyond what it is mathematically incapable of doing. You seem to have no grasp whatsoever of the actual genome of actual living beings. We have seen huge changes in organisms over time that you seem to think are impossible mathematically. Yet you do not fault the mathematical model? Why? Because you have a preset notion that evolution cannot occur. Schneider based his model on a subset of information from living creatures. He did not model the genomic behavior of all living beings. I'm sure we can contact him about this issue?

Hey, Paul, would you mind asking Schneider if he designed his model to cover all living beings?

You're beginning to screech, Dr. Kleinman. Your argument from a model against reality. That's a truly stupid thing to do.

Where is this mathematics of mutation and selection you are talking about?

Your biases are showing Dr. Kleinman. I said there were plenty of mathematical models of the current theory of evolution, not merely of mutation and selection. You, who are the mathematical genius of the century, are aware of all this work, are you not, Dr. Kleinman? I can barely read a paper on evolutionary theory without being inundated with mathematical modelling of this, that, and the other.

I have the mathematics of a peer reviewed and published computer model of mutation and natural selection. Now where is this mathematical cornucopia that forms the foundation of your theory?


You haven't read any of the literature, have you? OK, I'll start posting links in the morning as I pull up individual articles. How many do you want? There are mathematical models galore. You know this. Why are you acting dumb about it?

Crossing over does not increase information in a genome; it is simply a rearrangement of existing genes in the gene pool. You not created any new genes.


Pseudogenes, not previously expressed in an organism, now expressed in the presence of a promoter, repeat, rinse. Move transcription factor to new gene so that it is expressed in new milieu and suddenly the protein balance is changed. We're talking morphological changes here, Dr. Kleinman. You know, the stuff that natural selection actually works on.

What you continue to have difficulty with is the mathematics of mutation and selection. The massive number of differences between reptile and bird genomes can not be accomplished by mutation and selection. Not only is there no selection pressure that would do this, there is no way to account for all the required changes needed by mutation and selection.

Well gosh and golly jeepers, name me one person who actually thinks that all the changes between reptile and bird occurred by simplistic models of mutation and selection. I'd actually like to meet this mythical creature rarer than a phoenix-unicorn hybrid. Your mathematics are useless in this situation, Dr. Kleinman. Just how far do you intend to carry this straw man?

One unique gene difference between birds and reptiles is enough to prove the impossibility of evolution. What is the selection pressure that would evolve this unique gene?


What? I have no idea what you are on about now.

This seems to be the sum total of the evolutionist argument, you don’t know how it happened but you know it did. Well, I know it didn’t happen by mutation and selection, ev shows how slow this process is and that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible.

Well, isn't that nice. We agree on something. I know it didn't happen according to the simple outline you propose too. Evolution is much more complex than simple mutation and selection. There is no argument here.

What still hasn’t sunk in with you is that recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool and that recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information in the gene pool due to loss of alleles.


Oh, really? Yet up above you said that I should be arguing for recombination with selection for the development of the human brain. I guess the human brain is just a degenerate version of something that has lost information from that wonder of the world, the human-chimp common ancestor. I'll get the press on the line and let them know.

Really now, do you think this occurs with reproduction? You are now extrapolating the production of immunoglobins to reproduction. And do you want to explain how coping promoters all over the place speeds up the evolutionary process?


Didn't even mention immunoglobulins or hypervariable regions, but we could go there next. How do I explain it? I already have. You obviously didn't understand. Do you know what a promoter region is? Do you know what a transcription factor site is?

If a promoter is placed near a pseudo gene, then that pseudogene can lose its paltry pseudo status and join the rest of the club in the smoking car, the place where all the big boy genes hang out.

Copy a gene and you have two copies of the same gene. A new gene requires mutation. So now you have a copy of a gene that is slightly altered and low and behold, it performs an entirely new function like growing feathers on a lizard. It requires mutations to make a new gene and ev shows this is a profoundly slow process even if you have a selection process that could make the new gene and you don’t. You are in complete denial of the mathematics of mutation and selection and how it works. Study ev and learn how the mathematics of mutation and selection works instead of making your wild unscientific extrapolations.


I'm in complete denial of your lunacy for thinking you have "the mathematics of mutation and selection". Copy a gene and its expression can increase. It can also be associated with different transcription factors so that it is expressed at different times. You know, the whole proteomics bit. Making completely different morphologies -- having genes expressed in different places, different times.

And yes, single gene mutations in newly copied genes works too. But, again, there is no analogy to ev, since ev models numerous changes in the same place and all those changes have to fit a pre-determined state. The new mutation in a gene copy only has to advance survival. Ev does not model that behavior.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.


What an interesting just so story.

And if we begin with peptides that serve as templates for RNA? There is already a relationship between amino acid and RNA in that scenario. The other way around makes no sense -- starting with RNA and/or DNA and expecting it to code for an amino acid. That is a silly story.

Simple enough, tell us how recombination without error can create new genes and I’ll tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles. Of course you can’t tell us how recombination without error can create new genes but I can tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles.


Are you an ostrich with its head in the sand. I've already given you several scenarios for this and you pretend that I haven't. Try something new. Your screeching is growing old.

If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider. If you had read these threads you would have seen from the very beginning that I acknowledged that you can gain information by mutation and selection. The only shame in this is that you think you can understand the mathematics of mutation and selection without doing your homework. Read Dr Schneider’s works completely and read these threads completely, otherwise you reveal that you are superficial in your analysis, of course, that is the only type of analysis the theory of evolution can stand up to.

Um, no. I have read the paper completely, just today again. I see in it just how wrong you are, as reflected in some responses above. You, of course, will either not understand them or will pretend not to understand them, or will neglect the issue and continue to put your head in the sand. Whatever you want bro.

So, how about this. You publish this excellent work of yours. Put up now or shut up. You have the answer, so you think. It's time for peer review. I can't wait for the chuckles.

ETA

But, frankly, no one here needs me to repeat the same arguments that you have ignored since the beginning of this thread. This whole fiasco reads -- ev shows that evolution couldn't happen; no, you're wrong and here's the evidence to show where you are wrong; but ev shows that evolution couldn't happen; no, you're wrong and here's more evidence to show where you are wrong; rinse, repeat.

My only contribution was to argue against your use of HIV. I've served that purpose. You are now returning to arguments that began on page 2 of the thread and needn't be rehashed.

[BPScooter]

Peer review. A wonderful tradition. It works.

[Dr Adequate]

Now don’t forget to mention these quotes:

It seems Unnamed has abandoned this debate as well as his unrealistic selection scheme. He probably realized there is no way to select for a gene that is not functional.

What Unnamed is doing with his selection process is equivalent to setting the weight factor for spurious binding to zero. I point this out to Unnamed and we had the following exchange.

I think if you keep track of the value of valuation[p] in the following equation,
sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);
you will see that this number will be much larger in the binding site region due to the good match of the weight matrix. In the non-binding site region this value will remain small. You are effectively giving a higher weight to good mutations in the binding site region than to harmful mutations in the non-binding site region. You can achieve the same effect if you set the value for the variable gene=1 and nongene=0 and still sort on the variable “mistakes”.

Unnamed abandoned the discussion after this exchange. It seems that evolutionists don’t like the debate on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Of course selection pressures can have varying intensities. The way Paul has varied the intensity ignores the fact that highly potent selection pressures will suppress reproduction by increasing the death rate. Increasing selection pressures in ev does not affect death rates. In fact, if you increase the weights uniformly, you get the same generations for convergence no matter what the weights are. Intense selection pressures will slow evolution more, ev does not include this effect.

Reducing the number of selection pressures as Unnamed did does accelerate evolution.

Ev shows how microevolution occurs and that macroevolution is impossible. How does ev show this? It shows this by revealing how rapidly single selection conditions evolve even on longer genomes and how slowly multiple selection conditions evolve even on short genomes. There are numerous real examples of this.

Selection is a response to an external function. Turn off selection in ev and see what happens to Rseq.

Oh tell me why the stars do shine?

I don’t have a beef with Dr Schneider; in fact, I may be the last person on earth that believes he modeled mutation and selection properly. IDers questioned the validity of ev for years and now evolutionists are abandoning his work in droves including his own programmer. The only thing I take issue with Dr Schneider is his use of an extremely short genome and an extremely high mutation rate to estimate the rate of information gain for a human genome. This was a big boo boo. I actually think ev is a useful tool that can me modified to more exactly model HIV treatment and drug resistance.


Now if only ev showed this was mathematically possible.

Think of ev as an accounting tool. What ev does is keep track of beneficial, neutral and detrimental mutations. Sequencing of human and chimp DNA shows at least 35,000,000 base substitutions in the homologous regions of the genomes. You have about 500,000 generations to accomplish all these changes. Ev shows that even on short genomes, 500,000 generations are not sufficient to evolve binding sites (100 loci) on a 32k genome and human and chimp genomes number in the billions of base pairs. The mathematics just doesn’t work out.

Mutation and selection does not explain these differences. Does it require mutation and selection to achieve the changes you describe? Maybe you should argue these type of differences can be achieved with recombination and selection.

Mutation and selection is a bookkeeping problem. When you apply these rules of bookkeeping, you can not account for all the genetic differences between living things. In particular, multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical fact shown by ev and there are numerous real examples of this including the use of combination therapy to treat HIV.

Ev gives us a window on mutation and natural selection. You ought to take a look through this window.

Mutation and selection can accomplish small events such as drug resistance with microbes. There are real examples of these phenomena. However, to extrapolate these types of phenomena to the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans and chimps from a primate ancestor by mutation and selection has no mathematical foundation. You simply do not have sufficient number of generations and populations to accomplish all the genetic changes required. In the real world, the books have to balance. In addition to the fact that multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, there are no selection pressures that can evolve a gene from the beginning. You are the one ignoring the real world and you do this by extrapolating mutation and selection far beyond what it is mathematically capable of doing.

I did exactly what Dr Schneider suggested publicly and privately to me. I varied genome length, selection pressures, mutation rates, population as well as other parameters in his program. What it showed was that genome length and the number of selection pressures are the dominate variables in the mutation and selection process. There are many real examples which demonstrate this finding. Look through the window and see.

Where is this mathematics of mutation and selection you are talking about?

I have the mathematics of a peer reviewed and published computer model of mutation and natural selection. Now where is this mathematical cornucopia that forms the foundation of your theory?

Crossing over does not increase information in a genome; it is simply a rearrangement of existing genes in the gene pool. You not created any new genes.

What you continue to have difficulty with is the mathematics of mutation and selection. The massive number of differences between reptile and bird genomes can not be accomplished by mutation and selection. Not only is there no selection pressure that would do this, there is no way to account for all the required changes needed by mutation and selection. One unique gene difference between birds and reptiles is enough to prove the impossibility of evolution. What is the selection pressure that would evolve this unique gene?

This seems to be the sum total of the evolutionist argument, you don’t know how it happened but you know it did. Well, I know it didn’t happen by mutation and selection, ev shows how slow this process is and that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible.

What still hasn’t sunk in with you is that recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool and that recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information in the gene pool due to loss of alleles.

Really now, do you think this occurs with reproduction? You are now extrapolating the production of immunoglobins to reproduction. And do you want to explain how coping promoters all over the place speeds up the evolutionary process?

Copy a gene and you have two copies of the same gene. A new gene requires mutation. So now you have a copy of a gene that is slightly altered and low and behold, it performs an entirely new function like growing feathers on a lizard. It requires mutations to make a new gene and ev shows this is a profoundly slow process even if you have a selection process that could make the new gene and you don’t. You are in complete denial of the mathematics of mutation and selection and how it works. Study ev and learn how the mathematics of mutation and selection works instead of making your wild unscientific extrapolations.

I haven’t posted this for a while so for your benefit, I will repost why your concept is impossible.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

In which dimension do you dwell where recombination can create a new gene?

Simple enough, tell us how recombination without error can create new genes and I’ll tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles. Of course you can’t tell us how recombination without error can create new genes but I can tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles.


You really need to read beyond the abstract for this one, if you had you would have seen:

If you had investigated ev as Dr Schneider suggested, you would have more than a superficial understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection. Anything more than a superficial investigation of ev reveals the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution.

If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider. If you had read these threads you would have seen from the very beginning that I acknowledged that you can gain information by mutation and selection. The only shame in this is that you think you can understand the mathematics of mutation and selection without doing your homework. Read Dr Schneider’s works completely and read these threads completely, otherwise you reveal that you are superficial in your analysis, of course, that is the only type of analysis the theory of evolution can stand up to. No new lies here then.

We've debunked all this crap. Go back to the hind end of the bull and fetch us some more.

[Dr Adequate]

Interesting admission from kleinman here:

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.

If anyone's been getting the feeling that we're being spammed by an electronic lying machine devoid of knowledge and reason, that would be because we're being spammed by an electronic lying machine devoid of knowledge and reason.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, and this is the equation that does this:

sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);

valuation[p] (the value of the dot product of the weight matrix with the positions on the genome) will almost always be a small number in the nonbinding site region of the genome. This is equivalent of ignoring the spurious binding in the nonbinding site region.
Why do you always speak in absolutes when things aren't absolute? At the beginning of a run, the valuations of loci are almost immediately all less than the threshold. I'd be happy to discuss this further if someone can refresh my memory about Unnamed's selection method, but I don't think he's ignoring anything.


He must have meant that only variations that support the theory of evolution should be investigated. Paul, I love it when you squirm.
He must have meant that? You're a psychologist now?


Just what does ev show now? You certainly aren’t saying the same thing that the author of the program has said which is unfortunate because I think he got this mathematical model of mutation and selection correct. Since random point mutation and natural selection represents 1/100 of 1% of your theory of evolution, care to tell us what the other 99.99% is?
Everything else.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's really funny. Since the entire genome is being randomly mutated and selected for/against at the same time, but only the binding site region is being monitored for threshold bindings, why would any portion of the genome produce smaller or larger selective valuations?
No, every position in the entire genome is evaluated and used to tally mistakes.


And, if you run ev and look at the valuations in the non-binding site region, you will immediately recognize that there are just as many large valuations therein as occurs in the binding site region. So, your conclusion above is false. Unnamed's algorithm does not ignore the non-binding site region.
Now I'm confused. You appear to have contradicted yourself here.

I think I misunderstood what you wrote.

~~ Paul

[Mr. Scott]

Interesting admission from kleinman here:


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.


If anyone's been getting the feeling that we're being spammed by an electronic lying machine devoid of knowledge and reason, that would be because we're being spammed by an electronic lying machine devoid of knowledge and reason.

Very revealing! Kleinman is only a computer simulation/model of a creationist, and was never intended to model the whole landscape of creationist nonsense. That explains why he seems to be failing the Turning Test: no matter how much new information evolutionists present, he just keeps repeating the same old lies. He's a creationist-bot.

A very adequate catch, Dr.

[joobz]

Very revealing! Kleinman is only a computer simulation/model of a creationist, and was never intended to model the whole landscape of creationist nonsense. .
I don't know if that is true. It seems that the Kleinman Simulator is modeling the entire landscape of creationist thought. this is a much simulation task to acheive since you only need to code in "God did it."

Any new evidence that wasn't accounted for was because god did it and evidence doesn't matter.

[kjkent1]

No, every position in the entire genome is evaluated and used to tally mistakes.


Now I'm confused. You appear to have contradicted yourself here.

I think I misunderstood what you wrote.

~~ PaulI think I mis-wrote what you understood. Regardless, and contrary to kleinman's protestations, ev doesn't "effectively ignore" the non-binding site region -- either in it's original form, or with Unnamed's mods. Rather, both algorithms treat the entire genome identically.

[Ichneumonwasp]

As for mathematical models of the evolutionary landscape, here are a google search and a Pubmed search showing thousands. Most are not relevant but there are an obvious many that are:

Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mathematical+models+evolution&btnG=Google+Search)

Pubmed search (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed)

You have to sift through all the "social evolution" garbage, but there are plenty of applicable sources, especially those that relate to the mathematical modelling of alternative means of gaining information (other than mutation and selection).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have to sift through all the "social evolution" garbage, ...
Garbage, you say? :D Are you suggesting that human civilization is entirely a product of genetic evolution?

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

Garbage, you say? :D Are you suggesting that human civilization is entirely a product of genetic evolution?

~~ Paul

Why, how could you possibly come to any other conclusion?:)



It's true!;)

[Dr Adequate]

I just saw a creationist website telling me that the Greek for "serpent" is "spakov".

The whole of creationism is epitomised in that one word.

It made me think of kleinman immediately. Mathematics, computer science, evolution, genetics, thermodynamics --- it's all Greek to him. But he thinks he knows what it says.

[Mr. Scott]

Alan Kleinman has pasted a statement like "there is no selection process for evolving a gene de novo" perhaps a hundred times. I wonder if he would commit to that assertion that every gene in existence today or in the history of life on Earth was created by divine intervention (or perhaps now by human bio-engineering). If he would, then a single gene proven to have evolved naturally would shatter his entire creationist stance. I seem to recall someone posting a number of articles about actual de novo gene creation.

What do you think of this angle, guys? Has it been mathematically proven that all genes were deliberately engineered by god? One single verified exception and...

[Ichneumonwasp]

I had a revelation this weekend, during the fifty seventh trip wheelbarrowing 6 yards of mulch to the proper beds.

T.S. Eliot's poetry is not difficult. You simply need the proper way to look at it, much like Kleinman's view of evolution.

Look at "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock". It's all right there in the first stanza -- "evening is spread out against the sky like a patient etherised upon a table". It's obvious, "etherized". He was a couch potato. Women coming and going talking of Michelangelo? -- obviously objects of scorn and derision. Why else would he repeat that line over and over, almost hypnotically? Coming and going, no way. He wanted to stay on the divan.

You know, Eliot always feared that he drove Vivien mad. I think he did.

Vivien: Tom, the crocuses need planting.
Tom: I'll get to it, dear.
Vivien: Tom, dearest, did you rake the leaves?
Tom: I'll get to it, dear.

Think about "The Wasteland"? You needn't sift through the arcane references to vegation myths and fisher kings and Madame Sosostris' this and that. It's all right there in the first line -- "April is the cruellest month".

T.S. Eliot hated gardening. All of his poetry concerns this intense hatred of gardening. He drove his wife mad because of his hatred of gardening.

I think I have a new appreciation for the old boy. I'll be publishing in "Poetry Quarterly" later this year. It's all so obvious to me now.

[Dr Adequate]

Alan Kleinman has pasted a statement like "there is no selection process for evolving a gene de novo" perhaps a hundred times. I wonder if he would commit to that assertion that every gene in existence today or in the history of life on Earth was created by divine intervention (or perhaps now by human bio-engineering). If he would, then a single gene proven to have evolved naturally would shatter his entire creationist stance. I seem to recall someone posting a number of articles about actual de novo gene creation. It's in the FAQ: see my sig for details.

[Mr. Scott]

It's in the FAQ: see my sig for details.

Read through your FAQ again and laughed out loud several times. Thanks!

Also, I particularly liked the artice THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES: GLIMPSES FROM THE YOUNG AND OLD (http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/betran/naturereviews.pdf) which has so many beautifully detailed examples and even observed instances of spontaneous de novo gene creation. I think creationists are obliged to dispute the article point by point to remain in the game.

[kleinman]

Ugh, Dr. Kleinman, you've become boring again. You've reverted to your original goalpost lies which have already been exposed and discounted.
Pardon me; I will try to comply with the wishes of a myopic evolutionist. Are there any other kinds of evolutionists but myopic evolutionists? Since you are having trouble seeing the goalposts, I have decided to introduce a visual aid to help you with your myopia.

********************************************
* *
* |M| |I| *
* |A| |T| *
* |T|____________________________|S| *
* |H Multiple Selection Pressures | *
* |E| |I| *
* |M| |M| *
* |A| |P| *
* |T| |O| *
* |I| |S| *
* |C| |S| *
* |A| |I| *
* |L| |B| *
* |L| |L| *
* _|Y|_ ___|E|___ *
* slows evolution *
* *
* This is what ev shows. *
* This is what reality shows. *
********************************************

Do you want to borrow the Hubble telescope in order to see the goalposts?
Please be a little more inventive. Otherwise, this thread will die.
Didn’t you know? The theory of evolution is already dead, ev shows this and reality shows this. There are only a few components of the theory useful as cadaver transplants to a real scientific and mathematical theory of mutation and selection.
It's really a pity that you don't take anyone seriously other than yourself. You might actually help make a contribution to society, if you weren't so dead set on trying to overcome your self esteem issues.
That’s not an accurate statement kjkent1. I take Dr Schneider’s ev work very seriously. It is the best mathematical model of mutation and selection available and it properly captures the mathematics of mutation and selection. Now your string cheese theory of evolution I also take seriously, that is seriously silly.
Think of ev as an accounting tool. What ev does is keep track of beneficial, neutral and detrimental mutations. Sequencing of human and chimp DNA shows at least 35,000,000 base substitutions in the homologous regions of the genomes. You have about 500,000 generations to accomplish all these changes. Ev shows that even on short genomes, 500,000 generations are not sufficient to evolve binding sites (100 loci) on a 32k genome and human and chimp genomes number in the billions of base pairs. The mathematics just doesn’t work out.Last time I checked you said that we should not compare apples and oranges, but that is precisely what you are doing.
Really, what’s the problem with comparing mutation and selection with mutation and selection? You were trying to compare one generation of HIV with millions of reproductions of the virus with one generation of ev with a single reproduction of the genome. Ev shows how slow the mathematics of mutation and selection is for short genomes, do think the rates of evolution accelerate on longer genomes? If you do, you are completely ignorant of the mathematics of mutation and selection.
Ev begins with random "bases" in no particular order and evolves sequences that fit predefined binding site information. It begins from scratch, so to speak, and moves toward a defined pre-set goal (as a way to determine the emergence of information).
So what is your point? The primordial world began with all kinds of sequences of bases with all kinds of information? Or is your point that if you have no pre-set goal, randomly mixing chemicals gives you life? Ev demonstrates exactly how mutation and selection works. It is a slow process that becomes even slower as you add more selection pressures. Perhaps you would tell us what the selection pressure is that transformed reptiles into birds? Or was it numerous selection pressures?
The change from chimp to human begins with approximately 25,000 to 35,000 already pre-existing genes. A small number of those genes change over time, with most of the alterations occurring in regulatory regions or in feedback loops concerned with the timing of gene expression during development. There is no "de novo evolution of binding sites". The alterations occur and if they allow more offspring to survive, then they are expressed at higher frequency. Many of the changes were in gene deletions or gene duplications with and without modification. A simple gene duplication near a promoter that is active at a different time of development you would see as no new information (same gene), but the reality is that considerable morphological change can occur with gene expressions at different times (see bone morphogenic protein for a stark example). Other changes are single base substitutions, as with FOXP2, not the evolution of completely novel binding sites from scratch using a simple mutation and selection. The comparison with ev is absolute and complete bunk. Analogies don't work when they are not analogous.
You are demonstrating the fundamental erroneous assumption from the theory of evolution. Just because living things have genetic similarities does not prove the theory of evolution. You have to show how the transformations by mutation and selection can be accomplished in the time available. This is how precise scientific and mathematical accounting is done. We know that there are at least 10’s of millions of different base differences between human and chimp genomes and that is just in the portions of the genomes that demonstrate homology. You don’t prove your theory with your sloppy speculations.
Ev basically models what the early biosphere could have been like. It has set genome lengths and only allows mutations with no other sharing of genetic material between varying entities. Yet, under these extremely restricted conditions, it shows that information can develop over time. It's relationship to evolution of primates or any animal -- almost zero.
Ev models the fundamental mechanism of mutation and selection and there are numerous real examples that we see today which show that Dr Schneider properly modeled this mechanism. What his model shows is that evolution by this process is profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures. Are you saying that mutation and selection was different in the early biosphere than it is now? If you are, you are ignoring reality.
Mutation and selection does not explain these differences. Does it require mutation and selection to achieve the changes you describe? Maybe you should argue these type of differences can be achieved with recombination and selection.What is your point? You recently told me that no new information could arise from recombination and selection. Yet now you wish to tell me that increased brain size and new communications abilities arise from the very situation that you earlier claimed could not create information? What?
The point is that you evolutionists confuse the mathematical behavior of mutation and natural selection and recombination and natural selection. Recombination and natural selection can achieve rapid morphological changes in short periods of time. Consider the example of canine evolution by recombination and natural selection. You have large morphological differences (including brain size) in a very small number of generations but despite all these morphological changes, they are all still dogs. Stephen J Gould made this same error with his concept of punctuated equilibrium. This concept is applicable to recombination and natural selection not to mutation and natural selection. Darwin made the same error with his observation of finch beaks. The variations in finch beaks were due to recombination events, not due to mutation events. You can not extrapolate these types of events to the transformation of reptiles to birds or humans and chimps from a primate precursor; you don’t have the mathematical scientific basis to do this. Mutation and selection is a far slower process than recombination and selection. Mutation and selection can create new information, recombination and selection does not.
So, let's look at the actual information. FOXP2 underwent a base substitution to become the new gene that it is. So, whoops, mutation and selection can account for that change. The protocadherin story is more complicated but may well simply result from mutation as well. There are desert regions surrounding the gene family that are thought to be involved in regulatory functions. They are probably transcription factor binding sites, etc. that are involved in regulating the expression of this and other local genes. The change in protocadhedrin is not in the protein itself -- that is conserved -- but in those regulatory regions that are considered otherwise non-coding, changing the expression of this protein during development. The big changes between chimp and human brain are in the networks of proteins involved in the developmental process. If you only look at the genes and do not consider the local milieu or the extraordinary differences that arise from alternative splicing the you only will see a bare fraction of what is responsible for the difference between us and chimps.
One speculation after another, is that your idea of a scientific proof?
Mutation and selection is a bookkeeping problem. When you apply these rules of bookkeeping, you can not account for all the genetic differences between living things. In particular, multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical fact shown by ev and there are numerous real examples of this including the use of combination therapy to treat HIV.So, you've just shot yourself in the foot? Yes, mutation and selection cannot account for all the genetic differences between living things. That is one of the things I am trying to tell you. Thank you for arguing my side. What this shows is that your "mathematical fact" of ev is no fact at all, but complete bunk. If you cannot account for all the genetic differences by use of your model that uses only mutation and selection, then the answer is clear. The model cannot account for all genetic differences. The model is insufficient. You cannot use the model to argue the impossibility of evolution. You have just proved wrong your entire premise and hung yourself with your own words.
If you can’t account for all the genetic differences between living things by mutation and selection, I haven’t shot myself in the foot; I have shot the theory of evolution in the heart. How are you going to account for these differences?
End of story.
End of the story for the theory of evolution.
I'll get to the rest later. This looks like it will need to be a very long post, though I'm not sure there is much sense in continuing since even you seem to see that your argument is fundamentally flawed. An inadequate model is an inadequate model. The model (ev) was very good for what it was designed to to -- in fact I think it was brilliantly conceived -- but it is, even by your own admission, inadequate for the task you have set it.
You have no shortage for words; you do have a shortage of mathematics. The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant of the mathematics of mutation and selection and that you think you know more about the mathematics of mutation and selection than Dr Schneider and the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research.
Mutation and selection can accomplish small events such as drug resistance with microbes. There are real examples of these phenomena. However, to extrapolate these types of phenomena to the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans and chimps from a primate ancestor by mutation and selection has no mathematical foundation. You simply do not have sufficient number of generations and populations to accomplish all the genetic changes required. In the real world, the books have to balance. In addition to the fact that multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, there are no selection pressures that can evolve a gene from the beginning. You are the one ignoring the real world and you do this by extrapolating mutation and selection far beyond what it is mathematically capable of doing.Load of bunk. Mutation and selection can accomplish small events, big events, grand events, deathly events, whatever. It all depends on what genes and gene networks are involved. You are again showing your incredibly one-dimensional view of the genome. Single base changes in regulatory genes or in regions for promoter or transcription factors can have a huge impact on morphology. It is absolute and complete misrepresentation to say anything else.
You have a zero-dimensional view of the mathematics of mutation and selection. If you had any knowledge of the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize that multiple selection pressures slow the process. You think your speculations will overcome this mathematical fact. Do you think that single base changes in regulatory genes caused the transformation of reptiles to birds? What a strange and contorted view of reality you evolutionists have.
I am not extrapolating mutation and selection beyond what it is mathematically incapable of doing. You seem to have no grasp whatsoever of the actual genome of actual living beings. We have seen huge changes in organisms over time that you seem to think are impossible mathematically. Yet you do not fault the mathematical model? Why? Because you have a preset notion that evolution cannot occur. Schneider based his model on a subset of information from living creatures. He did not model the genomic behavior of all living beings. I'm sure we can contact him about this issue?
Of course you are extrapolating mutation and selection beyond what it is capable of doing. This is a simple bookkeeping problem. You have to account for the differences between the genomes of living things and the mathematics of mutation of selection can not do this. It is you who has the preset notion about evolution and that mutation and selection can accomplish these huge genetic transformations in limited time. You have no mathematical scientific basis for this belief.
Hey, Paul, would you mind asking Schneider if he designed his model to cover all living beings?
Yes Paul, ask Dr Schneider what he has advertised ev to model? In particular, ask him what he was trying to do when he computed the amount of time to evolve a human genome.
You're beginning to screech, Dr. Kleinman. Your argument from a model against reality. That's a truly stupid thing to do.
Oh really, ev doesn’t show how mutation and selection works and that multiple selection pressures slows evolution? Well let’s see, combination therapy of HIV demonstrates this, combination therapy of TB demonstrates this, combination pesticides demonstrates this, combination, combination herbicides demonstrates this, combination rodenticides demonstrates this and let’s not forget that combination cancer therapies demonstrates this. Of course, you have all kinds of mathematical scientific proof that Barney evolved to Big Bird. You are really smart Ichneumonwasp. Too bad that doesn’t extend to the mathematics of mutation and selection.
Where is this mathematics of mutation and selection you are talking about?Your biases are showing Dr. Kleinman. I said there were plenty of mathematical models of the current theory of evolution, not merely of mutation and selection. You, who are the mathematical genius of the century, are aware of all this work, are you not, Dr. Kleinman? I can barely read a paper on evolutionary theory without being inundated with mathematical modelling of this, that, and the other.
That’s very interesting, does all this mathematical modeling include the modeling of mutation and selection?
I have the mathematics of a peer reviewed and published computer model of mutation and natural selection. Now where is this mathematical cornucopia that forms the foundation of your theory?You haven't read any of the literature, have you? OK, I'll start posting links in the morning as I pull up individual articles. How many do you want? There are mathematical models galore. You know this. Why are you acting dumb about it?
Feel free to point us to models of mutation and selection that prove your point. As it stands, it appears you don’t understand ev yet. If you did, you would understand how the mathematics of mutation and selection works.
Crossing over does not increase information in a genome; it is simply a rearrangement of existing genes in the gene pool. You not created any new genes.Pseudogenes, not previously expressed in an organism, now expressed in the presence of a promoter, repeat, rinse. Move transcription factor to new gene so that it is expressed in new milieu and suddenly the protein balance is changed. We're talking morphological changes here, Dr. Kleinman. You know, the stuff that natural selection actually works on.
So are you arguing this is how reptiles evolved to birds? How did all these pseudogenes come into existence? What is the selection pressure that gives rise to pseudogenes?
What you continue to have difficulty with is the mathematics of mutation and selection. The massive number of differences between reptile and bird genomes can not be accomplished by mutation and selection. Not only is there no selection pressure that would do this, there is no way to account for all the required changes needed by mutation and selection.Well gosh and golly jeepers, name me one person who actually thinks that all the changes between reptile and bird occurred by simplistic models of mutation and selection. I'd actually like to meet this mythical creature rarer than a phoenix-unicorn hybrid. Your mathematics are useless in this situation, Dr. Kleinman. Just how far do you intend to carry this straw man?
Oh, now I understand your theory of evolution. Reptiles evolved to birds by a complex, mathematically inexplicable mechanism. How could anyone doubt your scientific explanations of the theory of evolution?
One unique gene difference between birds and reptiles is enough to prove the impossibility of evolution. What is the selection pressure that would evolve this unique gene?What? I have no idea what you are on about now.
What is the selection pressure that would evolve a gene from the beginning?
This seems to be the sum total of the evolutionist argument, you don’t know how it happened but you know it did. Well, I know it didn’t happen by mutation and selection, ev shows how slow this process is and that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible.Well, isn't that nice. We agree on something. I know it didn't happen according to the simple outline you propose too. Evolution is much more complex than simple mutation and selection. There is no argument here.
Yes, we all now know that the theory of evolution is explained by a complex, mathematically inexplicable mechanism. Your inexplicable explanations obscurely clarify your consistently illogical theory. Is this the best argument for your theory of evolution, which is it is mathematically inexplicable?
What still hasn’t sunk in with you is that recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool and that recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information in the gene pool due to loss of alleles.Oh, really? Yet up above you said that I should be arguing for recombination with selection for the development of the human brain. I guess the human brain is just a degenerate version of something that has lost information from that wonder of the world, the human-chimp common ancestor. I'll get the press on the line and let them know.
Recombination and natural selection is a rapid mathematical (microevolutionary) mechanism. This is a sorting problem with far fewer items (alleles) to sort where as mutation and selection is a far slower mathematical (microevolutionary) mechanism. This is a sorting problem with far more items (mutations) to sort.
Really now, do you think this occurs with reproduction? You are now extrapolating the production of immunoglobins to reproduction. And do you want to explain how coping promoters all over the place speeds up the evolutionary process?Didn't even mention immunoglobulins or hypervariable regions, but we could go there next. How do I explain it? I already have. You obviously didn't understand. Do you know what a promoter region is? Do you know what a transcription factor site is?
Now you make this ridiculous extrapolation. Why do children have to be immunized if parents have been immunized?
If a promoter is placed near a pseudo gene, then that pseudogene can lose its paltry pseudo status and join the rest of the club in the smoking car, the place where all the big boy genes hang out.
Oh, now I understand how reptiles evolved into birds.
Copy a gene and you have two copies of the same gene. A new gene requires mutation. So now you have a copy of a gene that is slightly altered and low and behold, it performs an entirely new function like growing feathers on a lizard. It requires mutations to make a new gene and ev shows this is a profoundly slow process even if you have a selection process that could make the new gene and you don’t. You are in complete denial of the mathematics of mutation and selection and how it works. Study ev and learn how the mathematics of mutation and selection works instead of making your wild unscientific extrapolations.I'm in complete denial of your lunacy for thinking you have "the mathematics of mutation and selection". Copy a gene and its expression can increase. It can also be associated with different transcription factors so that it is expressed at different times. You know, the whole proteomics bit. Making completely different morphologies -- having genes expressed in different places, different times.
Let’s not forget that you have the inexplicably complex mathematics to explain your theory. Dr Schneider’s simple mathematics which shows that multiple selection pressures slow evolution can not stand up to your inexplicably complex mathematics. Are different transcription factors the new inexplicable explanation for the evolution of reptiles to birds?
And yes, single gene mutations in newly copied genes works too. But, again, there is no analogy to ev, since ev models numerous changes in the same place and all those changes have to fit a pre-determined state. The new mutation in a gene copy only has to advance survival. Ev does not model that behavior.
Oh, now gene duplication is your inexplicable explanation for the evolution of reptiles to birds? Could you explain to us the selection pressure that gave the original gene?
A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.What an interesting just so story.
I’m sure you have an inexplicably complex explanation for how this all happened.
And if we begin with peptides that serve as templates for RNA? There is already a relationship between amino acid and RNA in that scenario. The other way around makes no sense -- starting with RNA and/or DNA and expecting it to code for an amino acid. That is a silly story.
Are you ready to give us your inexplicable explanation for what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? I’d like to hear your inexplicable explanation for what helicase and gyrase were doing.
Simple enough, tell us how recombination without error can create new genes and I’ll tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles. Of course you can’t tell us how recombination without error can create new genes but I can tell you how recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles.Are you an ostrich with its head in the sand. I've already given you several scenarios for this and you pretend that I haven't. Try something new. Your screeching is growing old.
Which one of your scenarios gives us the inexplicable explanation of how a gene evolved from the beginning? The only hole in the sand we have is the one where we are burying the remains of the theory of evolution.
If you had read the paper beyond the abstract you would realize that you are limiting the scope of ev because it suits your belief system, not because that was the intention of Dr Schneider. If you had read these threads you would have seen from the very beginning that I acknowledged that you can gain information by mutation and selection. The only shame in this is that you think you can understand the mathematics of mutation and selection without doing your homework. Read Dr Schneider’s works completely and read these threads completely, otherwise you reveal that you are superficial in your analysis, of course, that is the only type of analysis the theory of evolution can stand up to.Um, no. I have read the paper completely, just today again. I see in it just how wrong you are, as reflected in some responses above. You, of course, will either not understand them or will pretend not to understand them, or will neglect the issue and continue to put your head in the sand. Whatever you want bro.
Then why do you ask Paul what Dr Schneider’s intention for ev are? Dr Schneider clearly published his intentions for ev. I wonder why Dr Schneider is not still advertising his model.
So, how about this. You publish this excellent work of yours. Put up now or shut up. You have the answer, so you think. It's time for peer review. I can't wait for the chuckles.
Now this is not a very nice thing to say about James Randi Educational forum. You don’t think this is a valid place to discuss these ideas? You don’t seem to value the peer review process of the editors of Nucleic Acids Research did for the ev computer model. You discredit Dr Schneider’s work which he describes as realistic and which went through a peer review process. Which mathematically challenged evolutionists peer reviewers do you suggest I use.
But, frankly, no one here needs me to repeat the same arguments that you have ignored since the beginning of this thread. This whole fiasco reads -- ev shows that evolution couldn't happen; no, you're wrong and here's the evidence to show where you are wrong; but ev shows that evolution couldn't happen; no, you're wrong and here's more evidence to show where you are wrong; rinse, repeat.
And ev shows why it couldn’t happen. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. Mutation and selection is a profoundly slow mechanism for change and information acquisition. Evolutionists have inappropriately extrapolated this mechanism to the huge number of genetic changes required to make the transformation of reptiles to birds or humans and chimpanzees from a primate precursor. You simply do not have enough generations to accomplish the huge number of genetic changes. Of course you have an inexplicably complex explanation of how it does occur. Now that works as well as kjkent1’s string cheese theory of evolution.
My only contribution was to argue against your use of HIV. I've served that purpose. You are now returning to arguments that began on page 2 of the thread and needn't be rehashed.
And your argument against my use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV as an example of how multiple selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of the virus completely failed. Ev demonstrates how multiple selection pressures slow evolution and combination therapy for the treatment of HIV demonstrates this in reality. Of course, your argument that the evolution of reptiles to birds by an inexplicably complex mathematical mechanism is a striking example of the power of evolutionary logic. I put this argument on par with the string cheese theory of evolution.
Peer review. A wonderful tradition. It works.
And what is your problem with writing about this topic in the James Randi Educational Forum? You don’t show much respect for the ev model despite the fact that it was peer reviewed.
Yes, and this is the equation that does this:

sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);

valuation[p] (the value of the dot product of the weight matrix with the positions on the genome) will almost always be a small number in the nonbinding site region of the genome. This is equivalent of ignoring the spurious binding in the nonbinding site region.Why do you always speak in absolutes when things aren't absolute? At the beginning of a run, the valuations of loci are almost immediately all less than the threshold. I'd be happy to discuss this further if someone can refresh my memory about Unnamed's selection method, but I don't think he's ignoring anything.
Here are the changes Unnamed made to ev:
// This constructor is used to create creatures at the beginning
// of a run. Each creature's chromosome is random.
@@ -710,19 +710,25 @@

gene = param.getInt(Param.spuriousGene),
nongene = param.getInt(Param.spuriousNongene);

- mistakes = spuriousHits = 0;
+ float sv;
+ sv = mistakes = spuriousHits = 0;
for (int p = 0; p <= chromosome.length - width; ++p) {
if ((valuation[p] = siteValuation(p, width)) >= threshold) {
if (!siteInd[p]) {
if (p < availablePos) mistakes += gene; else mistakes += nongene;
+ sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);
++spuriousHits;
}
} else {
- if (siteInd[p]) mistakes += missed;
+ if (siteInd[p]) {
+ mistakes += missed;
+ sv += Math.abs(valuation[p] - threshold);
+ }
}
}

- sortValue = mistakes; // We will sort on the mistake
+ sortValue = (int)(Math.min(sv, Integer.MAX_VALUE));
+ //sortValue = mistakes; // We will sort on the mistake
// count, unless randomized.
}
Why don’t you post a version of ev with these changes online so everyone can study the behavior of these changes?
He must have meant that only variations that support the theory of evolution should be investigated. Paul, I love it when you squirm.He must have meant that? You're a psychologist now?
Paul, Dr Schneider was quite clear what he intended ev to be used for when he said the following:
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.
You don’t have to be a psychologist to understand what Dr Schneider was saying here. When you study the behavior of these parameters you find the following:

Population sizes reduce the generations for convergence but at a decreasing rate with increasing population.

Genome length increases the generations for convergence at an increasing rate with increasing population.

Number of sites has a slight decreasing effect on the generations for convergence.

Size of recognition region has only a small effect on the generations for convergence except that it appears that larger recognition regions allow larger genomes to converge.

Mutation rate has a paraboloid behavior when tested over a wide range but with realistic mutation rates the behavior is fairly linear. That is mutation rate is inversely proportional to the generations to the generations for convergence.

Selection pressures, ev converges much more rapidly with single selection pressures than with all three selection pressures.

Overlapping sites were not investigated. Hey Ichneumonwasp, maybe that’s how reptiles evolved into birds.
Just what does ev show now? You certainly aren’t saying the same thing that the author of the program has said which is unfortunate because I think he got this mathematical model of mutation and selection correct. Since random point mutation and natural selection represents 1/100 of 1% of your theory of evolution, care to tell us what the other 99.99% is?Everything else.
That must be the inexplicably complex mathematical stuff that Ichneumonwasp is talking about.
Very revealing! Kleinman is only a computer simulation/model of a creationist, and was never intended to model the whole landscape of creationist nonsense. That explains why he seems to be failing the Turning Test: no matter how much new information evolutionists present, he just keeps repeating the same old lies. He's a creationist-bot.
Just call me HAL, pussycat.
It seems that the Kleinman Simulator is modeling the entire landscape of creationist thought. this is a much simulation task to acheive since you only need to code in "God did it."
I keep telling you that I am not proving that “God did it.” I’m only showing you that “evolution didn’t do it.” As a little bonus, we are learning how mutation and selection really works. We need to thank Dr Schneider for his very good peer reviewed mathematical model of mutation and selection and Paul’s very good online java version of the model. Now if we can only get you evolutionists to believe your own model.
You have to sift through all the "social evolution" garbage, but there are plenty of applicable sources, especially those that relate to the mathematical modelling of alternative means of gaining information (other than mutation and selection).
So not only do I have to sift through your stuff, I have to sift through all this stuff? You are the one who said there are all kinds of mathematics that supports your arguments of mutation and selection. Post a URL and quotes from the URL that support your arguments.
Also, I particularly liked the artice THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES: GLIMPSES FROM THE YOUNG AND OLD which has so many beautifully detailed examples and even observed instances of spontaneous de novo gene creation. I think creationists are obliged to dispute the article point by point to remain in the game.
Ok, let’s start with this one:
De novo origination: a coding region originates from a previously non-coding
genomic region
and this:
Rare for whole gene origination; might not be rare for partial gene origination
I think evolutionists need to explain point by point how the original hemoglobin gene, insulin gene, Krebs cycle genes, coagulation cascade genes, DNA replicase genes… arose de novo in order to remain in the game. Is that fair pussycat?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really, what’s the problem with comparing mutation and selection with mutation and selection?

What's the problem with comparing a generation and a generation?

You were trying to compare one generation of HIV with millions of reproductions of the virus with one generation of ev with a single reproduction of the genome.

No, I wasn't. I was pointing out the errors in your logic. You're just comparing mutation and selection. OK. I'm just comparing generation and generation. Same words, different ideas behind what actually transpires.

So what is your point? The primordial world began with all kinds of sequences of bases with all kinds of information?

My point is that ev models a possibility at the onset of life, not the creation of new information in already existing genes that need to alter to escape a particular selection pressure. How could you fail to see that? You are comparing apples and oranges.

HIV and three selection pressures cannot be modelled by ev. We leave aside again the issue of there being more than three selection pressures and concentrate on triple therapy and its effect on HIV. When triple therapy is used and the potency of that therapy is not terrible great, resistance develops and it develops relatively quickly. Resistance develops by mutations within an already existing gene that must alter in a few places in order to escape the applied selection pressures. This is not what ev models.

Ev begins with random bases and demonstrates that pre-defined information can be created by the same forces that result in drug resistance for HIV.

Apples. Oranges. You lose.

[kleinman]

The forum editor modified the goalposts so here it is again in proper format.
******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

[kleinman]

Really, what’s the problem with comparing mutation and selection with mutation and selection?What's the problem with comparing a generation and a generation?
It’s a huge problem comparing generation with generation when one generation of HIV has up to 10^9 reproductions and ev’s generation has only a single reproduction per creature. One point mutation in ev is equivalent to one point mutation in an HIV virus.
You were trying to compare one generation of HIV with millions of reproductions of the virus with one generation of ev with a single reproduction of the genome.No, I wasn't. I was pointing out the errors in your logic. You're just comparing mutation and selection. OK. I'm just comparing generation and generation. Same words, different ideas behind what actually transpires.
It is your logic and language that is inconsistent. What you are describing as a generation with HIV is not mathematically equivalent to a generation with ev, however a point mutation of an HIV virus is equivalent to a point mutation in ev. You have to take into account that a generation with HIV has up to 10^9 viral reproductions. You can’t use semantics to alter the mathematics of mutation and selection.
So what is your point? The primordial world began with all kinds of sequences of bases with all kinds of information?My point is that ev models a possibility at the onset of life, not the creation of new information in already existing genes that need to alter to escape a particular selection pressure. How could you fail to see that? You are comparing apples and oranges.
Ev models the mathematics of mutation and selection. It shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process and there are numerous real examples of this phenomenon. This is how mutation and selection works.
HIV and three selection pressures cannot be modelled by ev. We leave aside again the issue of there being more than three selection pressures and concentrate on triple therapy and its effect on HIV. When triple therapy is used and the potency of that therapy is not terrible great, resistance develops and it develops relatively quickly. Resistance develops by mutations within an already existing gene that must alter in a few places in order to escape the applied selection pressures. This is not what ev models.
Ev models three selection pressures, they are missed binding sites where they should be constitutes an error which affects the fitness of that creature to reproduce, spurious binding sites in the gene region which constitutes an error which affects the fitness of that creature to reproduce and spurious binding sites in the non-binding site region which constitutes an error which affects the fitness of that creature to reproduce. Set any two of the three selection conditions to zero and the remaining selection condition evolve much more quickly than all three selection conditions simultaneously. None of these selection conditions cause extinction. This is exactly analogous to combination therapy to treat HIV vs monotherapy. In the former, the evolution of resistant strains of the virus is much slower than the evolution of resistance to monotherapy alone. Ev and combination therapy of HIV are analogous cases of mutation and selection. Ev is a mathematical simulation and combination therapy of HIV is a real case of this phenomenon.
Ev begins with random bases and demonstrates that pre-defined information can be created by the same forces that result in drug resistance for HIV.
It doesn’t matter that ev starts with a random genome. What matters is that at the end of the selection process you have sequences of bases that satisfy the selection conditions. What ev shows is that satisfying all three selection conditions simultaneously slows the evolution process. You don’t understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. You aren’t even in the game yet.

[Ichneumonwasp]

So what is your point? The primordial world began with all kinds of sequences of bases with all kinds of information?

That was the whole friggin' point.

If you want to compare what ev does to the "reality" of HIV and triple therapy, then HIV would be required to create de novo all of its genes in the presence of three selection pressures. That is what ev models.

HIV already has its genes. It only has to solve the problem of three selection pressures applied to one, or two depending on the regimen, issues. That is the case with almost everything in evolution -- solving one problem at a time (that is, if we define a selection pressure as a problem), not recreating a new genome with every "experiment".

Apples. Oranges.

ETA
There are two big issues. The one is that generally only one or two sites change in any length of time in nature, not multiple sites over the genome. The other is that the site changes in evolution only need to escape the selection pressure. They needn't look like a pre-arranged "binding site".

[kleinman]

So what is your point? The primordial world began with all kinds of sequences of bases with all kinds of information?That was the whole friggin' point.
Did all this information come about by selection or are we talking about random combinations of bases?
If you want to compare what ev does to the "reality" of HIV and triple therapy, then HIV would be required to create de novo all of its genes in the presence of three selection pressures. That is what ev models.
Why would you assume that? According to Paul, ev does not even evolve binding sites de novo.
HIV already has its genes. It only has to solve the problem of three selection pressures applied to one, or two depending on the regimen, issues. That is the case with almost everything in evolution -- solving one problem at a time, not recreating a new genome with every "experiment".
Where did you come up with this notion? There are numerous selection pressures acting on living things all the time. If you think evolution only has to solve one problem at a time, describe the problem of evolving a reptile to a bird.

You still have no idea of the mathematics of mutation and selection. I’m not sure whether it’s because the mathematics of ev is too difficult for you to understand or whether it’s due to you are in denial of what it shows.
Apples. Oranges.
The theory of evolution is that, nuttier than a fruit cake.
There are two big issues. The one is that generally only one or two sites change in any length of time in nature, not multiple sites over the genome. The other is that the site changes in evolution only need to escape the selection pressure. They needn't look like a pre-arranged "binding site".
You are correct that there are two big issues but you are wrong about what they are. The two big issues are the number of selection pressures, the more pressures the slower the evolutionary process and the other is the genome length, the longer the genome, the slower the evolutionary process.

If a binding site does not change in nature over time it most likely due to that creature being selected out immediately if the site is altered. What makes you think any mutation escapes the effects of selection?

[kjkent1]

That’s not an accurate statement kjkent1. I take Dr Schneider’s ev work very seriously. It is the best mathematical model of mutation and selection available and it properly captures the mathematics of mutation and selection. Now your string cheese theory of evolution I also take seriously, that is seriously silly.You have an poor understanding of the important distinctions between the terms "serious" vs. "silly," in my view.

Ev does capture the basic mathematics of mutation and selection. However, ev does not model any mutational mechanisms other than random point mutation, and ev does not make any attempt to accurately weight the selective value of any mutations which occur, based upon how such mutations would affect a real-world living organism.

And, without both of the above-stated issues being resolved, it is unscientific for you to conclude that ev is too slow.

Considering your esteemed credentials, I wonder why you would voluntarily choose to draw an unscientific conclusion. Perhaps, because you have a personal bias?

You may respond that Dr. Schneider has drawn similar unscientific conclusions. However, that is irrelevant. If you value the scientific method, and you believe that Dr. Schneider has been unscientific in his approach, then your goal should be to demonstrate why Schneider's approach is unscientific -- not to use what you view as his unscientific behavior to justify your own similar actions.

To the extent that ev is too slow, using random point mutation and a very simple selective method, I would agree with you that the conclusion that ev proves the entire human genome could evolve within the time available since life purportedly appeared on Earth, is a stretch.

However, the stated purpose of ev in the NAR paper was to demonstrate information gain, via random mutation and natural selection, and you admit that ev does prove this.

That really should end the discussion. However, you continue to try to extrapolate ev to disprove all evolution as impossible. This activity is unscientific, unless you first accurately model all of the other mutational mechanisms and selective behaviors -- and ev remains too slow.

Your conclusion is simply unsubstantiated, because you haven't done any science to support it. Meanwhile, your competitors continue to do research and publish their findings. So, while you sit alone in your room, certain that you have entirely destroyed the theory of evolution, in reality, you fall further and further behind in the race.

And, that, my friend, is REALLY silly.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Did all this information come about by selection or are we talking about random combinations of bases?


I haven't the slightest idea how you are making the connections that you seem to be making. The whole friggin' point is that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Why would you assume that? According to Paul, ev does not even evolve binding sites de novo.

I'm not assuming it. That is what ev does. It begins with random collections of bases and evolves information in pre-specified sites. What constitutes information is a site that can bind a pre-selected signal. The analogy with HIV would be the de novo creation of new genes, not the alteration of an already existing one.

Where did you come up with this notion? There are numerous selection pressures acting on living things all the time. If you think evolution only has to solve one problem at a time, describe the problem of evolving a reptile to a bird.


We aren't talking about reptile to birds here. We are talking about HIV, the use of triple therapy, and your contention that this represents the perfect example of how ev treats three selection pressures. HIV has to get past three drugs -- it has to solve the issue of forming a new reverse transcriptase that works and is not affected by those three drugs. It does so quickly.

This is your analogy, Dr. Kleinman, not mine.

the longer the genome, the slower the evolutionary process.


Haven't you ever asked yourself the question of why this is the case with the ev program?

[kleinman]

That’s not an accurate statement kjkent1. I take Dr Schneider’s ev work very seriously. It is the best mathematical model of mutation and selection available and it properly captures the mathematics of mutation and selection. Now your string cheese theory of evolution I also take seriously, that is seriously silly.You have an poor understanding of the important distinctions between the terms "serious" vs. "silly," in my view.
Let’s see if I can help you with the word serious. Try the word “earnest” instead of “serious”. Dr Schneider has made an earnest application of the mathematics of mutation and selection while you have made earnestly silly application of the string cheese theory to mutation and selection.
Ev does capture the basic mathematics of mutation and selection. However, ev does not model any mutational mechanisms other than random point mutation, and ev does not make any attempt to accurately weight the selective value of any mutations which occur, based upon how such mutations would affect a real-world living organism.
You are correct on both of these points. When considering other mutation mechanisms, the question is whether these other mutation mechanisms will significantly alter the behavior of the mathematics of mutation and selection process. I don’t believe it will for several reasons. Point mutations are the least destructive of mutations as well as the most common type of mutation. They don’t cause frame shifts which alter large numbers of codons. If you think that other mutation mechanism will somehow accelerate the mutation selection process, feel free to prove this. With respects to Dr Schneider’s selection scheme, it is very forgiving. What I mean by this is that you don’t have the possibility of extinction. The weight factors are not tied to survival of a creature. There are many examples of single mutations which cause the death of the creature with that mutation, yet ev does not have this effect. Including these types of features in the model would only slow evolution more so. In addition, how would you formulate the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo? There is no such selection process.
And, without both of the above-stated issues being resolved, it is unscientific for you to conclude that ev is too slow.
That’s an easy one. Introduce whatever feature you want in the model and see whether you can speed up evolution sufficiently and prove your case. Since ev is already showing that it is the multiple selection conditions which slow the evolution process, the changes you advocate will not alter the fundamental mathematics already revealed.
Considering your esteemed credentials, I wonder why you would voluntarily choose to draw an unscientific conclusion. Perhaps, because you have a personal bias?
Everybody has biases. The question is whether I am drawing my conclusion based on these biases or am I drawing my conclusions based on the results from ev and the numerous real examples which show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution.
You may respond that Dr. Schneider has drawn similar unscientific conclusions. However, that is irrelevant. If you value the scientific method, and you believe that Dr. Schneider has been unscientific in his approach, then your goal should be to demonstrate why Schneider's approach is unscientific -- not to use what you view as his unscientific behavior to justify your own similar actions.
I have demonstrated why Dr Schneider improperly extrapolated the evolution of a human genome. You evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, you look for ways to parse words to justify this type of unscientific approach. That said, Dr Schneider’s underlying simulation has properly captured the mathematics of mutation and selection. In particular, the effect of multiple selection pressures is properly revealed.
To the extent that ev is too slow, using random point mutation and a very simple selective method, I would agree with you that the conclusion that ev proves the entire human genome could evolve within the time available since life purportedly appeared on Earth, is a stretch.
That’s a bit of an understatement. Simply using a realistic mutation rate of 10^-6 instead of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation in Dr Schneider’s published case makes his estimate of 1 billion years for the evolution of a human genome go to 4 trillion years. And what real living thing has a genome length of 256?
However, the stated purpose of ev in the NAR paper was to demonstrate information gain, via random mutation and natural selection, and you admit that ev does prove this.
Kjkent1, you can’t parse away this statement from the NAR paper:
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.
That really should end the discussion. However, you continue to try to extrapolate ev to disprove all evolution as impossible. This activity is unscientific, unless you first accurately model all of the other mutational mechanisms and selective behaviors -- and ev remains too slow.
Only evolutionist cultists would end the discussion here. I have no objection to adding any feature to ev. Let’s see if it changes any of my conclusions.
Your conclusion is simply unsubstantiated, because you haven't done any science to support it. Meanwhile, your competitors continue to do research and publish their findings. So, while you sit alone in your room, certain that you have entirely destroyed the theory of evolution, in reality, you fall further and further behind in the race.
My conclusions are unsubstantiated except for the results from ev and numerous real examples of these results.
And, that, my friend, is REALLY silly.
Would you pass the red herring, string cheese and whine please.
Did all this information come about by selection or are we talking about random combinations of bases?I haven't the slightest idea how you are making the connections that you seem to be making. The whole friggin' point is that you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ah yes, the gap theory of evolution, is there anyplace you don’t have a gap in your theory?
Why would you assume that? According to Paul, ev does not even evolve binding sites de novo.I'm not assuming it. That is what ev does. It begins with random collections of bases and evolves information in pre-specified sites. What constitutes information is a site that can bind a pre-selected signal. The analogy with HIV would be the de novo creation of new genes, not the alteration of an already existing one.
Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.
Where did you come up with this notion? There are numerous selection pressures acting on living things all the time. If you think evolution only has to solve one problem at a time, describe the problem of evolving a reptile to a bird.We aren't talking about reptile to birds here. We are talking about HIV, the use of triple therapy, and your contention that this represents the perfect example of how ev treats three selection pressures. HIV has to get past three drugs -- it has to solve the issue of forming a new reverse transcriptase that works and is not affected by those three drugs. It does so quickly.
HIV evolves resistance much more quickly if monotherapy is used. In addition you argued that evolution only has to solve one problem at a time, so why not answer what the mutation condition is that would evolve reptiles to birds?
This is your analogy, Dr. Kleinman, not mine.
The use of combination therapy for HIV is a good analogy to what ev shows. Don’t you think so?
the longer the genome, the slower the evolutionary process.Haven't you ever asked yourself the question of why this is the case with the ev program?
Of course I have, and if you had read this thread, you would know what I have to say about it. Let’s hear your explanation.

[joobz]

Let’s see if I can help you with the word serious. Try the word “earnest” instead of “serious”. Dr Schneider has made an earnest application of the mathematics of mutation and selection while you have made earnestly silly application of the string cheese theory to mutation and selection.

You are correct on both of these points. When considering other mutation mechanisms, the question is whether these other mutation mechanisms will significantly alter the behavior of the mathematics of mutation and selection process. I don’t believe it will for several reasons. Point mutations are the least destructive of mutations as well as the most common type of mutation. They don’t cause frame shifts which alter large numbers of codons. If you think that other mutation mechanism will somehow accelerate the mutation selection process, feel free to prove this. With respects to Dr Schneider’s selection scheme, it is very forgiving. What I mean by this is that you don’t have the possibility of extinction. The weight factors are not tied to survival of a creature. There are many examples of single mutations which cause the death of the creature with that mutation, yet ev does not have this effect. Including these types of features in the model would only slow evolution more so. In addition, how would you formulate the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo? There is no such selection process.

That’s an easy one. Introduce whatever feature you want in the model and see whether you can speed up evolution sufficiently and prove your case. Since ev is already showing that it is the multiple selection conditions which slow the evolution process, the changes you advocate will not alter the fundamental mathematics already revealed.

Everybody has biases. The question is whether I am drawing my conclusion based on these biases or am I drawing my conclusions based on the results from ev and the numerous real examples which show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution.

I have demonstrated why Dr Schneider improperly extrapolated the evolution of a human genome. You evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, you look for ways to parse words to justify this type of unscientific approach. That said, Dr Schneider’s underlying simulation has properly captured the mathematics of mutation and selection. In particular, the effect of multiple selection pressures is properly revealed.

That’s a bit of an understatement. Simply using a realistic mutation rate of 10^-6 instead of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation in Dr Schneider’s published case makes his estimate of 1 billion years for the evolution of a human genome go to 4 trillion years. And what real living thing has a genome length of 256?

Kjkent1, you can’t parse away this statement from the NAR paper:


Only evolutionist cultists would end the discussion here. I have no objection to adding any feature to ev. Let’s see if it changes any of my conclusions.

My conclusions are unsubstantiated except for the results from ev and numerous real examples of these results.

Would you pass the red herring, string cheese and whine please.

Ah yes, the gap theory of evolution, is there anyplace you don’t have a gap in your theory?

Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.

HIV evolves resistance much more quickly if monotherapy is used. In addition you argued that evolution only has to solve one problem at a time, so why not answer what the mutation condition is that would evolve reptiles to birds?

The use of combination therapy for HIV is a good analogy to what ev shows. Don’t you think so?

Of course I have, and if you had read this thread, you would know what I have to say about it. Let’s hear your explanation.
no new lies. very, very dull. Let me know when you do something different, like tell the truth.
Until then, here's a new image. :s2:

[Dr Adequate]

I think kleinman's just pressing the buttons on his Lying Machine at random now.

[kleinman]

Until then, here's a new image. :s2:
It's hard to imagine that somebody could be more dull and boring than Adequate but now we have found someone who is trying to imitate him. So which one of you two is OMG?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ah yes, the gap theory of evolution, is there anyplace you don’t have a gap in your theory?


Is there a word for a non-sequitor following a non-sequitor following a non-sequitor? To what in the friggin' world are you responding? It has no relation, whatever, to anything that I wrote.

Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.


What is it that ev does?

HIV evolves resistance much more quickly if monotherapy is used.

The point being what? Once again, now for, I think, the fifth time, I haven't argued against this idea so I haven't the slighest idea why you repeat it. It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation.

It's also not always true.

The use of combination therapy for HIV is a good analogy to what ev shows.

No, it's not. As repeatedly emphasized --HIV triple therapy involves, by its definition more than three selection pressures since it must also include patient selection pressures including the rapid death of T cells and the potential death of the patient and the immune response.

But the bigger issues are these:

1. HIV triple therapy attacks one, or at most, two sites. For the most part we are talking about two different types of reverse transcriptase inhibitors and/or a protease inhibitor. There are not 16 different "binding sites" that must "find" the correct base. Instead, all that HIV must "do" is develop the correct strain that is not inhibited by the reverse transcriptase inhibitor and/or protease inhibitor by producing so many copies that one of them will have the proper mutation in it. For the most part we are talking about one, two, or possibly three point mutations that are selected (depends a bit on what triple therapy protocol is used). That is not what ev does. Most of the ev models that I have seen have required something on the order of 96 point mutations for convergence.

2. Ev models the development of information that is already pre-determined. Nature does not pre-determine what will or will not work in any particular situation (outside of determinism itself). There is no set goal in nature. If HIV arrives at a solution, then it arrives at a solution to the problem plaguing it -- triple therapy. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

3. You specifically stated when I joined this thread that HIV triple therapy was the prime example of how three selection pressures in ev work; and that this proved that evolution was so slow that it could never happen. Yet you have been confronted with the actual evidence that resistance forms to triple therapy in short order. This would seem to prove that evolution is not stopped by three selection pressures but continues along quite nicely, thank you very much. You have tried to squirm out of this fact in various ways -- initially by pretending that I was the one pushing HIV triple therapy, then by pretending that ev predicted that triple therapy could not stop HIV from producing resistant strains (even though your original argument was that HIV could never produce resistant strains in short time periods).

I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should believe a word typed by your fingers.

Of course I have, and if you had read this thread, you would know what I have to say about it.

The only explanation I can find is that you think three selection pressures somehow, and magically, interferes with the process in the presence of longer genomes. Do you have a more formal explanation?

[T'ai Chi]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here are the changes Unnamed made to ev:
Yes, he's taking into account the distances from valuation to threshold for all positions.


Why don’t you post a version of ev with these changes online so everyone can study the behavior of these changes?
That would be Unnamed's job.


He must have meant that only variations that support the theory of evolution should be investigated. Paul, I love it when you squirm.
...
Paul, Dr Schneider was quite clear what he intended ev to be used for when he said the following:

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.
That statement suggests to you that he only wants the program to be used to investigate things that support evolution? All righty then.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.
I would be happy to address this claim if you could first define what you mean by "evolving binding sites de novo."

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
Who is claiming that a program disproves intelligent design? Certainly no one in this thread.

~~ Paul

[Apathia]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:D

Hi Tai Chi!

On my desk right now, I have a beautiful, raw, uncut amethyst crystal.
(I like crystals, wear them for vanity, and have even done woo things with them.)
Say we make a program modeling crystal formation. It models how crystals can come about naturallly without the tinkering of some conscious being.
But my XGF, who loves Elves, might say that Elves do it. They shape these wonders. Such mathematical order and beauty can't come from a blind natural process.
She can rightly point out that our computer model doesn't prove Elves don't do it.
And she night go on to say that the computer model itself is the work of Elves, because it couldn't be the result of a natural process, and the minds that wrote the code couldn't be the result of a natural process.

But Elves? Ha! Ha! We know better.
Nature was programed to produce some kinds of order.

Your assumption is that wherever there is order, it is the result of conscious artifice by a sentiant being.
Have you ever considered that nature is a self-ordering process?
This is especially appearant in biological systems.
One aspect of this is described in Natural Selection.

Of course you are free to maintain the philosphical positon that there is a Master Programmer. Computer models that show how a natural process can account for the results, and that these programs were written by sentient beings doesn't say anything of great substance for or against.

But you might want to consider whether a transcendent Master Programmer is really necessary. Consider that's it's quite posible that the natural world is a self-adaptive, self-programing system.

It's another philosophical position. And it might not be to your taste.

Personally, I don't find it robbing the Sacred from nature, but putting it back in where it belongs. Call it the "Tao."

[articulett]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:D

Oddly enough...unintelligent naturally selected DNA does just that.

[Dr Adequate]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet? No, but many people have explained to you how an intelligently designed program can prove the concept of evolution.

If you're just here to do a kleinman, and drool and drivel about your ignorance of concepts which you've had carefully explained to you ... then you've come to the right thread, This is the place where halfwit creationists pretend that their ignorance is a point in their favor --- and kleinman hasn't given us any new laughs lately.

It's your turn.

[Yahzi]

I think kleinman's just pressing the buttons on his Lying Machine at random now.
Now?

:D

[Dr Adequate]

OK, for a long time.

But I had underestimated how slimy creationist slime could be.

He actually programmed a computer to lie to us so that he wouldn't have to think about the lies he's telling. He just presses a button and a computer lies for him.

It ... it baffles the imagination.

[kjkent1]

Let’s see if I can help you with the word serious. Try the word “earnest” instead of “serious”. Dr Schneider has made an earnest application of the mathematics of mutation and selection while you have made earnestly silly application of the string cheese theory to mutation and selection. littleman, if you find string theory silly, take it up with Dr. Susskind.

When considering other mutation mechanisms, the question is whether these other mutation mechanisms will significantly alter the behavior of the mathematics of mutation and selection process. I don’t believe it will for several reasons. Point mutations are the least destructive of mutations as well as the most common type of mutation. They don’t cause frame shifts which alter large numbers of codons. If you think that other mutation mechanism will somehow accelerate the mutation selection process, feel free to prove this. With respects to Dr Schneider’s selection scheme, it is very forgiving. What I mean by this is that you don’t have the possibility of extinction. The weight factors are not tied to survival of a creature. There are many examples of single mutations which cause the death of the creature with that mutation, yet ev does not have this effect. Including these types of features in the model would only slow evolution more so. In addition, how would you formulate the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo? There is no such selection process.littleman, no one cares what you believe. We are waiting for you to prove your theory. Until you do, you are the supreme whiner in this thread.That’s an easy one. Introduce whatever feature you want in the model and see whether you can speed up evolution sufficiently and prove your case. Since ev is already showing that it is the multiple selection conditions which slow the evolution process, the changes you advocate will not alter the fundamental mathematics already revealed.Same ****, different words. We are waiting for you to prove your case. Schneider has already proved his.Everybody has biases. The question is whether I am drawing my conclusion based on these biases or am I drawing my conclusions based on the results from ev and the numerous real examples which show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution.You're drawing your conclusions based on a version of the program which does not model anything close to the reality of variations in the evolutionary process. So, your conclusions are pure conjecture.I have demonstrated why Dr Schneider improperly extrapolated the evolution of a human genome. You evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, you look for ways to parse words to justify this type of unscientific approach. That said, Dr Schneider’s underlying simulation has properly captured the mathematics of mutation and selection. In particular, the effect of multiple selection pressures is properly revealed.You will need to accurately model all of the known real evolutionary processes. Until then, all you've proved is that random point mutation, by itself is prettyt slow. Don't think anyone would argue with that conclusion.That’s a bit of an understatement. Simply using a realistic mutation rate of 10^-6 instead of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation in Dr Schneider’s published case makes his estimate of 1 billion years for the evolution of a human genome go to 4 trillion years. And what real living thing has a genome length of 256?Using only point mutation and an extremely simple selective process. Since neither is a complete model of evolution, your numbers are pure conjecture.Kjkent1, you can’t parse away this statement from the NAR paper...I'm not parsing away anything. Given more sophisticated algorithms, ev's basic premise could be extended to show a more complete explanation of evolution. Without more sophisticated algorithms, ev proves information gain, which is what the paper sought to prove.Only evolutionist cultists would end the discussion here. I have no objection to adding any feature to ev. Let’s see if it changes any of my conclusions.Let's see you do some of the work to prove your theory. As it stands, Schneider's proven info gain, and you've proven random point mutation is slow. Your miles from proof that evolution is impossible.My conclusions are unsubstantiated except for the results from ev and numerous real examples of these results.Your "real examples" are all based on random point mutations and a simplistic selection algorithm. So, your examples are not real, therefore all of your conclusions are unsubstantiated.Would you pass the red herring, string cheese and whine please.Absolutely, littleman. You can have all you can digest. Personally, I think you need a "Reglan," because you just can't seem to digest reality.

[Dr Adequate]

It's hard to imagine that somebody could be more dull and boring than Adequate but now we have found someone who is trying to imitate him. So which one of you two is OMG? If you are "bored" by requests that you should tell a new lie, then the solution is very much in your own hands. All you have to do is tell a new lie.

If you're too dumb to think of one yourself, you'll find plenty on any creationist website.

[Mr. Scott]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:D

:boggled: Do you suppose Dr. Kleinman is happy he's joined in this debate by such a brilliant mind?

It's seems a sound logical argument flies right through T'ai's mind as if it wasn't even there. Gee, maybe I'm on to something...

This discussion reminds me of the time someone complemented me on a t-shirt I was wearing that had pictures of fish on it. He asked if I went fishing, and I told him I didn't, but had a question that had been bugging me he might be able to answer. I asked him why, when someone creates a man-made pond not connected to another body of water, fish appear there after a few years. He said he thought god put them there :rolleyes: . How nice. God is stocking man-made ponds. What a neat guy. Has anyone correlated the IQ of a typical creationist with that of a typical evolutionist?

[cyborg]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:D

You do realise of course that software engineering shows us that the most, THE MOST, used design technique is:

"Try it, if it works keep it, if not throw it away."

Which just blows friggin' great chunks in your nonsense.

[kjkent1]

Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?
:DWhat you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev: to show that information gain can arise from a randomly ordered system using the process of random mutation and natural selection.

And, since ev does, in fact show the above-stated result, the direct answer to your query is, "Yes: Dr. Thomas Schneider."

[Mr. Scott]

You do realise of course that software engineering shows us that the most, THE MOST, used design technique is:

"Try it, if it works keep it, if not throw it away."

Which just blows friggin' great chunks in your nonsense.

Well, a good programmer is supposed to adhere to top-down design principles that, if followed religiously ;), should result in error-free development.

However...

...your principle applies perfectly to how I compose, arrange, and play music.

When I used to travel with a music group, my co-performers sometimes commented that my musical inspiration must come from god :rolleyes:. I knew it was nothing of the sort, because I could remember the process I went through in my head to create music -- sometimes every blessed detail. I try stuff, and if it doesn't sound good, I forget it. If it sounds good, I integrate it into the piece, or my style. After uncountable incremental improvements, the result is a style that moves some to feel certainty that I'm a conduit of god's musicianship. However, the trick even to that is easy! If I come up with something that inspires spiritual feelings, I remember, repeat, and embellish it. There's really nothing more to it. No divine intervention is needed. Indeed, I feel offended if people's god delusion takes away recognition for the hard work I, myself, am intensely aware I put into my playing.

Composing is particularly analogous to evolution. I've been taught a basic structure of music that can lead me to what is likely to sound good, which I follow. When my gut tells me it's getting a little conventional, I focus on the sections which sound dull and randomly try other patterns of notes. When I hit something that pleases my ears, I remember it and jot it down.

...and so on, and so forth. It's very common also to make mistakes of fingering or memory when I'm working on original compositions. When a wrong note sounds bad, I correct it. When a mistake sounds better than my original idea (and this happens frequently enough) I chuck the original note and replace it with the mistake. I've been aware for decades how analogous this is to Darwinian evolution -- survival of the fittest notes originated by point mutations.

...and it can happen quickly enough to make deadlines!

[cyborg]

Well, a good programmer is supposed to adhere to top-down design principles that, if followed religiously ;), should result in error-free development.

That is true. However the problem is that is also very difficult to achieve in reality. Big-up front design is basically incredibly difficult to achieve for all but the most trivial of problems.

As such we come to methodologies such as the test-driven development which basically tells us to do the above but in a more structured way. Namely construct a test that will show your code does what you want then try to pass the test. If that's not an example of a highly evolutionary design that uses tests as selective pressure and a highly iterative implementation cycle as generations then I don't know what is.

The simple fact is that our software is based on empirical principles simply because the Holy Grail of provable software is friggin' hard. We live with bugs because otherwise we wouldn't have a lot of the software we do...

As such design principles really at best tell us how to avoid creating bad programs but as of yet we haven't really got anything that tells us how to build programs that really do what we want perfectly. I am not sure that it's going to happen due to the aforementioned difficulty of software proving.

[kleinman]

Ah yes, the gap theory of evolution, is there anyplace you don’t have a gap in your theory?Is there a word for a non-sequitor following a non-sequitor following a non-sequitor? To what in the friggin' world are you responding? It has no relation, whatever, to anything that I wrote.
The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles. This is mathematically impossible.
Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.What is it that ev does?
I thought you read Dr Schneider’s Ev Evolution of Biological Information and this thread. Here’s what Dr Schneider says that ev does:
A small population (n=64) of `organisms' was created, each of which consisted of G= 256 bases of nucleotide sequence chosen randomly, with equal probabilities, from an alphabet of 4 characters (a, c, g, t, Fig. 1). At any particular time in the history of a natural population, the size of a genome, G, and the number of required genetic control element binding sites, γ, are determined by previous history and current physiology respectively, so as a parameter for this simulation we chose γ=16 and the program arbitrarily chose the site locations, which are fixed for the duration of the run. The information required to locate γ sites in a genome of size G is Rfrequency = -log2(γ/G) = 4 bits per site, where γ/G is the frequency of sites [4 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider1986),14 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider.nano2)].
A section of the genome is set aside by the program to encode the gene for a sequence recognizing `protein', represented by a weight matrix [15 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#StormoPerceptron1982),7 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider.Ri)] consisting of a two-dimensional array of 4 by L = 6 integers. These integers are stored in the genome in twos complement notation, which allows for both negative and positive values. (In this notation, the negative of an integer is formed by taking the complement of all bits and adding 1.) By encoding A=00, C=01, G=10, and T=11 in a space of 5 bases, integers from -512 to +511 are stored in the genome. Generation of the weight matrix integers from the nucleotide sequence gene corresponds to translation and protein folding in natural systems. The weight matrix can evaluate any L base long sequence. Each base of the sequence selects the corresponding weight from the matrix and these weights are summed. If the sum is larger than a tolerance, also encoded in the genome, the sequence is `recognized' and this corresponds to a protein binding to DNA (Fig. 1 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.genome)). As mentioned above, the exact form of the recognition mechanism is immaterial because of the generality of information theory.
The weight matrix gene for an organism is translated and then every position of that organism's genome is evaluated by the matrix. The organism can make two kinds of `mistakes'. The first is for one of the γ binding locations to be missed (representing absence of genetic control) and the second is for one of the G - γ non-binding sites to be incorrectly recognized (representing wasteful binding of the recognizer). For simplicity these mistakes are counted as equivalent, since other schemes should give similar final results. The validity of this black/white model of binding sites comes from Shannon's channel capacity theorem, which allows for recognition with as few errors as necessary for survival [1 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Shannon1948),16 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider.ccmm),7 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider.Ri)].
The organisms are subjected to rounds of selection and mutation. First, the number of mistakes made by each organism in the population is determined. Then the half of the population making the least mistakes is allowed to replicate by having their genomes replace (`kill') the ones making more mistakes. (To preserve diversity, no replacement takes place if they are equal.) At every generation, each organism is subjected to one random point mutation in which the original base is obtained 1/4 of the time. For comparison, HIV-1 reverse transcriptase makes about one error every 2000-5000 bases incorporated, only 10 fold lower than this simulation [17 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Loeb.Mullins1999)].
When the program starts, the genomes all contain random sequence, and the information content of the binding sites, Rsequence, is close to zero. Remarkably, the cyclic mutation and selection process leads to an organism that makes no mistakes in only 704 generations (Fig. 2 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.curves)a). Although the sites can contain a maximum of 2L = 12 bits, the information content of the binding sites rises during this time until it oscillates around the predicted information content, Rfrequency = 4 bits, with Rsequence, = 3.983 ± 0.399 bits during the 1000 to 2000 generation interval (Fig. 2 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.curves)b). The expected standard deviation from small sample effects [4 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider1986)] is 0.297 bits, so about 55% of the variance ( 0.32/0.42) comes from the digital nature of the sequences. Sequence logos [5 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Schneider.Stephens1990)] of the binding sites show that distinct patterns appear during selection, and that these then drift (Fig. 3 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.logos)). When selective pressure is removed, the observed pattern atrophies (not shown, but Fig. 1 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.genome) shows the organism with the fewest mistakes at generation 2000, after atrophy) and the information content drops back to zero (Fig. 2 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.curves)b). The information decays with a half-life of 61 generations.
The evolutionary steps can be understood by considering an intermediate situation, for example when all organisms are making 8 mistakes. Random mutations in a genome that lead to more mistakes will immediately cause the selective elimination of that organism. On the other hand, if one organism randomly `discovers' how to make 7 mistakes, it is guaranteed (in this simplistic model) to reproduce every generation, and therefore it exponentially overtakes the population. This roughly-sigmoidal rapid transition corresponds to (and the program was inspired by) the proposal that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium [18 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Gould1977.sigmoid),19 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Gould.Eldredge1993)], with noisy `active stasis' clearly visible from generation 705 to 2000 (Fig. 2 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.curves)b, Fig. 3 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.logos)).
I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.
HIV evolves resistance much more quickly if monotherapy is used. The point being what? Once again, now for, I think, the fifth time, I haven't argued against this idea so I haven't the slighest idea why you repeat it. It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation.

It's also not always true.
I repeat this because it is a perfect example of how single selection pressures evolve much more quickly than multiple selection pressures, this is what the mathematics of ev shows and this is how mutation and selection works.

If you think multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly, you need to show us how this occurs and provide examples.
The use of combination therapy for HIV is a good analogy to what ev shows.No, it's not. As repeatedly emphasized --HIV triple therapy involves, by its definition more than three selection pressures since it must also include patient selection pressures including the rapid death of T cells and the potential death of the patient and the immune response.
Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?
1. HIV triple therapy attacks one, or at most, two sites. For the most part we are talking about two different types of reverse transcriptase inhibitors and/or a protease inhibitor. There are not 16 different "binding sites" that must "find" the correct base. Instead, all that HIV must "do" is develop the correct strain that is not inhibited by the reverse transcriptase inhibitor and/or protease inhibitor by producing so many copies that one of them will have the proper mutation in it. For the most part we are talking about one, two, or possibly three point mutations that are selected (depends a bit on what triple therapy protocol is used). That is not what ev does. Most of the ev models that I have seen have required something on the order of 96 point mutations for convergence.
Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?
2. Ev models the development of information that is already pre-determined. Nature does not pre-determine what will or will not work in any particular situation (outside of determinism itself). There is no set goal in nature. If HIV arrives at a solution, then it arrives at a solution to the problem plaguing it -- triple therapy. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
This is one of the stranger arguments you evolutionary cultists have come up with. You contradict yourselves with this argument. The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest. That is what natural selection does. You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?

Let me remind you of what Dr Schneider has said about ev:
An advantage of the ev model over previous evolutionary models, such as biomorphs [20], Avida [21], and Tierra [22], is that it starts with a completely random genome, and no further intervention is required.
The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.
3. You specifically stated when I joined this thread that HIV triple therapy was the prime example of how three selection pressures in ev work; and that this proved that evolution was so slow that it could never happen. Yet you have been confronted with the actual evidence that resistance forms to triple therapy in short order. This would seem to prove that evolution is not stopped by three selection pressures but continues along quite nicely, thank you very much. You have tried to squirm out of this fact in various ways -- initially by pretending that I was the one pushing HIV triple therapy, then by pretending that ev predicted that triple therapy could not stop HIV from producing resistant strains (even though your original argument was that HIV could never produce resistant strains in short time periods).
If you mean “first” when you use the word “prime” then HIV is my “prime” example of how multiple selection pressures slows evolution. However there are numerous other examples which are just as valid as this case. These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains. Each of these is real examples of what ev shows with its three selection pressures. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical and demonstrated real fact. Now perhaps you would tell us what that selection pressure is that would evolve reptiles into birds? Pretty please?
I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should believe a word typed by your fingers.
You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.
Of course I have, and if you had read this thread, you would know what I have to say about it.The only explanation I can find is that you think three selection pressures somehow, and magically, interferes with the process in the presence of longer genomes. Do you have a more formal explanation?
You didn’t read far enough back in the threads but let’s see if you can reason this out by asking you a question. What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?
Here are the changes Unnamed made to ev:Yes, he's taking into account the distances from valuation to threshold for all positions.
What relationship to reality does this have?
Why don’t you post a version of ev with these changes online so everyone can study the behavior of these changes?That would be Unnamed's job.
It seems Unnamed has abandoned the discussion after this last exchange:
In addition, there is no selection process for a partially completed gene.I don't think that's true, but if it were, then my change would be meaningless.
He must have meant that only variations that support the theory of evolution should be investigated. Paul, I love it when you squirm.
...
Paul, Dr Schneider was quite clear what he intended ev to be used for when he said the following: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.That statement suggests to you that he only wants the program to be used to investigate things that support evolution? All righty then.
I don’t think that at all. kjkent1, Ichneumonwasp and numerous other evolutionists attempt to suggest that Dr Schneider’s only purpose for ev was to show how information gain occurs by mutation and selection and nothing more than that. It is clear by the above statement, which was not Dr Schneider’s intention.
Ev does not evolve binding sites de novo according to Paul.I would be happy to address this claim if you could first define what you mean by "evolving binding sites de novo."
De novo = from the beginning. I’ve started using this terminology again since Mr Scott used a reference from Nature that includes this.
Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?Who is claiming that a program disproves intelligent design? Certainly no one in this thread.
Now Paul, don’t get into a tizzy. Just because ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to prove intelligent design mathematically impossible. Why don’t you prove that it is mathematically impossible for intelligent scientists to do recombinant DNA?
Has anyone worked out how an intelligently designed program can possibly disprove the concept of intelligent design yet?Oddly enough...unintelligent naturally selected DNA does just that.
Articulett, I must have missed your description of the selection pressure that would evolve a gene de novo. Could you repeat it again for us?
Let’s see if I can help you with the word serious. Try the word “earnest” instead of “serious”. Dr Schneider has made an earnest application of the mathematics of mutation and selection while you have made earnestly silly application of the string cheese theory to mutation and selection.littleman, if you find string theory silly, take it up with Dr. Susskind.
You posted the concept on this thread. So why not defend what you post?
When considering other mutation mechanisms, the question is whether these other mutation mechanisms will significantly alter the behavior of the mathematics of mutation and selection process. I don’t believe it will for several reasons. Point mutations are the least destructive of mutations as well as the most common type of mutation. They don’t cause frame shifts which alter large numbers of codons. If you think that other mutation mechanism will somehow accelerate the mutation selection process, feel free to prove this. With respects to Dr Schneider’s selection scheme, it is very forgiving. What I mean by this is that you don’t have the possibility of extinction. The weight factors are not tied to survival of a creature. There are many examples of single mutations which cause the death of the creature with that mutation, yet ev does not have this effect. Including these types of features in the model would only slow evolution more so. In addition, how would you formulate the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo? There is no such selection process.littleman, no one cares what you believe. We are waiting for you to prove your theory. Until you do, you are the supreme whiner in this thread.
The proof is out there. Multiple selection pressures slow evolution, ev shows this, numerous real examples shows this. I’ll keep whining this until it gets through your prejudiced and biased mind.
That’s an easy one. Introduce whatever feature you want in the model and see whether you can speed up evolution sufficiently and prove your case. Since ev is already showing that it is the multiple selection conditions which slow the evolution process, the changes you advocate will not alter the fundamental mathematics already revealed.Same ****, different words. We are waiting for you to prove your case. Schneider has already proved his.
Are you talking about Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Which one of the 10^500 alternative universes did this happen in?
Everybody has biases. The question is whether I am drawing my conclusion based on these biases or am I drawing my conclusions based on the results from ev and the numerous real examples which show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution.You're drawing your conclusions based on a version of the program which does not model anything close to the reality of variations in the evolutionary process. So, your conclusions are pure conjecture.
If you don’t think the model is anything close to reality then why don’t you correct it to prove your point? I have already shown how ev’s three selection conditions parallels what happens in reality with numerous different real examples, and you, well you have shown us string cheese.
I have demonstrated why Dr Schneider improperly extrapolated the evolution of a human genome. You evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, you look for ways to parse words to justify this type of unscientific approach. That said, Dr Schneider’s underlying simulation has properly captured the mathematics of mutation and selection. In particular, the effect of multiple selection pressures is properly revealed.You will need to accurately model all of the known real evolutionary processes. Until then, all you've proved is that random point mutation, by itself is prettyt slow. Don't think anyone would argue with that conclusion.
It is not the random point mutations that make the theory of evolution slow, it is the multiple selection pressures which slow the process, of course, that is just in the alternative universe that we live in. Do you think that the real example of combination therapy slowing the evolution of resistant strains of HIV is limited to point mutations? How about combination therapy of TB in order to slow the evolution of resistant strains of this bacterium? Is this case limited to random point mutations? How about combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapy, are these cases limited to random point mutations? It isn’t the type of mutation which slows the evolution process, it is multiple selection pressures which slow this process.
That’s a bit of an understatement. Simply using a realistic mutation rate of 10^-6 instead of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation in Dr Schneider’s published case makes his estimate of 1 billion years for the evolution of a human genome go to 4 trillion years. And what real living thing has a genome length of 256?Using only point mutation and an extremely simple selective process. Since neither is a complete model of evolution, your numbers are pure conjecture.
The numerous real examples of how multiple selection pressures work is not conjecture; they are nails in the coffin for the theory of evolution. It is just handy to have a mathematical model of mutation and selection to drive those nails in.
Kjkent1, you can’t parse away this statement from the NAR paper...I'm not parsing away anything. Given more sophisticated algorithms, ev's basic premise could be extended to show a more complete explanation of evolution. Without more sophisticated algorithms, ev proves information gain, which is what the paper sought to prove.
It could but it won’t. The effect of multiple selection pressures will not disappear no matter how sophisticated you make your algorithm. Ev shows the important mathematical principle that crushes the theory of evolution. That is that multiple selection pressures slow the mutation and selection process profoundly. Add that to the fact you don’t have a selection pressure to evolve a gene de novo and you don’t have a selection pressure that would evolve a reptile into a bird makes the theory of evolution the biggest fraud to hit the scientific community since the flat earth theory.
Only evolutionist cultists would end the discussion here. I have no objection to adding any feature to ev. Let’s see if it changes any of my conclusions.Let's see you do some of the work to prove your theory. As it stands, Schneider's proven info gain, and you've proven random point mutation is slow. Your miles from proof that evolution is impossible.
I have done some work; I did what Dr Schneider suggested to do in his paper. I studied what happens to his model of mutation and selection when you vary the parameters. What it shows is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Of course there are numerous real examples which demonstrate what ev shows and why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
My conclusions are unsubstantiated except for the results from ev and numerous real examples of these results.Your "real examples" are all based on random point mutations and a simplistic selection algorithm. So, your examples are not real, therefore all of your conclusions are unsubstantiated.
Really, what limits the numerous real examples to random point mutations?
Would you pass the red herring, string cheese and whine please.Absolutely, littleman. You can have all you can digest. Personally, I think you need a "Reglan," because you just can't seem to digest reality.
Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?
Do you suppose Dr. Kleinman is happy he's joined in this debate by such a brilliant mind?
Mr Scott, I don’t mind if a pussycat joins this debate.
You do realise of course that software engineering shows us that the most, THE MOST, used design technique is:

"Try it, if it works keep it, if not throw it away."

Which just blows friggin' great chunks in your nonsense.
What a minute, isn’t this the cruft theory of evolution?
What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev: to show that information gain can arise from a randomly ordered system using the process of random mutation and natural selection.
Now don’t forget the other fundamental purpose of ev: that is to annoy evolutionists.

[kjkent1]

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?No need. The theory is safe as long as creationists shrink from doing any scientific research.

[T'ai Chi]

No, but many people have explained to you how an intelligently designed program can prove the concept of evolution.


Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles.

So, now we are up to a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur. Hold on, I'll get the Guiness folks on the phone.......

I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.


So, in other words, Dr. Kleinman, you are now reduced to playing semantic games? As I, and virtually everyone else participating in this thread, know quite well the placement of the binding site is pre-determined. The information is not. The absence of information in the binding site is in no way analogous to the HIV reverse transcriptase gene which already contains significant information. Do you wish to argue that there is no information in the gene coding for reverse transcriptase?

Once again, HIV has genes that already exist with information content. That information must change by single or possibly triple mutations in one site (sometimes two in some circumstances, sometimes more). The solution is not pre-determined. Any mutation that allows the reverse transcriptase to function and escape the effects of triple therapy, specifically directed against it, works and provides further fitness. In ev the solution is already determined. There are 16 binding sites (in most runs that I have seen) with a width of 5 or 6 bases. That requires 90-96 alterations of a specific type, not 3 (or sometimes only 2 since single mutations in HIV will escape an entire class of inhibitors).

If you want to use HIV triple therapy as your real-world example, then you need to make the simulation in some way analagous. How about a population of 10^9 in each generation with a single binding site of width 3? Run that simulation and see what you get. Otherwise your analogy is a load of bunkum.

Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?


Why don't we apply this to your list of non-sequiturs, since that is what it is? The Guiness people haven't called back yet. They are going to be astounded. Care to address the actual point -- that there are clearly more than three selection pressures applied to HIV in any patient receiving triple therapy?

Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?


It depends on the regimen. In some cases only one. In others two or three. But in most of those cases only one or, at most, two point mutations are required per locus.

There really is no set number, since it depends on the location of the mutation and drug classes used. But if you want more speicific info, here it is: drug reistance mutations in HIV (http://www.natap.org/2007/DrugResistance/DrugRes_16.htm)

The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest.

You really haven't the slightest idea how evolution works, do you? Survival of the fittest is a phrase invented by Herbert Spencer. Survival of the fittest basically means, in Darwinian terms, survival of those who survive, which is redundant and completely unecessary. Fitness refers to reproduction. The fittest are those who leave behind the most babies, who leave behind the most babies.

You are back to the silly semantic games now, aren't you, Dr. Kleinman?

That is what natural selection does.

No it isn't. Natural selection has no goal. There is no goal in nature. Some organisms survive and reproduce and some don't. Non-reproducers leave behind no progeny and are a "dead end". It's very simple.

You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?


We've always said there is no goal in nature. How can you fail to notice? You mean to tell me that you have no idea what the theory even says, and yet you argue against it?

The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.


There is no goal in nature. Your mind is so saturated with teleology that you cannot even see that ev is a teleological model. It must be in order to define "information". That is one of the big areas where it does not model nature properly, as it relates to the issues of mutation and natural selection. There is another bigger problem that you haven't noticed, but I'm not saying a word.

These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains.

None of which work for very long and all of which involve many more than three selection pressures as already noted above -- you ignore host reactions in every instance.

Drop the HIV example. The other examples suffer for the same reasons. They are also not modelled properly by ev.

That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

For a given definition of "evolution" everyone agrees that three pressures slows the process. More selection pressure always decreases variability. I don't think anyone has argued against that idea.

You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.


Which doesn't model the reality of the examples you profer. So, I'm back to not believing a word you type. Reality always trumps model. Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around. But I needn't repeat what you have been told since the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread.

What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?


Dude, I know that this is a search space issue. It is specifically a search space issue because the binding sites are pre-determined and the sequences in those binding sites are sort-of pre-determined (based on exceeding threshhold). Genome length increases will slow the process for large genomes with a set mutation rate as well. The way nature overcomes this issue is with numerous individuals and fast generation times -- consequently millionis of "experiments" per generation. You've already been told this. You have also been told another mechanism that vastly speeds the process -- lateral, or horizontal, spread of genetic information. Before horizontal information spread was possible, the process was fairly slow. It took approximately one billion years to move from single celled life to multicellular life. It may have taken close to one billion years to get to single celled life. We all know that process is slow. If it weren't slow, then this theory would be in deep ****. Once the process of horizontal tranmission of information became possible, however, organisms no longer needed to solve each and every selection "problem". If you had bothered to look at the mathematical models provided you would have seen a model that demonstrates the rapid acceleration of evolution once this "solution" occurred in nature.

[Mercutio]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

If what you are saying here is that the "goddiddit" ID hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then I am going to have to agree with you.

Of course, this program could have demonstrated that natural selection is *not* sufficient (indeed, Kleinman has asserted this countless times), in which case a prediction of natural selection would have been falsified. Or, again, are you saying that this program could not *disprove* natural selection because it is itself intelligently designed? Of course, the same claim could be made about any systematic scientific examination, so perhaps your claim is that science can tell us nothing about anything in the absence of intelligent design (by scientists). Once again, this would be an unfalsifiable stance, of course--the same as saying that all experiments show the hidden hand of god. Fortunately, pragmatism dictates that, since controlled observation has been so successful, further use of it as a technique (despite your "intelligent designer" objection) is likely to remain useful. When it ceases being useful, then we can worry about claims like yours.

[cyborg]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

You are wrong - because fundamentally the concept of intelligence you have is untenable. Because you do not understand the nature of computation you do not understand this. You have created an artificial demarcation between computations that do not exist.

Intelligence forms computation. Evolution forms computation. The method is irrelevant, and the former relies on the later to an extent.

Of course I don't expect you to get this. Please say something silly like I've proven an intelligent designer and confirm that I am in fact wasting my time attempting to talk to man who lacks the intelligence he seems to worship.

[Dr Adequate]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role. No, of course not, don't be stupid

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of weather by natural forces does not suggest that the lightning is intelligently directed by Thor. It suggests that the weather is produced by natural forces.

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of snowflakes by natural forces does not suggest that snowflakes are intelligently designed by Jack Frost. It suggests that snowflakes are produced by natural forces.

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of genetic information by natural forces does not suggest that God made genetic information pop out of thin air by magic. It suggests that genetic information is produced by natural forces.

In each case the programmer is no more part of the computer model than the desk the computer sits on.

---

I seem to remember you whining out this drivel before. Do you own a Lying Machine too?

[Dr Adequate]

The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles. This is mathematically impossible.

I thought you read Dr Schneider’s Ev Evolution of Biological Information and this thread. Here’s what Dr Schneider says that ev does:

I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.

I repeat this because it is a perfect example of how single selection pressures evolve much more quickly than multiple selection pressures, this is what the mathematics of ev shows and this is how mutation and selection works.

If you think multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly, you need to show us how this occurs and provide examples.

Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?

Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?

This is one of the stranger arguments you evolutionary cultists have come up with. You contradict yourselves with this argument. The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest. That is what natural selection does. You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?

Let me remind you of what Dr Schneider has said about ev:

The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

If you mean “first” when you use the word “prime” then HIV is my “prime” example of how multiple selection pressures slows evolution. However there are numerous other examples which are just as valid as this case. These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains. Each of these is real examples of what ev shows with its three selection pressures. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical and demonstrated real fact. Now perhaps you would tell us what that selection pressure is that would evolve reptiles into birds? Pretty please?

You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.

You didn’t read far enough back in the threads but let’s see if you can reason this out by asking you a question. What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?

What relationship to reality does this have?

It seems Unnamed has abandoned the discussion after this last exchange:


I don’t think that at all. kjkent1, Ichneumonwasp and numerous other evolutionists attempt to suggest that Dr Schneider’s only purpose for ev was to show how information gain occurs by mutation and selection and nothing more than that. It is clear by the above statement, which was not Dr Schneider’s intention.

De novo = from the beginning. I’ve started using this terminology again since Mr Scott used a reference from Nature that includes this.

Now Paul, don’t get into a tizzy. Just because ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to prove intelligent design mathematically impossible. Why don’t you prove that it is mathematically impossible for intelligent scientists to do recombinant DNA?

Articulett, I must have missed your description of the selection pressure that would evolve a gene de novo. Could you repeat it again for us?

You posted the concept on this thread. So why not defend what you post?

The proof is out there. Multiple selection pressures slow evolution, ev shows this, numerous real examples shows this. I’ll keep whining this until it gets through your prejudiced and biased mind.

Are you talking about Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Which one of the 10^500 alternative universes did this happen in?

If you don’t think the model is anything close to reality then why don’t you correct it to prove your point? I have already shown how ev’s three selection conditions parallels what happens in reality with numerous different real examples, and you, well you have shown us string cheese.

It is not the random point mutations that make the theory of evolution slow, it is the multiple selection pressures which slow the process, of course, that is just in the alternative universe that we live in. Do you think that the real example of combination therapy slowing the evolution of resistant strains of HIV is limited to point mutations? How about combination therapy of TB in order to slow the evolution of resistant strains of this bacterium? Is this case limited to random point mutations? How about combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapy, are these cases limited to random point mutations? It isn’t the type of mutation which slows the evolution process, it is multiple selection pressures which slow this process.

The numerous real examples of how multiple selection pressures work is not conjecture; they are nails in the coffin for the theory of evolution. It is just handy to have a mathematical model of mutation and selection to drive those nails in.

It could but it won’t. The effect of multiple selection pressures will not disappear no matter how sophisticated you make your algorithm. Ev shows the important mathematical principle that crushes the theory of evolution. That is that multiple selection pressures slow the mutation and selection process profoundly. Add that to the fact you don’t have a selection pressure to evolve a gene de novo and you don’t have a selection pressure that would evolve a reptile into a bird makes the theory of evolution the biggest fraud to hit the scientific community since the flat earth theory.

I have done some work; I did what Dr Schneider suggested to do in his paper. I studied what happens to his model of mutation and selection when you vary the parameters. What it shows is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Of course there are numerous real examples which demonstrate what ev shows and why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Really, what limits the numerous real examples to random point mutations?

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?

Mr Scott, I don’t mind if a pussycat joins this debate.

What a minute, isn’t this the cruft theory of evolution?

Now don’t forget the other fundamental purpose of ev: that is to annoy evolutionists. So, you've not thought of any new lies, eh?

We've debunked this crap. Thanks for playing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

So, you've not thought of any new lies, eh?

We've debunked this crap. Thanks for playing.

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.

[kleinman]

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?No need. The theory is safe as long as creationists shrink from doing any scientific research.
Oh, do you mean I should be researching your string cheese theory of evolution? No thank you. I will stick with doing parametric studies of peer reviewed and published models of mutation and selection. Not only does this show that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, it shows an important clinical medical and scientific principle of the mutation and selection process. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolution process. I leave it to you evolutionists to try and dream up the selection pressure that evolves Barney to Big Bird.

Perhaps Delphi is already at the Irish wake for your beloved pseudo-scientific theory.
The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles.So, now we are up to a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur. Hold on, I'll get the Guiness folks on the phone.......
You evolutionists keep looking for my motivation for this thread. Maybe I’m trying to set the Guiness record for the longest thread for showing evolutionists how mutation and selection works mathematically.
I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.
So, in other words, Dr. Kleinman, you are now reduced to playing semantic games? As I, and virtually everyone else participating in this thread, know quite well the placement of the binding site is pre-determined. The information is not. The absence of information in the binding site is in no way analogous to the HIV reverse transcriptase gene which already contains significant information. Do you wish to argue that there is no information in the gene coding for reverse transcriptase?
I’m not reduced to playing semantic games; I also like to play mathematical games as well. Maybe Dr Schneider can explain this issue to you.
A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.
Once again, HIV has genes that already exists with information. That information must change by single or possibly triple mutations in one site (sometimes two in some circumstances). The solution is not pre-determined. Any mutation that allows the reverse transcriptase to function and escape the effects of triple therapy, specifically directed against it, works and provides further fitness. In ev the solution is already determined. There are 16 binding sites (in most runs that I have seen) with a width of 5 or 6 bases. That requires 90-96 alterations of a specific type, not 3 (or sometimes only 2 since single mutations in HIV will escape an entire class of inhibitors).
In some cases it requires only a single base substitution to give HIV resistance to a particular drug. This fact is used in clinical medicine when treating people with HIV. The virus is sequenced and if this base substitution is identified then the clinician knows he is dealing with a strain resistant to this drug and tailors the treatment accordingly. So HIV requires far fewer evolutionary changes to satisfy a selection condition than does ev. If HIV required that 96 loci to evolve as the ev model requires, it would be very likely you would have a successful lifetime treatment for the disease.
If you want to use HIV triple therapy as your real-world example, then you need to make the simulation in some way analagous. How about a population of 10^9 in each generation with a single binding site of width 3. Run that simulation and see what you get. Otherwise your analogy is a load of bunkum.
Kjkent1 has access to a computer that could do this case but you don’t need it if you understood the mathematics of mutation and selection. The only bunkum in this thread is the notion that reptiles evolve into birds. What is that selection pressure that would do this? Pretty please?
Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?Why don't we apply this to yoru list of non-sequiturs, since that is what it is? The Guiness people haven't called back yet. They are going to be astounded. Care to address the actual point -- that there are clearly more than three selection pressures applied to HIV in any patient receiving triple therapy?
Well, I’ll answer the question for you, I’ve heard of one case where someone with documented HIV infection that did not appear to affect his T-cells. For the vast majority of people infected with HIV, without the selection pressures of antiretroviral drugs, their own immune system applies little selection pressure to prevent the progression of the disease to full blown AIDS. The only thing going into the Guiness book of records is the theory of evolution as the longest lived and widest spread pseudo-scientific theory in modern times. But the theory is dead now, the mathematics of ev shows it and numerous real examples of this mathematics demonstrate this.
Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?It depends on the regimen. In some cases only one. In others two or three. But in most of those cases only one or, at most, two point mutations are required per locus.
And that is correct as described above. HIV requires far fewer loci to evolve than the ev model but combination therapy delays the evolution of resistant strains sometimes for years despite up to 10^9 viral reproductions of the virus per day. Are you getting a sense of the mathematics of mutation and selection yet?
The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest.You really haven't the slightest idea how evolution works, do you? Survival of the fittest is a phrase invented by Herbert Spencer. Survival of the fittest basically means in Darwinian terms survival of those who survive, which is redundant and completely unecessary. Fitness refers to reproduction. The fittest are those who leave behind the most babies, who leave behind the most babies.
Why don’t you read Delphi’s reference to Wikipedia “fitness landscape”, perhaps then you will get some understanding of the mathematics of multiple selection pressures.
You are back to the silly semantic games now, aren't you, Dr. Kleinman?
Semantics is the only way you can support the theory of evolution, you don’t have any mathematics to support it. Your semantic slogan “mutation and selection” to explain the theory of evolution when examined mathematically shows your theory to be mathematically impossible.
That is what natural selection does.No it isn't. Natural selection has no goal. There is no goal in nature. Some organisms survive and reproduce and some don't. Non-reproducers leave behind no progeny and are a "dead end". It's very simple.
That’s an interesting explanation how the basic chemicals in the primordial world assembled into human beings. It has no scientific or mathematical basis but let’s teach this to naïve school children and tell them it is the truth.
You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?We've always said there is no goal in nature. How can you fail to notice? You mean to tell me that you have no idea what the theory even says, and yet you argue against it?
Oh, I know you evolutionists have a belief system that has no mathematical and scientific basis. You have to deny the principle of cause and effect in order to put forth your theory. It’s up to you if you want to believe in this unscientific principle, just don’t try to pass it off as science.
The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.There is no goal in nature. Your mind is so saturated with teleology that you cannot even see that ev is a teleological model. It must be in order to define "information". That is one of the big areas where it does not model nature properly, as it relates to the issues of mutation and natural selection. There is another bigger problem that you haven't noticed, but I'm not saying a word.
Now I understand your logic, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are based on that there is no set goal in nature. How can anyone deny such powerful un-refutable logic as yours? It has no scientific or mathematical basis but that is the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for you, the dumb and dumber ideas that have taken over the field of biology.
These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains.None of which work for very long and all of which involve many more than three selection pressures as already noted above -- you ignore host reactions in every instance.
Really, none work for very long? Why don’t we use monotherapy then? You should ignore host reactions when they don’t have significant effects.
Drop the HIV example. The other examples suffer for the same reasons. They are also not modelled properly by ev.
Why should I drop the HIV example? Are you advocating the return to monotherapy for treatment of this disease? Someday, if you can overcome your evolutionist prejudices and biases, you will come to understand the mathematics of ev. You will then understand how multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.For a given definition of "evolution" everyone agrees that three pressures slows the process. More selection pressure always decreases variability. I don't think anyone has argued against that idea.
Wait a minute; do we have a break through in Ichneumonwasp’s understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection? So what kind of silly semantic games is he going to play with the definition of “evolution”?
You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.Which doesn't model the reality of the examples you profer. So, Im back to not believing a word you type. Reality always trumps model. Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around. But I needn't repeat what you have been told since the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread.
So this is the silly semantic game you are going to play. In one statement you say “More selection pressure always decreases variability” and in the next statement you say “Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around”. More selection pressures is exactly what ev models. In this case it is three selection pressures. Reduce the selection pressures in the model to one selection pressure and the model evolves that one selection pressure far more rapidly than the single selection pressure. That is what the model shows and that is what reality shows, including the use of combination vs monotherapy for the treatment of HIV.
What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant? Dude, I know that this is a search space issue. It is specifically a search space issue because the binding sites are pre-determined and the sequences in those binding sites are sort-of pre-determined (based on exceeding threshhold). Genome length increases will slow the process for large genomes with a set mutation rate as well. The way nature overcomes this issue is with numerous individuals and fast generation times -- consequently millionis of "experiments" per generation. You've already been told this. You have also been told another mechanism that vastly speeds the process -- lateral, or horizontal, spread of genetic information. Before horizontal information spread was possible, the process was fairly slow. It took approximately one billion years to move from single celled life to multicellular life. It may have taken close to one billion years to get to single celled life. We all know that process is slow. If it weren't slow, then this theory would be in deep ****. Once the process of horizontal tranmission of information became possible, however, organisms no longer needed to solve each and every selection "problem". If you had bothered to look at the mathematical models provided you would have seen a model that demonstrates the rapid acceleration of evolution once this "solution" occurred in nature.
The explanation is much simpler than your long paragraph would suggest. As you lengthen the genome, you only increase the length of the nonbinding site region of the genome. You are affecting the selection condition which specifies binding sites in this region is a mistake.

It takes billions of generations to evolve 96 loci on a realistic length genome and that is when you have directed selection conditions. But we now all know that when there is no goal, things go much faster, at least that is the hog wash you evolutionists say how the theory of evolution and abiogenesis works, the dumb and dumber ideas which have taken over the field of biology.

[joobz]

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.
that was my thought as well. It was fun when Dr. Kleinman invented the multiple selection pressure nonsense, but now that he's just repeating the same lies again....boring.

[kleinman]

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.that was my thought as well. It was fun when Dr. Kleinman invented the multiple selection pressure nonsense, but now that he's just repeating the same lies again....boring.
My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.

[joobz]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.
The scientist takes the ball. He dodges past the lies, logic gaps and ad homs set up by the opposition.
He Shoots!!!!
----The kleinman FAQ (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2533858#post2533858)---
He Scores!!
Yes, Evolution wins. EVOLUTION WINS. SCIENCE WINS!!!!!!!!!
the debate is over. Science has demosntrated evolution occurs and is possible.

Well, you know, Chuck, this really was no contest. The scientists have been practicing, publishing non stop over the last 100 years. They had time to refine the ideas, learn more of the world, and really practice their ideas against difficult real world opponents like experiments and peer review.

The IDers in this game were really just not prepared. They never could come up with a testable hypothesis to practice with. I mean look at them out on the field. The IDers are simply crying that god made this field and they have the right to move the goals arround as they see fit. They never once tried to grab the ball and play a game. Despite this level of dishonestly, the scientists simply kept scoring point after point. No matter where the goals were, they were able to make a clean victory.

And that about raps up this metaphor. I like to thank you all for watching. Please stay tuned for a brand new episode of Kleinman's Follies.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, do you mean I should be researching your string cheese theory of evolution? No thank you. I will stick with doing parametric studies of peer reviewed and published models of mutation and selection. Not only does this show that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, it shows an important clinical medical and scientific principle of the mutation and selection process. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolution process. I leave it to you evolutionists to try and dream up the selection pressure that evolves Barney to Big Bird.

Perhaps Delphi is already at the Irish wake for your beloved pseudo-scientific theory.

You evolutionists keep looking for my motivation for this thread. Maybe I’m trying to set the Guiness record for the longest thread for showing evolutionists how mutation and selection works mathematically.


I’m not reduced to playing semantic games; I also like to play mathematical games as well. Maybe Dr Schneider can explain this issue to you.


In some cases it requires only a single base substitution to give HIV resistance to a particular drug. This fact is used in clinical medicine when treating people with HIV. The virus is sequenced and if this base substitution is identified then the clinician knows he is dealing with a strain resistant to this drug and tailors the treatment accordingly. So HIV requires far fewer evolutionary changes to satisfy a selection condition than does ev. If HIV required that 96 loci to evolve as the ev model requires, it would be very likely you would have a successful lifetime treatment for the disease.

Kjkent1 has access to a computer that could do this case but you don’t need it if you understood the mathematics of mutation and selection. The only bunkum in this thread is the notion that reptiles evolve into birds. What is that selection pressure that would do this? Pretty please?

Well, I’ll answer the question for you, I’ve heard of one case where someone with documented HIV infection that did not appear to affect his T-cells. For the vast majority of people infected with HIV, without the selection pressures of antiretroviral drugs, their own immune system applies little selection pressure to prevent the progression of the disease to full blown AIDS. The only thing going into the Guiness book of records is the theory of evolution as the longest lived and widest spread pseudo-scientific theory in modern times. But the theory is dead now, the mathematics of ev shows it and numerous real examples of this mathematics demonstrate this.

And that is correct as described above. HIV requires far fewer loci to evolve than the ev model but combination therapy delays the evolution of resistant strains sometimes for years despite up to 10^9 viral reproductions of the virus per day. Are you getting a sense of the mathematics of mutation and selection yet?

Why don’t you read Delphi’s reference to Wikipedia “fitness landscape”, perhaps then you will get some understanding of the mathematics of multiple selection pressures.

Semantics is the only way you can support the theory of evolution, you don’t have any mathematics to support it. Your semantic slogan “mutation and selection” to explain the theory of evolution when examined mathematically shows your theory to be mathematically impossible.

That’s an interesting explanation how the basic chemicals in the primordial world assembled into human beings. It has no scientific or mathematical basis but let’s teach this to naïve school children and tell them it is the truth.

Oh, I know you evolutionists have a belief system that has no mathematical and scientific basis. You have to deny the principle of cause and effect in order to put forth your theory. It’s up to you if you want to believe in this unscientific principle, just don’t try to pass it off as science.

Now I understand your logic, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are based on that there is no set goal in nature. How can anyone deny such powerful un-refutable logic as yours? It has no scientific or mathematical basis but that is the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for you, the dumb and dumber ideas that have taken over the field of biology.

Really, none work for very long? Why don’t we use monotherapy then? You should ignore host reactions when they don’t have significant effects.

Why should I drop the HIV example? Are you advocating the return to monotherapy for treatment of this disease? Someday, if you can overcome your evolutionist prejudices and biases, you will come to understand the mathematics of ev. You will then understand how multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Wait a minute; do we have a break through in Ichneumonwasp’s understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection? So what kind of silly semantic games is he going to play with the definition of “evolution”?

So this is the silly semantic game you are going to play. In one statement you say “More selection pressure always decreases variability” and in the next statement you say “Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around”. More selection pressures is exactly what ev models. In this case it is three selection pressures. Reduce the selection pressures in the model to one selection pressure and the model evolves that one selection pressure far more rapidly than the single selection pressure. That is what the model shows and that is what reality shows, including the use of combination vs monotherapy for the treatment of HIV.

The explanation is much simpler than your long paragraph would suggest. As you lengthen the genome, you only increase the length of the nonbinding site region of the genome. You are affecting the selection condition which specifies binding sites in this region is a mistake.

It takes billions of generations to evolve 96 loci on a realistic length genome and that is when you have directed selection conditions. But we now all know that when there is no goal, things go much faster, at least that is the hog wash you evolutionists say how the theory of evolution and abiogenesis works, the dumb and dumber ideas which have taken over the field of biology. No new lies?

Ah well.

[Dr Adequate]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed. Still randomly punching buttons on your Lying Machine, hey?

We all know you're lying. Why don't you go and tell your halfwitted lies to people retarded enough to believe them?

(Hint: they're called "creationists".)

[kjkent1]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.You have way too much time on your hands. Are you the night manager at a 24 hour pharmacy?

[kleinman]

Well, you know, Chuck, this really was no contest. The scientists have been practicing, publishing non stop over the last 100 years. They had time to refine the ideas, learn more of the world, and really practice their ideas against difficult real world opponents like experiments and peer review.
But wait a minute Chuck, a new player has just entered the game, its mathman. And ev makes the kickoff and mathman takes the ball at the back of his own end zone. And here come the evolutionists. Just listen to them whine, mathman doesn’t have a chance. The first evolutionist tries to tackle mathman with a red herring but mathman smells that one from a mile away and easily avoids that tackle. Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face, Chuck take the camera off that, its not suitable for children. Mathman is at his own 30 yard line and Paul throws an Rcapacity which misses by a mile. Mathman is at midfield and kjkent1 tries his string cheese move but unfortunately for kjkent1 he is in the wrong alternative universe. Mathman is on the evolutionist 30 yard line and Ichneumonwasp and ev try to throw a reality move on mathman but mathman avoids this ploy with half a dozen examples of reality and look at this Chuck, ev, the kicker for the evolutionist team has turned around and blocked Ichneumonwasp from making the tackle and mathman scores!!! And the gun fires and the game is over, final score, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f. Chuck, who would have thought it could happen? After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened. This is one for the record books Chuck.

And now for some post game analysis by one of the evolutionists who seems to have suffered a concussion. He seems to think he is some entirely different game.
The IDers in this game were really just not prepared. They never could come up with a testable hypothesis to practice with. I mean look at them out on the field. The IDers are simply crying that god made this field and they have the right to move the goals arround as they see fit. They never once tried to grab the ball and play a game. Despite this level of dishonestly, the scientists simply kept scoring point after point. No matter where the goals were, they were able to make a clean victory.
Chuck, tell joobequate that the theory of evolution has lost the game. Perhaps he can come back next year with the abiogenesis team but few people give them a chance. The odds are way too small for the abiogenesis team in this game.
You have way too much time on your hands. Are you the night manager at a 24 hour pharmacy?
Why yes I am. We specialize in the treatment of people who suffer from evolutionism. You know the symptoms and signs, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea. We start with a big dose of mathematical data and follow it up with numerous real examples of this data. You evolutionists whine when you have to take your medicine but you will feel much better afterwards. Of course we are concerned about resistant strains of evolutionists and some clinicians recommend that the mathematics and numerous real examples be administered simultaneously.

[joobz]

Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face,
Kleinman's Follies must be running thin on material to fall back on poop jokes.

After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened. (bolding mine)
ok, that one's pretty funny. :D The shear level detachment from reality you possess is quite amusing.

[Dr Adequate]

But wait a minute Chuck, a new player has just entered the game, its mathman. And ev makes the kickoff and mathman takes the ball at the back of his own end zone. And here come the evolutionists. Just listen to them whine, mathman doesn’t have a chance. The first evolutionist tries to tackle mathman with a red herring but mathman smells that one from a mile away and easily avoids that tackle. Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face, Chuck take the camera off that, its not suitable for children. Mathman is at his own 30 yard line and Paul throws an Rcapacity which misses by a mile. Mathman is at midfield and kjkent1 tries his string cheese move but unfortunately for kjkent1 he is in the wrong alternative universe. Mathman is on the evolutionist 30 yard line and Ichneumonwasp and ev try to throw a reality move on mathman but mathman avoids this ploy with half a dozen examples of reality and look at this Chuck, ev, the kicker for the evolutionist team has turned around and blocked Ichneumonwasp from making the tackle and mathman scores!!! And the gun fires and the game is over, final score, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f. Chuck, who would have thought it could happen? After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened. This is one for the record books Chuck.

And now for some post game analysis by one of the evolutionists who seems to have suffered a concussion. He seems to think he is some entirely different game.

Chuck, tell joobequate that the theory of evolution has lost the game. Perhaps he can come back next year with the abiogenesis team but few people give them a chance. The odds are way too small for the abiogenesis team in this game.

Why yes I am. We specialize in the treatment of people who suffer from evolutionism. You know the symptoms and signs, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea. We start with a big dose of mathematical data and follow it up with numerous real examples of this data. You evolutionists whine when you have to take your medicine but you will feel much better afterwards. Of course we are concerned about resistant strains of evolutionists and some clinicians recommend that the mathematics and numerous real examples be administered simultaneously. Calling yourself "mathman" does not conceal from readers of this thread the fact that your mathematical abilities are below those attained by the average teenager.

Nor will your little magical mantras about "cheese" and "herrings" and "fecal matter" make the facts disappear, because screaming nonsense at reality doesn't alter it in any way.

Your hebephrenic word salad and your windy bragging about your nonexistent mathematical competence have been among the most amusing aspects of this thread.

[T'ai Chi]

What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev: to show that information gain can arise from a randomly ordered system using the process of random mutation and natural selection.


Um, as programmed in by an intelligent designer.

[kleinman]

Kleinman's Follies must be running thin on material to fall back on poop jokes.
Nor will your little magical mantras about "cheese" and "herrings" and "fecal matter" make the facts disappear, because screaming nonsense at reality doesn't alter it in any way.
Wait a minute folks, the twin stars from the evolutionist team, joobequate and adebz are whining foul. Let’s ask the officials to do an instant replay of the goalposts, and here it is:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

And folks, check the case of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy for the treatment of TB and combination pesticides and combination herbicides and combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. They all show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Sorry evolutionists, whining may work with your mothers when it is time to take your nap but it doesn’t change the mathematics of mutation and selection. The final score stands, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f.

[Dr Adequate]

Wait a minute folks, the twin stars from the evolutionist team, joobequate and adebz are whining foul. Let’s ask the officials to do an instant replay of the goalposts, and here it is:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

And folks, check the case of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy for the treatment of TB and combination pesticides and combination herbicides and combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. They all show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Sorry evolutionists, whining may work with your mothers when it is time to take your nap but it doesn’t change the mathematics of mutation and selection. The final score stands, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f. Sorry, this stupid little ritual didn't change reality either.

[joobz]

Wait a minute folks, the twin stars from the evolutionist team, joobequate and adebz are whining foul. Let’s ask the officials to do an instant replay of the goalposts, and here it is:

unoriginal lies again, Oh well.

BTW: I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.

[Dr Adequate]

Um, as programmed in by an intelligent designer. ... as is the case with every computer simulation of a natural process.

As I have explained to you, this does not prove that snowflakes were intelligently designed by Jack Frost.

I would give you the same advice I've given kleinman --- go back to the hind end of the bull and get some new crap. Whining out the same old crap to people who know that you're talking crap convinces them of nothing except that you talk a lot of crap.

It's not even entertaining --- most creationists are much funnier than you.

[T'ai Chi]

... as is the case with every computer simulation of a natural process.


Then when one talks about selection, evolution, mutation, etc., one isn't really talking about those real life things, but intelligently designed simulations of them?

How compelling...

[Dr Adequate]

Then when one talks about selection, evolution, mutation, etc., one isn't really talking about those real life things, but intelligently designed simulations of them? No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.

Try to respond to my posts, if you can, rather than to the nutty voices in your head.

[kleinman]

Sorry, this stupid little ritual didn't change reality either.
and
unoriginal lies again, Oh well.
Folks, adebz and joobequate twins refuse to face facts, resistant strains of evolutionism have already appeared.
I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.
Maybe you should form a mutual admiration society. You can teach adebz grammar, spelling and alchemical engineering and adebz can teach you the finer points of posting gifs and jpegs. Those combined skills make for a formidable evolutionary debating team. Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

[T'ai Chi]

No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.


So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible.

You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though. ;)

[joobz]

Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Say this lie often enough, maybe it will become true?

yes, truth by mantra. very good, Kleinman. Now I understand why you have so many peer reviewed articles to your name.

[Foster Zygote]

BTW: I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.

Plus his avatar causes one to attribute to his words the voice of Alan Rickman playing Snape which works brilliantly.:D

[kleinman]

Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.Say this lie often enough, maybe it will become true?
Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.

[joobz]

Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.
I have absolutely no clue what any of this blathering means. I think the your automatic lying machine is broken.

[kleinman]

Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.I have absolutely no clue what any of this blathering means. I think the your automatic lying machine is broken.
Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:
Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.

Consider combustion chemistry. It's an oxidative process which predominately oxidizes fuels into smaller MW products, CO and CO2. Yet, larger mw products can and typically do form during this process due to the excess energy present. And during the mapping of it's pathways, intermediates have been shown to combine to form new compounds. Granted these are transient and thermodynamically unstable, but highlight the shear complexity of something as benignly simple as burning. If you wish to know more, look into Phil Westmoreland and combustion.
You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation. Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon. You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining. Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?

[joobz]

Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:
Oh GOODY! We are now playing the quote past posts game. Shall I relive the Dr. Kleinman Favorites? Probability exceeding 1? Ah, nevermind.

Well, I must ask, have you looked at Westmorelands' research? Did you know those reaction intermediates existed? did your ignorance of them mean that they didn't exist. The comparison I made was with my cursory understanding of the question. But here's a more complete answer that was provided in later posts by others in this thread.

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=432262&tools=bot)

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=451910)

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2422560&dopt=Abstract)

De novo DNA synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase I associated with primase activity. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6395659&dopt=Abstract)

De Novo synthesis of DNA-like molecules by polynucleotide phosphorylase in vitro (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6af4blfqjxekm4k/)

De Novo Initiation of RNA Synthesis by the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (NS5B) of Hepatitis C Virus (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/851)

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase (http://edoc.mpg.de/262342)

De novo RNA synthesis by a recombinant classical swine fever virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/270/24/4952)

De novo RNA synthesis catalyzed by HCV RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10679285&dopt=Abstract)

Template-free, polymerase-free DNA polymerization (http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b501132a)

Template-Free Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by Bacterial DNA Polymerases I Using the DnaB Protein from Escherichia coli (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h24132172v62l7j8/)



You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation. No, simply that thermodynamics doesn't argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But, of course, Dr. Kleinman, as a engineer you already know this. :rolleyes:
Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon. ????
You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining. see above. see the kleinman FAQ. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2533858#post2533858)
Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others. I've even see code by Delphi that explains why your multiple selection is slow argument is just plain stupid. But, you are the mathman, so you know this one already as well.

[Dr Adequate]

So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible. No, that is not what I said.

You've been listening to the voices in your head again, haven't you?

You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though. ;) The voices in your head are indeed amusing; but it is pitiful to watch you pretend that they have anything to do with me.

[Dr Adequate]

You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. A slight correction. You can sum up his statement in that way, because you are a lying halfwit.

A mentally normal person could not.

[kleinman]

Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:Oh GOODY! We are now playing the quote past posts game. Shall I relive the Dr. Kleinman Favorites? Probability exceeding 1? Ah, nevermind.
Sure, go ahead and repeat my quotes. You complain that I say the same thing over and over anyway. I take from this response you have not run any cases with ev. You silly evolutionists think that you can learn the mathematics of mutation and selection by osmosis.
Well, I must ask, have you looked at Westmorelands' research? Did you know those reaction intermediates existed? did your ignorance of them mean that they didn't exist. The comparison I made was with my cursory understanding of the question. But here's a more complete answer that was provided in later posts by others in this thread.
This is a favorite evolutionist ploy; you can’t post a quote that proves your point so you say, look at somebody else’s research. You then post 11 URL’s which I suppose you claim shows that multiple selection pressures don’t slow evolution. Adebz has taught you well, post as many irrelevant URL’s that you can find. I already played this game with you with your yeasts and multiple selection pressures. It had nothing to do with mutation and selection. If you think you have a reference with a valid point, post that point with your reference.
You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation.No, simply that thermodynamics doesn't argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But, of course, Dr. Kleinman, as a engineer you already know this.
As an engineer, you have to determine what is possible and what is impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection. I have posted URLs with quotes from the URLs of real examples which support this contention. You have not countered this with any cases from ev or any real examples. You have whined a lot though. I have come to expect this from evolutionists.
Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon.????
Now don’t whine when I repeat myself here. Combination therapy of HIV shows this, combination therapy of TB shows this, combination pesticides show this, combination herbicides show this, combination rodenticides show this and combination cancer therapies shows this. All these examples show that multiple selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of the life forms subjected to these multiple selection pressures. Do you want me to post the URLs with quotes from these URLs that support my contention? I don’t mind doing this again.
You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining.see above. see the kleinman FAQ.
There you go again, posting a link without a quote. Post you mathematical proof or real examples which counter the results from ev and the numerous real examples that demonstrate what ev shows.
Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others. I've even see code by Delphi that explains why your multiple selection is slow argument is just plain stupid. But, you are the mathman, so you know this one already as well.
Oh, so you have run ev? Why don’t you post your results? When you do, you will find out that the results contradict your unscientific and mathematically challenged theory of evolution. What you would find out is how mutation and selection really works and it doesn’t evolve a gene de novo and it doesn’t transform reptiles into birds despite all your whining.

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. This is unlikely, since there are no such people.

[Dr Adequate]

Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others.Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection. Kleinman is the geek in the carnival of of pseudoscience, flaunting his grotesque mental deformities to shock, amuse and titillate the sane.

That was particularly funny. Do you suppose he'd do it again if I toss him a nickel?

[Dr Adequate]

You silly evolutionists think that you can learn the mathematics of mutation and selection by osmosis. Do you really suppose you can deceive us by lying to us about our own opinions?

How crazy are you?

This is a favorite evolutionist ploy; you can’t post a quote that proves your point so you say, look at somebody else’s research. Yeah, sure, referring to scientifically proven facts is indeed a favorite "ploy" of evolutionists.

And your self-pitying hysteria and refusal to look at the facts --- well, this is a favorite behavior of creationists, but I wouldn't dignify it with the word "ploy", since the phrase "mental handicap" would be more accurate.

You then post 11 URL’s which I suppose you claim shows that multiple selection pressures don’t slow evolution. Why do you suppose that?

Oh yes, I nearly forgot --- you're a looney.

A sane person would have noticed that he was responding to your question about abiogenesis.

As an engineer, you have to determine what is possible and what is impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection. We all know you're lying, remember?

Combination therapy of HIV shows this, combination therapy of TB shows this, combination pesticides show this, combination herbicides show this, combination rodenticides show this and combination cancer therapies shows this. These are all examples of successful adaptation to multiple selection pressures. You know, the thing you say is "mathematically impossible"?

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman may not have done anything to prove the childish fairy-story about the talking snake, but he has convinced me of the unshakeable truth of Proverbs 26:11.

He swore he'd prove that Genesis
was true, but --- not to our surprise ---
his thesis was no more than this:
repeating half-a-dozen lies.

A fool grown wise in his conceit
through putrid swelling of his brain,
who, once exposed in his deceit
recites his stupid lies --- again.

One moral only draw we from it;
one sure and simple rule:
the dog returneth to his vomit;
to foolishness, the fool.

[kjkent1]

What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev: to show that information gain can arise from a randomly ordered system using the process of random mutation and natural selection.Um, as programmed in by an intelligent designer.

1. Tell me, do you find that anything in our universe is the product of random chance?
2. If so, then what is random, and how do you distinguish it from that which is predetermined?

[T'ai Chi]

1. Tell me, do you find that anything in our universe is the product of random chance?
2. If so, then what is random, and how do you distinguish it from that which is predetermined?

Your attempt to drag things into philosophical discussion has been easily noticed and rejected.

You said

"What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev:... (blah blah)"

so we're talking about this specific intelligently designed computer program. Now will you answer how this intelligently designed computer program disproves intelligent design?

[T'ai Chi]

No, but many people have explained to you how an intelligently designed program can prove the concept of evolution.


How can you be so dishonest and say "No" when the person to post immediately before you, Articulet (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2564717&postcount=3809), did say that DNA disproves the concept of a designer?

[Mercutio]

so we're talking about this specific intelligently designed computer program. Now will you answer how this intelligently designed computer program disproves intelligent design?

I am going to regret this, because Dr. A. has such a better way with words...

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science is once again at center stage... The program does not disprove ID. It is not intended to, and it could not possibly. Remember, ID is unfalsifiable. What this program does is fail to disprove evolution by natural selection. That the program is designed by humans is utterly irrelevant; it could have demonstrated that its model of natural selection was insufficient to account for information gain. It could have falsified natural selection. It did not (sorry, Kleinman, but that's the truth). Does it prove natural selection is right? Of course not--that is not how science works. It could have disproved it, but it could not have proved it. (If it had demonstrated that natural selection could not account for information gain, would you have complained that it was intelligently designed? Just curious...)

[kjkent1]

Your attempt to drag things into philosophical discussion has been easily noticed and rejected.

You said

"What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev:... (blah blah)"

so we're talking about this specific intelligently designed computer program. Now will you answer how this intelligently designed computer program disproves intelligent design?You statement presumes that ev is intelligently designed. Prove it.

[Apathia]

And again, Tai-Chi,

That a model of a natural process is programmed by an intelligent, sentient, designer, says nothing to the effect that the natural process so described and modeled is the work of an intelligent sentient designer itself.
Apples and oranges.

You'll notice though that a computer model of say, crystal formation, doesn't posit the need of some conscious being delberately designing and shaping the crystal. It models a natural process that happens all the time without any sentient intervention or interferance.

Of course it doesn't prove there is no Cosmic Tinkerer or Master Programer, but it does indicate we are not rationally obliged to posit such.

Dr. Schneider's EV Program suceesfully models Natural Selection. Even Dr. Klienman doesn't dispute that. He just disputes it can account for macroevolution. It models a process of Natural Selection, not Sentient Selection, and that the program itself was designed by a sentient being, is inedependent of questions about how natural or supernatural the workings of nature are. That the program is the work of an intelligent designer says zip about the natural process it models.

So, then you'll want to look at natural processes and the results of Natural Selection in nature and see if what is there exhibits the crafting of a clever inventor or smart adaptive biological processes.

From what I've seen, it looks like the non-sentient but smart process, though for all those errors and bad DNA code, it could be the work of Microsoft.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... as is the case with every computer simulation of a natural process.
....Stated another way, computer simulations in this case are recreations, of observed designs, not creations of new designs.

[Taffer]

Just popping back in to see if Kleinman has learned anything about population or evolutionary genetics. Looks like he hasn't. Kleinman, go away, pick up a text book, and learn something about the genetics of evolution. Then you will see why you are wrong, why reality does not show what you think it does, and why ev does not show what you think it does.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible.

You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though. ;)Well here's your problem, (in addition to my comment in the above post). Science isn't out to prove there is or isn't a designer. The evidence for evolution theory merely provides an explanation for what we observe that does not require a designer.

It does happen to support the case if no designer was needed, then why bother believing in one, but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, here's the problems for Christians. It's one thing to apologize for the other mistakes in the Bible such as the creation of the Universe itself. You can simply claim 7 days could have meant something else and you can claim the more bogus excuse IMO, that the description of the creation of the Universe in the Bible was limited by the conceptualization of the people at the time. I say bogus because how hard could it have been if they were supposedly getting information from God?

But when it comes to Creation of humans, now you are going to the heart of the entire religion, the story of Original Sin. Without the Biblical description of Creation, just how do you explain Original Sin? And if you cannot explain Original Sin, how do you have the Jesus story? And obviously, no Jesus, no entire Christian religion. This is a much bigger problem than just fudging dates and time frames and a few misc. details.

The Christian church survived Copernicus and Galileo. How is it going to survive Darwin's dangerous idea? That is a problem science doesn't have. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can you be so dishonest and say "No" when the person to post immediately before you, Articulet (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2564717&postcount=3809), did say that DNA disproves the concept of a designer?You should argue that point with Articulett. It isn't the position of mainstream science. Mainstream science's position is the scientific process is not a tool which can test for a designer. At least not unless you can devise a test for the null hypothesis.

How do the anti-evolution Evangelicals test for a designer? They don't. Everything they claim goes to disproving evolution. Nothing goes to proving a designer. They've tried using irreducible complexity. Their evidence is overwhelmingly refuted by genetic science, but even if you proved irreducible complexity, you would merely be adding a layer of complexity to the theory of evolution that needed further study. You would not be proving a designer.

Which brings me to the stupid argument that one can supposedly disprove evolution by showing there hasn't been enough time for evolution theory to account for the observed lifeforms on Earth today. Some people who haven't taken the time to learn about the flood of discoveries in genetic science like to think they have some 'proof' evolution theory is 'impossible'. It may be a comforting piece of flotsam to cling to in a sea of fading hope, but it does nothing to discredit evolution.

Why? First, because genetic science left that nonsense in the dust. We can see the blueprints now and can trace the changes from one species to the next. We have such a clear understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection pressures and evolution theory that there is no question such as, was there enough time for evolution to account for observed life on Earth? Any claim of 'impossible' is simply refuted by overwhelming evidence.

But even if it weren't yet understood. Say we didn't know the details of evolution that we now know through a flood of genetic science research. And say that someone did some calculations which showed there was a disconnect between the theory and the time it would take to account for life as observed today. What would that mean?

It would mean the theory needed some missing details. It would not in any way 'disprove' the theory. Nor would it in anyway 'prove' a designer was needed to complete the theory. It would merely mean there was something about natural selection pressure we had yet to discover.

But, that isn't the case. Genetic science has explained the details for us, including how evolution easily fits into the timeline which the evidence in the geological record provides. It all fits together nicely. Evidence from a wide variety of different sciences all fits together nicely confirming the picture which has emerged is indeed the correct picture.

Christians are eventually going to have to reconcile their Original Sin myth with the evidence. It's only wishful thinking delaying that now. The Catholics can't make up their mind. First the Pope declared evolution was supported by the evidence but now this Pope is balking. Either way, no amount of faith or wishful thinking is ever going to change the evidence. Might as well start working on the apology. If the DI spent as much time coming up with a way to reconcile the myth with the science instead of trying to reconcile the science with the myth, perhaps this whole stupid affair would have ended long ago.

[Taffer]

Well said, as always, skeptigirl.

Makes me proud to call myself a geneticist, really. :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

But even if it weren't yet understood. Say we didn't know the details of evolution that we now know through a flood of genetic science research. And say that someone did some calculations which showed there was a disconnect between the theory and the time it would take to account for life as observed today. What would that mean?

It would mean the theory needed some missing details. It would not in any way 'disprove' the theory. Nor would it in anyway 'prove' a designer was needed to complete the theory. It would merely mean there was something about natural selection pressure we had yet to discover.



I'm afraid that I must disagree. I think you are skating dangerously close to the non-falsifiability issue of ID with such a statement. While it might be true that calculations would not disprove the theory, if, for instance, we had timing issues wrong as was the case in Darwin's age or we didn't understand some aspect of genetic transmission, it could also be the case that the theory is just plain wrong. We could not tell ahead of time what the explanation is without more information, but we must always be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong. That is one of the main reasons I am always drawn to such discussions and the whole reason I bought and read Darwin's Black Box. I wanted to see how it was that a scientific discovery was going to be overturned and a new revolution dawn. I was sorely disappointed. Just as I have been thoroughly disappointed by this discussion. More of same. A creationist claims that evolution is impossible and cannot support his case. Old story.

Behe's method of attack was sound. If he found something that could not be accounted for by means of mutation and natural selection or some other genetic input, then he would have made a strong case. Same with Kleinman if he had actually shown that evolution is impossible. Both fail for the simple reason that their arguments rest on a straw man characterization of evolution.

This is really just a long-winded way of saying, please add the word 'necessarily' to the sentence:
It would not in any way 'disprove' the theory.
so that it reads "it would not necessarily disprove the theory." It might disprove theory.

[Dr Adequate]

How can you be so dishonest and say "No" when the person to post immediately before you, Articulet (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2564717&postcount=3809), did say that DNA disproves the concept of a designer? I would accuse you, in turn, of dishonesty, except that it seems more likely that there's something wrong with your head.

Articulet said that naturally occurring, undesigned DNA disproves intelligent design.

I said that no-one had worked out how an intelligently designed program could disprove intelligent design.

These two statements are not in conflict, but even if they were, the definition of "dishonesty" is not "disagreement with articulet".

Are you insane?

[Dr Adequate]

For the sane people:

The question of what computer simulations of evolution can or can't prove about Intelligent Design depends on what it means (which varies according to the taste of the person using the phrase).

If it is an assertion of Deism --- of a creator who set up the Universe and then let it run its course (including evolution) then of course a simulation of evolution does not distinguish between this case and the case where the Universe just exists.

If, on the other hand, Intelligent Design is the practice of whining about how evolution is impossible so goddidit by magic, then such simulations are indeed a small part of the vast body of evidence falsifying Intelligent Design.

In order to debate Tai Chi on this issue, it is therefore necessary that the crawling little coward should do what he is obviously terrified of doing and tell us his opinion. But he's been ducking and dodging such questions for so long that it seems safe to predict that he never will.

[Cuddles]

My goodness, is this still going? I think it's entirely possible that this thread does actually prove evolution doesn't happen. 97 pages and Kleinman's delusions still haven't changed one little bit.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Strangely, in a dream last night, this thread spoke to me. It said, "I am the Cumean Sybil. I just want to die."

[Myriad]

My goodness, is this still going? I think it's entirely possible that this thread does actually prove evolution doesn't happen. 97 pages and Kleinman's delusions still haven't changed one little bit.


Absence of selection pressure.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mr. Scott]

[annoying evolutionists] is not my primary reason though for doing this thread. That reason is none of your business.



The establishment of the true behavior of mutation and selection goes beyond proving whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The proper understanding of this mechanism of mutation and selection impacts the treatment of infectious diseases.


These two remarks, especially because they are in the same posting by Dr. Alan Kleinman, suggest to me they are connected. Dr. Kleinman may have unconsciously wanted to leak to us the primary reason he is "doing" this thread. Is he hoping he will be responsible for medical "breakthroughs" that surely must result from the falsification of Darwinian evolution?

The scenario I see working in his mind:

1) Darwinian evolution is false.
2) Darwinian evolution is believed by the mainstream medical and biological community to be true.
3) Treatment of infections is hampered because the understanding of adaptation of infectious agents to therapies is founded on this false premise.
4) The correct foundation of biological science must agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, and the evidence for this is obtainable. Ev provides some of this evidence.
5) This correction, the successful undermining of Darwinian evolution, will result in improved therapies for infectious diseases and no doubt uncountable other advances in the biosciences.
6) I, Dr. Alan Kleinman, am to likely receive credit in this world, and certainly in the next, for putting god back into medicine and curing many of the sick.

I'd like to know if Dr. Alan Kleinman has more evidence than what he believes he's found in Ev, since Ev does not model many critical processes of evolution. These other processes could answer the "too slow to be real" objection to Darwin's theory, so his results from Ev cannot reasonably be interpreted as the "proof" he claims it to be.

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" (http://www.mhvo.com/tracytips/html/murderboard.html) in preparation for his coming public presentation.

[kleinman]

My goodness, hasn’t the whining level picked up a bit on this thread!
Just popping back in to see if Kleinman has learned anything about population or evolutionary genetics. Looks like he hasn't. Kleinman, go away, pick up a text book, and learn something about the genetics of evolution. Then you will see why you are wrong, why reality does not show what you think it does, and why ev does not show what you think it does.
If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.
But even if it weren't yet understood. Say we didn't know the details of evolution that we now know through a flood of genetic science research. And say that someone did some calculations which showed there was a disconnect between the theory and the time it would take to account for life as observed today. What would that mean?

It would mean the theory needed some missing details. It would not in any way 'disprove' the theory. Nor would it in anyway 'prove' a designer was needed to complete the theory. It would merely mean there was something about natural selection pressure we had yet to discover.I'm afraid that I must disagree. I think you are skating dangerously close to the non-falsifiability issue of ID with such a statement. While it might be true that calculations would not disprove the theory, if, for instance, we had timing issues wrong as was the case in Darwin's age or we didn't understand some aspect of genetic transmission, it could also be the case that the theory is just plain wrong. We could not tell ahead of time what the explanation is without more information, but we must always be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong. That is one of the main reasons I am always drawn to such discussions and the whole reason I bought and read Darwin's Black Box. I wanted to see how it was that a scientific discovery was going to be overturned and a new revolution dawn. I was sorely disappointed. Just as I have been thoroughly disappointed by this discussion. More of same. A creationist claims that evolution is impossible and cannot support his case. Old story.
Why should you be disappointed in this discussion? This discussion is simply the application of hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection. Dr Schneider has written a bookkeeping tool and we have obtained results from this bookkeeping tool. I contend that mutation and selection becomes profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures on realistic length genomes. This is a mathematically testable hypothesis and you can look for real examples of this type of behavior which either refute or support this contention. If you are a scientist, you should not be disappointed because it explains a clinically important medical principle that affects the treatment of infectious diseases. It also has application to many other scientific arenas. You will only be disappointed if you are an evolutionary dogmatist who has a social agenda tied to the theory of evolution.
Behe's method of attack was sound. If he found something that could not be accounted for by means of mutation and natural selection or some other genetic input, then he would have made a strong case. Same with Kleinman if he had actually shown that evolution is impossible. Both fail for the simple reason that their arguments rest on a straw man characterization of evolution.
Professor Behe’s method of attack is still sound. Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity and the example of the flagellum was weakly challenged by Professor Miller’s Flagellum Unspun argument. I asked Professor Miller if he could apply his argument to the DNA replicase system. He could not. Hard science requires mathematical precision. This is something that has always been lacking in the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider applied hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection and it reveals how this mechanism works. Unless you are going to retreat to the position that all the complex genetics that we see today developed on short genome life forms with few selection pressures, you are not going to be able to explain the bookkeeping. And you still haven’t told us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo.
My goodness, is this still going? I think it's entirely possible that this thread does actually prove evolution doesn't happen. 97 pages and Kleinman's delusions still haven't changed one little bit.
You mean to say you aren’t going to complain that I have moved the goalposts. You only can wish that my arguments are delusions. Dr Schneider’s computer model shows why mutation and selection is such a profoundly slow process; it is the multiple selection pressures. And Cuddles, my argument has evolved. It started with the contention that ev shows that mutation and selection is a profoundly slow process, too slow to allow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically possible. My argument then evolved to include a reason for the mathematical impossibility for the theory of evolution, which is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.
Strangely, in a dream last night, this thread spoke to me. It said, "I am the Cumean Sybil. I just want to die."
The theory of evolution is dead!
My goodness, is this still going? I think it's entirely possible that this thread does actually prove evolution doesn't happen. 97 pages and Kleinman's delusions still haven't changed one little bit.Absence of selection pressure.
There is plenty of selection pressure; the theory of evolution has gone extinct.

And Myriad, where have you been, there are plenty of evolutionists who don’t understand the effects of increasing population on the probability of a beneficial mutation hitting a particular locus. They are making the same error that I did before you corrected me. The effect on increasing population is less than additive on this probability. It explains why the slope for the generations of convergence/population curve drops off so quickly in ev and why huge populations don’t cause a marked decrease in the rate of evolution.
[annoying evolutionists] is not my primary reason though for doing this thread. That reason is none of your business.
and
The establishment of the true behavior of mutation and selection goes beyond proving whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The proper understanding of this mechanism of mutation and selection impacts the treatment of infectious diseases.These two remarks, especially because they are in the same posting by Dr. Alan Kleinman, suggest to me they are connected. Dr. Kleinman may have unconsciously wanted to leak to us the primary reason he is "doing" this thread. Is he hoping he will be responsible for medical "breakthroughs" that surely must result from the falsification of Darwinian evolution?
Neither annoying evolutionists nor achieving a medical breakthrough by explaining how mutation and selection works are my primary motives for writing this thread, though I find both these reasons have merit. Keep on guessing pussycat.

[joobz]

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" (http://www.mhvo.com/tracytips/html/murderboard.html) in preparation for his coming public presentation.
This concept only works if he actually developed and improved his arguments. As it stands, he repeats the same defunct lies in perpetually less creative ways.

... mathematically impossible...probability greater than 1...:words:

[Foster Zygote]

It could have disproved it, but it could not have proved it.

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."

T'ai Chi fails to realize that his "but the model is intelligently designed" argument is deeply flawed by the fact that every model human minds can devise is intelligently designed. A model of the random movements of gas molecules is intelligently designed. Does he expect us to conclude that the movement of the gas molecules is intelligent because the model was conceived of by an intelligence? Although, maybe he's on to something: ID seems to be full of models that are not intelligently designed.:rolleyes:

[kleinman]

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.This concept only works if he actually developed and improved his arguments. As it stands, he repeats the same defunct lies in perpetually less creative ways.
Now pussycat, that is another reason that has merit for discussing this issue on this thread, however the counter arguments are so weak, they are not of much use in preparing a presentation. Take joobequate’s argument for example. He has no idea of how ev works and what it shows so he calls my arguments “defunct lies”. His ignorance of ev is the basis for his argument. Consider what joobequate has asked:
He states that microevolution occurs, then what prevents microevolution from going too far? What barriers must be encountered that will prevent the natural selection process?
Joobequate, the answer to your question is multiple selection pressures prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Unless you are going to argue that a single selection pressure has led to the evolution of reptiles to birds, how do you account for all the genetic changes? Ev shows mathematically why you can not evolve the huge number of genetic differences between reptiles and birds and I have presented half a dozen examples of how mutation and selection actually works, all consistent with what ev shows. Wikipedia does a good job of describing the fitness landscape and that is consistent with what ev shows and what these numerous real examples of mutation and selection show. Somehow joobequate has convinced himself that his raw speculations are true. Joobequate, if you believe that reptiles evolved into birds, what is the selection pressure that did this?

[Dr Adequate]

My goodness, hasn’t the whining level picked up a bit on this thread!

If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.

Why should you be disappointed in this discussion? This discussion is simply the application of hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection. Dr Schneider has written a bookkeeping tool and we have obtained results from this bookkeeping tool. I contend that mutation and selection becomes profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures on realistic length genomes. This is a mathematically testable hypothesis and you can look for real examples of this type of behavior which either refute or support this contention. If you are a scientist, you should not be disappointed because it explains a clinically important medical principle that affects the treatment of infectious diseases. It also has application to many other scientific arenas. You will only be disappointed if you are an evolutionary dogmatist who has a social agenda tied to the theory of evolution.

Professor Behe’s method of attack is still sound. Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity and the example of the flagellum was weakly challenged by Professor Miller’s Flagellum Unspun argument. I asked Professor Miller if he could apply his argument to the DNA replicase system. He could not. Hard science requires mathematical precision. This is something that has always been lacking in the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider applied hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection and it reveals how this mechanism works. Unless you are going to retreat to the position that all the complex genetics that we see today developed on short genome life forms with few selection pressures, you are not going to be able to explain the bookkeeping. And you still haven’t told us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo.

You mean to say you aren’t going to complain that I have moved the goalposts. You only can wish that my arguments are delusions. Dr Schneider’s computer model shows why mutation and selection is such a profoundly slow process; it is the multiple selection pressures. And Cuddles, my argument has evolved. It started with the contention that ev shows that mutation and selection is a profoundly slow process, too slow to allow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically possible. My argument then evolved to include a reason for the mathematical impossibility for the theory of evolution, which is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

The theory of evolution is dead!

There is plenty of selection pressure; the theory of evolution has gone extinct.

And Myriad, where have you been, there are plenty of evolutionists who don’t understand the effects of increasing population on the probability of a beneficial mutation hitting a particular locus. They are making the same error that I did before you corrected me. The effect on increasing population is less than additive on this probability. It explains why the slope for the generations of convergence/population curve drops off so quickly in ev and why huge populations don’t cause a marked decrease in the rate of evolution.

and
No new lies here, then?

Neither annoying evolutionists nor achieving a medical breakthrough by explaining how mutation and selection works are my primary motives for writing this thread, though I find both these reasons have merit. Keep on guessing pussycat. As you've stated that your "purpose in life" is to annoy me, personally, it is not necessary to guess at your motives.

Unless, of course, you were lying.

[Dr Adequate]

Now pussycat, that is another reason that has merit for discussing this issue on this thread, however the counter arguments are so weak, they are not of much use in preparing a presentation. Take joobequate’s argument for example. He has no idea of how ev works and what it shows so he calls my arguments “defunct lies”. His ignorance of ev is the basis for his argument. Consider what joobequate has asked:

Joobequate, the answer to your question is multiple selection pressures prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Unless you are going to argue that a single selection pressure has led to the evolution of reptiles to birds, how do you account for all the genetic changes? Ev shows mathematically why you can not evolve the huge number of genetic differences between reptiles and birds and I have presented half a dozen examples of how mutation and selection actually works, all consistent with what ev shows. Wikipedia does a good job of describing the fitness landscape and that is consistent with what ev shows and what these numerous real examples of mutation and selection show. Somehow joobequate has convinced himself that his raw speculations are true. Joobequate, if you believe that reptiles evolved into birds, what is the selection pressure that did this? No new lies?

Poor little man.

[kleinman]

As you've stated that your "purpose in life" is to annoy me, personally, it is not necessary to guess at your motives.
This is not my primary motive but I do enjoy this aspect of the debate. Adebz, have you run out of gifs and jpegs? We need something interesting from your otherwise dull and boring posts.
Unless, of course, you were lying.
Oh no, the truth, especially when it is shown mathematically is much more effective at annoying you.

Remember when you said this:
Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true. Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.
Ev shows how the mathematics of mutation and selection works, we have numerous real examples of what ev shows, and Wikipedia’s fitness landscape reference does a very nice job explaining it all. Don’t you like the logic of it all? Too bad your beloved theory of evolution has to bite the dust because of this. Maybe you just ended up in the wrong alternative universe. Kjkent1 has 10^500 more for you. Just remember to take your string cheese and red herring with you. I don’t need to remind you to take the whine.

[Dr Adequate]

Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. This is an interesting delusion.

You seem to believe that you were "close" to deceiving someone when you told Lie #5.

Who?

[Dr Adequate]

This is not my primary motive but I do enjoy this aspect of the debate. Adebz, have you run out of gifs and jpegs? We need something interesting from your otherwise dull and boring posts. If you're crawling to me for a favor, don't you think you should say "please"?

Oh no, the truth, especially when it is shown mathematically is much more effective at annoying you. The truth, especially when proven mathematically, is what I love best.

I also appreciate watching halfwits like you flounder about in the web of your own lies, 'cos it's funny.


Remember when you said this: Yes, it's on page 8.

The exchange went like this:


Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.
Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.

And he was right, wasn't he?

Ev shows how the mathematics of mutation and selection works, we have numerous real examples of what ev shows, and Wikipedia’s fitness landscape reference does a very nice job explaining it all. Don’t you like the logic of it all?
I love it. I also enjoy watching you scream and rave and lie about these same subjects.

Too bad your beloved theory of evolution has to bite the dust because of this. You realise that halfwitted windbags like you have been anouncing the demise of science for past 180 years (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm).

I guess it's easier than finding one single piece of evidence against it.

Just remember to take your string cheese and red herring with you. I don’t need to remind you to take the whine? You remeber how I told you that drooling out nonsense about cheese won't change reality?

Guess what, I was right. It's this knack I have.

Now, do you have any new lies?

Well how about some new magic words?

[kleinman]

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.
Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.And he was right, wasn't he?
No, silly adebz, he hasn’t run the case. When he does, it will once again show that population has less than an additive affect on the rate of convergence. Some day when you apply your mathematical skills to mutation and selection you will understand this as well. Until then, you are just a member of the tickle me elmo board.

[joobz]

Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.

Wow, Elmo, you said something truthful.

Let me pull this string, Dance for us...:)

[kleinman]

Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.Wow, Elmo, you said something truthful.

Let me pull this string, Dance for us...
Why I am dancing joobequate, on the grave of the theory of evolution. It died a slow painful mathematical death. What a pity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."...

Those who seek to discredit science have a predatory relationship with science's language of uncertainty.*

That's why I speak my science in terms of levels of certainty or uncertainty instead of absolutes.

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis that irreducible complexity exists in living organisms.

Prove me wrong. ;)

*paraphrased from someone else's quote.

Just my opinion:
BTW, the people in the marketing department at the DI "lie". Most everyone else is just mistaken, in denial, or blissfully ignorant. It might be helpful to limit the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" to those situations where someone consciously and knowingly seeks to deceive. And unless we are mind readers, that's a pretty tough call. I don't think someone in denial meets the definition of liar.

[kleinman]

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."...Those who seek to discredit science have a predatory relationship with science's language of uncertainty.*
Of course the theory of evolution has to be spoken of in terms of uncertainty. As soon as you start speaking in terms of the bookkeeping of mutation and selection, the theory collapses. Hard science speaks in terms of mathematical certainties.
That's why I speak my science in terms of levels of certainty or uncertainty instead of absolutes.
When the mathematics of the fundamental premise (mutation and selection) for the theory of evolution shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, what happens to the certainty or uncertainty of the theory?
There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis that irreducible complexity exists in living organisms.
There may be thousands of papers written based on a false premise, does that make the false premise true? What is this overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis of irreducible complexity? If you don’t believe that the flagellum is an irreducibly complex system, are you prepared to tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?
Prove me wrong.
I have done this using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of mutation and selection. This model shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process profoundly. This effect is illustrated with half a dozen real examples. This is how mutation and selection works. Are you prepared to describe the selection pressure that can evolve a gene de novo or the selection pressure that would evolve reptiles into birds? Mutation and selection can not do what evolutionists have alleged for over 100 years.
BTW, the people in the marketing department at the DI "lie". Most everyone else is just mistaken, in denial, or blissfully ignorant. It might be helpful to limit the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" to those situations where someone consciously and knowingly seeks to deceive. And unless we are mind readers, that's a pretty tough call. I don't think someone in denial meets the definition of liar.
This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.

[joobz]

This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.
ok, Elmo. If you say so. We believe you. :rolleyes: Who cares if not a shred of paltry amount of evidence that you have presented actually demonstrates anything remotely to what you claim. But, that's ok.

Tell me more about this Fitness Landscape that you keep talking about? can you present your calculations where you see slow downs in all instances of multiple selection pressures? I mean, with your obvious mathematical prowess, this should be a rather simple proof to make.

[kleinman]

This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.ok, Elmo. If you say so. We believe you. Who cares if not a shred of paltry amount of evidence that you have presented actually demonstrates anything remotely to what you claim. But, that's ok.
Joobequate, you are a special case, a combination of ignorance and denial. When I asked you if you had run any cases with ev, you said the following:
Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others.
I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev. The only “others” who have done any type of systematic study with ev is Myriad and myself. And he has withdrawn to the sidelines in this debate. You seem to think you are qualified to discuss ev despite the fact you haven’t studied the model, that qualifies you as ignorant and you are in denial about the results from ev that “others” have posted.
Tell me more about this Fitness Landscape that you keep talking about? can you present your calculations where you see slow downs in all instances of multiple selection pressures? I mean, with your obvious mathematical prowess, this should be a rather simple proof to make.
Let’s let the author of the Wikipedia reference speak for themselves:
Fitness landscapes are often conceived of as ranges of mountains. There exist local peaks (points from which all paths are downhill, i.e. to lower fitness) and valleys (regions from which most paths lead uphill). A fitness landscape with many local peaks surrounded by deep valleys is called rugged.
Apart from the field of evolutionary biology, the concept of a fitness landscape has also gained importance in evolutionary optimization methods such as genetic algorithms or evolutionary strategies. In evolutionary optimization, one tries to solve real-world problems (e.g., engineering or logistics problems) by imitating the dynamics of biological evolution. For example, a delivery truck with a number of destination addresses can take a large variety of different routes, but only very few will result in a short driving time. In order to use evolutionary optimization, one has to define for every possible solution s to the problem of interest (i.e., every possible route in the case of the delivery truck) how 'good' it is. This is done by introducing a scalar-valued function f(s) (scalar valued means that f(s) is a simple number, such as 0.3, while s can be a more complicated object, for example a list of destination addresses in the case of the delivery truck), which is called the fitness function or fitness landscape. A high f(s) implies that s is a good solution. In the case of the delivery truck, f(s) could be the number of deliveries per hour on route s. The best, or at least a very good, solution is then found in the following way. Initially, a population of random solutions is created. Then, the solutions are mutated and selected for those with higher fitness, until a satisfying solution has been found.

Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful).
Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.

[joobz]

I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev. I haven't seen any backpedaling. Well, except for changes to the claim of
probability >1, and natural selection is a restatement of the first law, and well, you get the picture.

Let’s let the author of the Wikipedia reference speak for themselves:

Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.
I'm well aware of what wikipedia has to say on the subject. I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.


After 90+ pages, we are still waiting for this wonderful proof against evolution that you keeping telling us about.

[kleinman]

I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev.
I haven't seen any backpedaling. Well, except for changes to the claim of probability >1, and natural selection is a restatement of the first law, and well, you get the picture.
So your reading skills are no better than your writing skills. If they were, you would have seen this:
I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.
And then when Paul started to understand what ev was showing said this:
It works like real life in a simulation of a limited situation. It covers maybe 1/100 of 1% of the complexity of real life.
Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.I'm well aware of what wikipedia has to say on the subject. I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.
I have given my explanation in my words of what is being said in the Wikipedia reference. That explanation again is multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Study the Wikipedia reference and perhaps you will see this concept but ignorance and denial are blinding you to the facts.
I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.
Delphi is out sorting his socks because he finally realized what the implications of his Wikipedia reference and the results from ev means for the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of what ev shows and in denial of what the Wikipedia reference means so it is taking a little while longer to get you to your sock drawer.
After 90+ pages, we are still waiting for this wonderful proof against evolution that you keeping telling us about.
How about if I paint you a picture:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

[joobz]

So your reading skills are no better than your writing skills. If they were, you would have seen this:

And then when Paul started to understand what ev was showing said this:

I have given my explanation in my words of what is being said in the Wikipedia reference. That explanation again is multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Study the Wikipedia reference and perhaps you will see this concept but ignorance and denial are blinding you to the facts.

Delphi is out sorting his socks because he finally realized what the implications of his Wikipedia reference and the results from ev means for the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of what ev shows and in denial of what the Wikipedia reference means so it is taking a little while longer to get you to your sock drawer.

How about if I paint you a picture:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************
I'm sorry was there a point to this post? In all that text, all of those words, you've failed to present anything at all.

Allow me to repeat my request:
I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.

[cyborg]

joobz, give it up. You're not talking to a person, you're talking to a macro executor.

[Taffer]

If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.

It is painfully obvious that you have never actually read any population or evolutionary genetics text books, or you wouldn't claim this. Why? Because we do have mathematical models for all of this. Come back when you stop being diluded.

[kleinman]

I'm sorry was there a point to this post? In all that text, all of those words, you've failed to present anything at all.
Yes there was a point to that post. It was to demonstrate to the folks who are reading this thread that you are ignorant to what ev shows about the mathematics of mutation and selection and you are in denial of what reality shows about mutation and selection.
Allow me to repeat my request:
I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.
What Wikipedia shows about the fitness landscape is that it is easy to optimize when there is a single selection condition but when there are more than a small number of selection conditions, the optimization becomes almost impossible. Here is how it is worded in Wikipedia:
Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful).
If you are looking for a closed form algebraic equation to describe this situation you are not going to get it because this is a complex parametric system that can only be expressed in the form of functional relationships of the variables. Points on the fitness landscape can be computed with a computer simulation or measured in real situations but you are not going to get a closed form solution. The relevant (dominant) variables in ev are the number of selection pressures and the genome length. Population has a smaller effect and can not overcome the overwhelming affect of the number of selection pressures and genome length. Mutation rate has a fairly linear affect on the rates of convergence in the range of realistic mutation rates. However, no parameter has such profound effect as the number of selection pressures on the rate of convergence. If you did a parametric study with ev, none of this information would be surprising to you.
I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.
Well joobequate, Delphi is not here to put his code fragment into ev to prove his point that multiple selection pressures will converge more quickly than a single selection pressure so why don’t you do it. He’s probably at home sorting his sock draw and wondering why he invested his professional career in a mathematically impossible theory.
joobz, give it up. You're not talking to a person, you're talking to a macro executor.
Closing your eyes isn’t going to make this bogey man go away, neither will hitting the Ctrl-Alt-Del keys. You evolutionists are up to your necks in cruft.
If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.It is painfully obvious that you have never actually read any population or evolutionary genetics text books, or you wouldn't claim this. Why? Because we do have mathematical models for all of this. Come back when you stop being diluded.
Oh really Taffer, you have mathematical models. Well tell us about your mathematical models that show that multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures. Then why don’t you describe the selection pressures that your models use to evolve a gene de novo. Then you can tell us what the selection pressure is that evolves reptiles into birds. We would all like to hear that tale.

What’s the matter, anyone who challenges your silly theory of evolution and shows that it is mathematically impossible using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection automatically becomes delusional in your view? And then demonstrates the mathematics with numerous real examples of this. You had better start thinking of new career alternatives. Maybe joobequate can get you a position in his alchemical engineering school.

You all have a good weekend and we can continue our dance on the grave of the theory of evolution next week. Joobequate, you tickle me.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes there was a point to that post. It was to demonstrate to the folks who are reading this thread that you are ignorant to what ev shows about the mathematics of mutation and selection and you are in denial of what reality shows about mutation and selection.

What Wikipedia shows about the fitness landscape is that it is easy to optimize when there is a single selection condition but when there are more than a small number of selection conditions, the optimization becomes almost impossible. Here is how it is worded in Wikipedia:

If you are looking for a closed form algebraic equation to describe this situation you are not going to get it because this is a complex parametric system that can only be expressed in the form of functional relationships of the variables. Points on the fitness landscape can be computed with a computer simulation or measured in real situations but you are not going to get a closed form solution. The relevant (dominant) variables in ev are the number of selection pressures and the genome length. Population has a smaller effect and can not overcome the overwhelming affect of the number of selection pressures and genome length. Mutation rate has a fairly linear affect on the rates of convergence in the range of realistic mutation rates. However, no parameter has such profound effect as the number of selection pressures on the rate of convergence. If you did a parametric study with ev, none of this information would be surprising to you.

Well joobequate, Delphi is not here to put his code fragment into ev to prove his point that multiple selection pressures will converge more quickly than a single selection pressure so why don’t you do it. He’s probably at home sorting his sock draw and wondering why he invested his professional career in a mathematically impossible theory.

Closing your eyes isn’t going to make this bogey man go away, neither will hitting the Ctrl-Alt-Del keys. You evolutionists are up to your necks in cruft.

Oh really Taffer, you have mathematical models. Well tell us about your mathematical models that show that multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures. Then why don’t you describe the selection pressures that your models use to evolve a gene de novo. Then you can tell us what the selection pressure is that evolves reptiles into birds. We would all like to hear that tale.

What’s the matter, anyone who challenges your silly theory of evolution and shows that it is mathematically impossible using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection automatically becomes delusional in your view? And then demonstrates the mathematics with numerous real examples of this. You had better start thinking of new career alternatives. Maybe joobequate can get you a position in his alchemical engineering school.

You all have a good weekend and we can continue our dance on the grave of the theory of evolution next week. Joobequate, you tickle me. Same old lies.

Is "Joobaquate" a new magic word?

I bet that won't make reality vanish either.

[Dr Adequate]

No, silly adebz, he hasn’t run the case..

I didn't say that he had run the case, I said he was right to believe that what is mathematically certain is also true.

When he does, it will once again show that population has less than an additive affect on the rate of convergence. Some day when you apply your mathematical skills to mutation and selection you will understand this as well. I have applied my mathematical skills to this.

If by "less than additive" you mean that the relationship between population size and generations is non-linear, than I know this. I also know why, and have explained it to you.

As I recall, you were too stupid to grasp the explanation.

Whining about this won't magically make evolution "mathematically impossible", because, you know what? When you go "boo-hoo-hoo" the Universe doesn't give a crap.

[Dr Adequate]

So your reading skills are no better than your writing skills. If they were, you would have seen this:

And then when Paul started to understand what ev was showing said this:


I have given my explanation in my words of what is being said in the Wikipedia reference. That explanation again is multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Study the Wikipedia reference and perhaps you will see this concept but ignorance and denial are blinding you to the facts.

Delphi is out sorting his socks because he finally realized what the implications of his Wikipedia reference and the results from ev means for the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of what ev shows and in denial of what the Wikipedia reference means so it is taking a little while longer to get you to your sock drawer.

How about if I paint you a picture:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************
It's hard to believe even you are dumb enough to go on reciting Lie #5.

But of course you don't read what you post, you have your lying machine write it for you.

Perhaps if you read what you post, you'd realise what a bloody fool you're making of yourself.

---

Could I ask again --- you claimed that you were "close" to deceiving one or more of us with Lie #5.

Who?

I think you're the only person posting here who's too retarded to understand the words "particularly useful".

[I less than three logic]

Kleinman, you're at almost 600 posts in this thread now, and you repeat yourself so often that I'd be awfully surprised if you've managed 300 distinct words throughout the lot of them. Do you think this little argumentum ad nauseam will convince anyone of anything you're trying to say?

The truth of the matter is that it's clear you haven't convinced a single person of anything. People only post in this thread now because they find your delusions entertaining. Just what do you think happens once this thread finally dies? That you've won? That you proved those evolutionists wrong? I hope not, as that would mean you're more delusional than I thought. Here, I'll tell you exactly what will happen. A handful of us will lose a bit of entertainment we've grown used to, and the rest of the world will go on wholly unaffected. That's it. That's all the impact that your keen insight into the "mathematics of mutation and selection" will have on this world. None.

Unless of course, you actually intend to do something with these maths you claim to have. Sit down and work them out, prove they show what you claim and publish them. If the theory of evolution is wrong as you claim, the world will benefit from knowing more of what is correct. Now, I don't actually believe you'll do this. In fact, I'm fairly convinced you don't have any of these maths at all. You'll most likely use one of your witless insults in place of any actual argument. Then, you'll repeat a small sampling of your 300 previously used words, and you'll be right back to where you were in your very first post in this thread. Nowhere.

Now, prove me right. :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Let’s let the author of the Wikipedia reference speak for themselves:

Yes, let's.

Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.

Stamp your hoof twice if you understood that.

If you still don't get it, look at the section of the FAQ entitled "Why Lie #5 Is Funny".

Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you. Physician, heal thyself.

[kjkent1]

klienman...The truth of the matter is that it's clear you haven't convinced a single person of anything.This is not precisely true. kleinman has convinced me that:

1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."

2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.

3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.

4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.

People only post in this thread now because they find your delusions entertaining.I don't find kleinman entertaining. I find him disturbing (which is not the same as annoying), because if kleinman really is Alan Kleinman, Ph.D., M.E., M.D., then this suggests a serious flaw in the academic diploma granting and governmental licensing process, because somehow, kleinman has managed to achieve remarkable credentials, despite his aparently near complete disregard and dislike for scientific reasoning.

That is, kleinman seems happy to acknowledge the scientific method, as long as the results support his preconceived conclusions. But, as soon as anyone suggests that his conclusion are not supported by his science, kleinman either ignores or ridicules the suggestion, or, resorts to stating that he "believes" that the suggestion is not worthy of his investigation.

This use of "belief" to fill the gaps in a scientific theory is what differentiates philosophy from science. The philosopher is entitled to fill any knowledge gap with whatever he/she may choose. The scientist has no such luxury. A gap is an unknown space requiring further scientific investigation -- and nothing else.

[Dr Adequate]

His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. Well, if you said "insufficiently powerful", I'd agree with you --- for one thing, a point mutation can't change the size of the genome.

No-one claims that it "accounts for the myriad of life forms". So I don't see how "too slow" can come into it.

As we've seen, the rate of point mutation is just right to explain the number of point mutations separating, for example, chimps and humans. It can't account for the mutations which aren't point mutations, 'cos they're not point mutations. Speed doesn't come into it.

His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous ... Well, when he says this makes evolution "mathematically impossible", then that's not "ambiguous" so much as a flatulent lie.

[Mercutio]

Well, when he says this makes evolution "mathematically impossible", then that's not "ambiguous" so much as a flatulent lie.

"Flatulent"? Either your internet connection is much better, or much much much worse, than mine. Either way, you are getting more information than I am. And I am not envious in the least.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So Kleinman, are you more worried that you are distant cousins to the great apes or are you just worried that without the Creation story, it's hard to still believe in the Jesus story?

[T'ai Chi]

The truth of the matter is that it's clear you haven't convinced a single person of anything.


He's convinced that an intelligently designed simulation of evolution can't possibly prove an intelligent designer is not needed in real evolution.

[Mercutio]

He's convinced that an intelligently designed simulation of evolution can't possibly prove an intelligent designer is not needed in real evolution.

He is convinced? Or he has convinced [you]? Are you missing a word there?

If the former, that's old news; if the latter, I thought you had expressed that opinion before Kleinman even came here--I could be wrong about that, though.

Anyway, that conclusion is trivially true anyway--what it could have done is disprove (or add evidence to that side, anyway) the sufficiency of random processes. Remember (once again), the notion of an intelligent designer is non-falsifiable; that this experiment cannot disprove an intelligent designer is not surprising in the least.

[joobz]

What Wikipedia shows about the fitness landscape is that it is easy to optimize when there is a single selection condition but when there are more than a small number of selection conditions, the optimization becomes almost impossible. Here is how it is worded in Wikipedia:

Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful).

Thank you for this. It's quite amusing watching you continually display your poor reading comprehension.

Please, tell me more about the fitness landscape and how it shows that evolution is impossible.

[Dr Adequate]

He's convinced that an intelligently designed simulation of evolution can't possibly prove an intelligent designer is not needed in real evolution. Yes it can.

A computer simulation can't prove that there wasn't an intelligent designer, but it can in principle prove that one isn't needed in real evolution.

[Dr Adequate]

Please, tell me more about the fitness landscape and how it shows that evolution is impossible. He's never tried to argue in favor of Lie #5. How could he? He's just programmed his Lying Machine to tell Lie #5 over and over --- as though having a computer repeat a lie would eventually make it true.

[Taffer]

Oh really Taffer, you have mathematical models. Well tell us about your mathematical models that show that multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures.

Gladly.

Let us use the model for Heterozygote Advantage. In this, we have selection against both the homozygote forms (i.e. recessive and dominant), thus multiple selection pressures.

p = Frequency of the dominant allele.
p' = Frequency of the dominant allele after one generation.
s = The selection coefficient against the dominant homozygote.
t = The selection coefficient against the recessive homozygote.

p' = p((1-ps)/1-p^2s-q^2t)

Then why don’t you describe the selection pressures that your models use to evolve a gene de novo.

Define gene.

Then you can tell us what the selection pressure is that evolves reptiles into birds. We would all like to hear that tale.

I laughed quite hard when I read this. There is so much evidence that this is the case, both morphological and genetic, to make this statement idiotic. Even if our theory of evolution by natural selection is incorrect, birds did evolve from reptiles (actually, it is better to say that reptiles and birds shared a common ancestor, but oh well). Feathers are modified scales, kleinman. Add "zoology" to the list of things you need to study.

What’s the matter, anyone who challenges your silly theory of evolution and shows that it is mathematically impossible using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection automatically becomes delusional in your view?

Not at all. However, you are delusional, and I have come to this conclusion through the vast amounts of information completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

And then demonstrates the mathematics with numerous real examples of this. You had better start thinking of new career alternatives. Maybe joobequate can get you a position in his alchemical engineering school.

Firstly, yet again, you are completely wrong about your examples. Secondly, I'm perfectly happy where I am, thanks. Y'know, actually learning rather then just blathering on.

Oh, and don't even bother trying an argument from silence. I do not have much time to post on these forums anymore. Damn my graduate study, damn it to hell.

And as a side note, I recieved my Degree yesterday. I think I know a little bit what I'm talking about.

[Mercutio]

Congratulations, Taffer!

[Taffer]

Thanks! :blush:

ETA: I just realised that could be an argument from authority...of myself. "I say it, so it must be true!" :o

[articulett]

He is convinced? Or he has convinced [you]? Are you missing a word there?

If the former, that's old news; if the latter, I thought you had expressed that opinion before Kleinman even came here--I could be wrong about that, though.

Anyway, that conclusion is trivially true anyway--what it could have done is disprove (or add evidence to that side, anyway) the sufficiency of random processes. Remember (once again), the notion of an intelligent designer is non-falsifiable; that this experiment cannot disprove an intelligent designer is not surprising in the least.

Should a creationist ever give any clue as to what sort of evidence might convince him that he is mistaken, please make it available for all. In fact, I suspect all faith based claims are particularly resistant to reason. I've got to remember to ask "what type of evidence would it take to convince you, you were mistaken, and if they skirt the issue or avoid the question, I shall presume that they have reached a faith based conclusion that no amount of evidence can sway. It should save me some time, I think.

One amputated human limb regrown if full could sway me. A map of where the coolest fossils can be found. Some actual prescient scientific knowledge that we can test and confirm right away revealed from a "divine source" could sway me. It's so easy to sway a skeptic--you just need evidence--replicable evidence. It's impossible to reason with the faithful. No amount of evidence is enough.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe we should ask that very question, articulett. I think I'll post a challenge thread. I'll add your contribution to it.

[kleinman]

When he does, it will once again show that population has less than an additive affect on the rate of convergence. Some day when you apply your mathematical skills to mutation and selection you will understand this as well.I have applied my mathematical skills to this.
Posting a gif or jpeg does not qualify as mathematical skills.
If by "less than additive" you mean that the relationship between population size and generations is non-linear, than I know this. I also know why, and have explained it to you.
That’s right the effect of increasing population on generations for convergence is non-linear. With small populations the effect of increasing population is much, much greater on the generations of convergence than with increases of large population. Of course if you had run a few cases with ev you would know this.
Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.
Poor adebz, the reason why it is not useful for cases with many possible solutions is seen if you read a little further.
Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful).
We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process.
Kleinman, you're at almost 600 posts in this thread now, and you repeat yourself so often that I'd be awfully surprised if you've managed 300 distinct words throughout the lot of them. Do you think this little argumentum ad nauseam will convince anyone of anything you're trying to say?
You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?
1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."
What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?
2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.
Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.
3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.
Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.
4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.
You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem? I’m torn; I don’t know whether to call this comment stupid or ridiculous? I know how to solve this quandary, it is both.
I don't find kleinman entertaining. I find him disturbing (which is not the same as annoying), because if kleinman really is Alan Kleinman, Ph.D., M.E., M.D., then this suggests a serious flaw in the academic diploma granting and governmental licensing process, because somehow, kleinman has managed to achieve remarkable credentials, despite his aparently near complete disregard and dislike for scientific reasoning.
Don’t forget my Master of Science degree, two Bachelor of Science degrees and I graduated kindergarten with honors in sand box (that is still one of my favorite classes).
That is, kleinman seems happy to acknowledge the scientific method, as long as the results support his preconceived conclusions. But, as soon as anyone suggests that his conclusion are not supported by his science, kleinman either ignores or ridicules the suggestion, or, resorts to stating that he "believes" that the suggestion is not worthy of his investigation.
Ok, let’s investigate whether reptiles can evolve into birds. Let’s use the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection written by the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. You know that model that you have decided to discredit because it shows this is mathematically impossible.
This use of "belief" to fill the gaps in a scientific theory is what differentiates philosophy from science. The philosopher is entitled to fill any knowledge gap with whatever he/she may choose. The scientist has no such luxury. A gap is an unknown space requiring further scientific investigation -- and nothing else.
The theory of evolution is nothing but gap which evolutionists try to fill with speculation. Of course except you, you fill that gap with string cheese.
So Kleinman, are you more worried that you are distant cousins to the great apes or are you just worried that without the Creation story, it's hard to still believe in the Jesus story?
I’m worried about neither. Do you want to tell us how forgiveness evolved?
Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful).Thank you for this. It's quite amusing watching you continually display your poor reading comprehension.
What I think is most amusing is you evolutionists attempting to do CPR on the theory of evolution after rigor mortis has already set in.
Oh really Taffer, you have mathematical models. Well tell us about your mathematical models that show that multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures.Let us use the model for Heterozygote Advantage. In this, we have selection against both the homozygote forms (i.e. recessive and dominant), thus multiple selection pressures.

p = Frequency of the dominant allele.
p' = Frequency of the dominant allele after one generation.
s = The selection coefficient against the dominant homozygote.
t = The selection coefficient against the recessive homozygote.

p' = p((1-ps)/1-p^2s-q^2t)
This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse) but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.
Should a creationist ever give any clue as to what sort of evidence might convince him that he is mistaken, please make it available for all. In fact, I suspect all faith based claims are particularly resistant to reason. I've got to remember to ask "what type of evidence would it take to convince you, you were mistaken, and if they skirt the issue or avoid the question, I shall presume that they have reached a faith based conclusion that no amount of evidence can sway. It should save me some time, I think.
Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.
Maybe we should ask that very question, articulett. I think I'll post a challenge thread. I'll add your contribution to it.
Feel free to answer the above questions on any thread you like.

[neon]

Notice this gem from Kleinman:

Evolutionists need to learn how to attend to the details.

:catfight: :faint:

............?

[delphi_ote]

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.
All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.

[kjkent1]

1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17431169&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum)

kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.

2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.Just look in the mirror, Alan. You are here. This scientifically proves you are wrong, because if you were right, then no life would exist, unless you believe in magic.

But, magic is the antithesis of science. If you believe in magic, then you are cannot be a scientist. Your entire theory of existence is based on a belief that God creates life from nothing by application of will alone, and you believe this, despite all of your scientific formalism. Do you not see the contradiction?

3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.Your saying that I discredit Schneider’s model doesn’t make it true. I recognize that Schneider’s model does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, where as you refuse to recognize similarly, because if you do, then you can’t continue to claim evolution mathematically impossible. Correct? Of course it is. You just won't admit it.

4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem?Yes, that’s exactly what I think. I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.

I think that you have all of these grand educational and governmental credentials and that you cannot understand why your peers in the scientific community do not take you seriously when you claim that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Now think for just a few seconds about why it may be that your peers think you’re irrational.

Okay, do you see it yet? I just explained it above in this post, but let me do it once more so you don’t miss it.

You are a Ph.D, M.E., M.D. who believes that magic rules the universe, and moreover, you believe that science proves that magic rules the universe.

Once more: science – magic. Scientific peers – kleinman. kleinman thinks all the other scientists are nuts if they accept evolutionary findings as reasonable, because they don’t believe as kleinman does that magic rules the universe, and that God blew life into Adam from dust.

[Mercutio]

All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.
I hereby apologize for posting my "goalposts" poem--it seems he is using it as a plan.

[Taffer]

This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse)...

Kleinman, are you honestly claiming I do not know the difference between mutation and recombination? Do you even know what recombination is? I certainly do. Recombination, nor mutation, has nothing to do with anything in the example I gave. It deals with, solely, selection and allele frequencies. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

...but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.

And here we have it folks. Finally, at long last, kleinman has said something which is exactly what I've been trying to explain to him. Kleinman, it could be one selection pressure (maleria), two (different actions on dominant and recessive homozygotes), or fifty five. The number of selection pressures is arbitrary and unimportant. That is why your ideas are bunk. Lets go back to your example of multiple antiretroviral agents in the control of HIV. You claim there are multiple selection pressures. But the entire situation can be modeled using only a single selection pressure which is a sum of all individual selective pressures acting on an organism. What matters in evolution is not how many selection pressures are acting, but how strongly all of selection is acting as a whole.

This can be seen from the equation I gave. There is no function of the number of selective pressures, because it is not needed to model selection. All that is required is the initial frequency of p, and the selection coefficients. The selection coefficient is a description of the total viability of the organism when considering all selection pressures acting upon it. Kleinman, can you not see that your statement of "multiple selection pressures stopping evolution" is simply wrong? What matters is not how many selection pressures there are, but how strongly the organism is being selected against!

Oh, and before you say that it's the same thing, and strong selective pressures stop evolution too, it doesn't. It speeds up evolution. Try using any selection model equation from evolutionary population genetics and comparing large values of the selection coefficient to low values. You will find that larger selection coefficients lead to a faster ratio of alleles. This is evolution.

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup...

This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. This is abiogenesis. If you have a problem with abiogenesis, go argue that in an abiogenesis thread.

...and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated...

We don't know yet. Lack of knowledge is not evidence the theory is wrong, kleinman. That's why science works.

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo...

How many times do we need to explain you are using "de novo" wrongly. Also, how many times do we need to provide examples of "de novo" gene formation?

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds...

We don't know yet. Lack of knowledge is not evidence the theory is wrong, kleinman. That's why science works.

Also, please note, even if all of evolutionary theory is wrong, there is so much evidence that birds and reptiles shared a common ancestor that to deny such is akin to denying atomic theory.

...and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures.

Please read above to see why this question makes no sense. Strong selection coefficients lead to faster evolution. It doesn't matter how many selection pressures there are.

Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

There are gaps in our knowledge, kleinman, and in the theory of evolution. However, lack of knowledge does not mean the theory is wrong. This is why science works.

Feel free to answer the above questions on any thread you like.

I will only answer questions relating to evolutionary theory, not abiogenesis.

[Mr. Scott]

I've been having discussions, inspired by the thread, "Why are Darwinists afraid to debate us?" about what word to use for lying creationists.

My first choice was "perennial" as in "creationists are perennial liars." This has been misinterpreted to mean "annual."

My Living Websters defines perennial as "Lasting or continuing througout the year, as a spring or a stream; lasting for an indefinitely long time; enduring; perpetual; everlasting; bot. continuing more than two years.

I do like the sound of, "creationists are perpetual liars."

A friend suggested "inveterate" for which his dictionary lists:

meaning #2: (Latin in + to make old)
1. established a long time; deep-rooted, as an inveterate hatred.
2. habitual; confirmed in some fixed habit; as, an inveterate smoker.
Obsolete: hostile, bitter, spiteful.

Any other suggestions? Anyone personally know of a creationist who is not an inveterate, perennial, or perpetual liar?

[cyborg]

Kleinman lies by machine proxy - he is a proxy liar.

[Thabiguy]

Kleinman, I do feel that you are beyond help, but I will still explain your misconception in simple terms:

Adding an n-th selection pressure means that a creature that has all n traits that are selected for, simultaneously, is less likely to occur than a creature that only has n-1 traits. But it doesn't mean that the emergence of any individual trait will be slowed down.

A foreigner can get the American green card in various ways; some of them are for example marrying an American or making a big investment. Adding another way to get a green card - say by winning the green card lottery - does not make it any harder to get the green card by preexisting ways. The number of people that will marry an American and make a big investment and win the lottery will of course be much smaller than the (already small) number of people that will only marry an American and make a big investment, but it won't get any harder to get a green card by marrying an American or by making a big investment.

When you breed dogs and you select for blue eyes and curly hair, and then you decide to select also for a long tail, it means that dogs that have all three characteristics will be rarer than dogs that only have two, but it won't slow down the emergence of any individual characteristic in the population, as long as the characteristics are independent. If blue eyes make it X-times as likely that the dog will reproduce, then there will be X-times more dogs with blue eyes among the group of dogs that do get to reproduce - regardless of whether those are only dogs with long tails or dogs with any length of tail.

Of course, in your world, it is impossible for a dog breed to have more than two characteristics. :rolleyes:

[I less than three logic]

You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?
I couldn't care less about your goalposts. Your 600 posts provide more than enough evidence to show you're completely inept at using logical debate and reasoning to sway opinions. I'm not entirely convinced you even understand what moving the goalposts means, and while I'm sure you could quote the definition from some source, the progression of this thread tends to show you don't actually comprehend the meaning of those words.

No, what I'm interested in should be much more simple for you. Publish these mathematics you continually claim you possess. You already have them, right? Just pretend to play a real scientist for a bit, work out the proofs for those mathematics, and publish them for peer review in a mathematical journal. Perhaps in something like the Journal of Mathematical Biology (http://www.springer.com/west/home/math/biology?SGWID=4-10047-70-1044030-0&detailsPage=journal|aimsAndScopes). See, simple.

[Mr. Scott]

I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.

This is an excellent hypothesis. I think Kleinman is google-bashing: hoping that people who search for "Schneider Ev" will come across Kleinman's laughable misuse of the Ev model.

I'd been wondering why Kleinman was so venal in his remarks here. It just doesn't seem very christian to me, what with all the turning the other cheek and so forth. A christian would go on a rampage of revenge, but not, as I've heard, true christian...

...but an emotionally disturbed relative of the great apes would.

[kleinman]

Notice this gem from Kleinman:Evolutionists need to learn how to attend to the details.http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/catfight.gif
Ah a new name to shed some light, oops, some gifs on this slugfest, oops, ticklefest. Welcome to evolutionland where your fantasies do not come true, but you will learn something about the mathematics of mutation of selection.
Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.
Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.

You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one:
******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************
1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome.
Anyone care for red herring with their string cheese?
kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.
Let’s start with the word “homologous”. You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?
2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.Just look in the mirror, Alan. You are here. This scientifically proves you are wrong, because if you were right, then no life would exist, unless you believe in magic.
So impeccably powerful logic, how could I have ever doubted the evolutionist world view? I doubt it because it is mathematically impossible.
But, magic is the antithesis of science. If you believe in magic, then you are cannot be a scientist. Your entire theory of existence is based on a belief that God creates life from nothing by application of will alone, and you believe this, despite all of your scientific formalism. Do you not see the contradiction?
You are the one who believes in magic, you believe that horizontal gene transfers magically occur.
3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.Your saying that I discredit Schneider’s model doesn’t make it true. I recognize that Schneider’s model does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, where as you refuse to recognize similarly, because if you do, then you can’t continue to claim evolution mathematically impossible. Correct? Of course it is. You just won't admit it.
Of course ev doesn’t model the entire evolutionary landscape, but it does model the part where it shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process profoundly.
4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem?Yes, that’s exactly what I think. I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.
We all know how you think. You believe there are 10^500 alternative universes out there some place. Do you think I am raging at Dr Schneider when I say that he properly modeled the mathematics of mutation and selection? Evolutionists discredit the model now. They go so far to attribute the mathematics of the model to me. Are they raging against Dr Schneider?
I think that you have all of these grand educational and governmental credentials and that you cannot understand why your peers in the scientific community do not take you seriously when you claim that evolution is mathematically impossible.
I claim it is mathematically impossible based on the results of an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of mutation and selection and have presented half a dozen real examples of this mathematics. Give it a little time kjkent1; my peers in the scientific community will get the point.
Now think for just a few seconds about why it may be that your peers think you’re irrational.
It must be my refusal to believe that there 10^500 alternative universes.
You are a Ph.D, M.E., M.D. who believes that magic rules the universe, and moreover, you believe that science proves that magic rules the universe.
How dare you classify me into a group of people like Einstein, Newton, Pascal, …
Once more: science – magic. Scientific peers – kleinman. kleinman thinks all the other scientists are nuts if they accept evolutionary findings as reasonable, because they don’t believe as kleinman does that magic rules the universe, and that God blew life into Adam from dust.
They are nuts if they think that the theory of evolution is mathematically possible.
All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.I hereby apologize for posting my "goalposts" poem--it seems he is using it as a plan.
I love co-opting evolutionist ideas; it’s kind of like making junk art.
This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse)...Kleinman, are you honestly claiming I do not know the difference between mutation and recombination? Do you even know what recombination is? I certainly do. Recombination, nor mutation, has nothing to do with anything in the example I gave. It deals with, solely, selection and allele frequencies. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
Considering this is a thread about the mathematics of mutation and selection and you presented an example of recombination of selection, I’m not so sure you understand the difference.
...but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.And here we have it folks. Finally, at long last, kleinman has said something which is exactly what I've been trying to explain to him. Kleinman, it could be one selection pressure (maleria), two (different actions on dominant and recessive homozygotes), or fifty five. The number of selection pressures is arbitrary and unimportant. That is why your ideas are bunk. Lets go back to your example of multiple antiretroviral agents in the control of HIV. You claim there are multiple selection pressures. But the entire situation can be modeled using only a single selection pressure which is a sum of all individual selective pressures acting on an organism. What matters in evolution is not how many selection pressures are acting, but how strongly all of selection is acting as a whole.
Here is where you confuse the mathematics of mutation and selection and the mathematics of recombination and selection. There are far fewer genes and alleles than there are loci in a genome where random mutations occur. The selection process for recombination works very quickly. A hemoglobin S gene can form by mutation and the beneficial affect of this allele in certain environments can quickly propagate through the population by recombination and selection and give the results you describe. However, combination therapy of HIV is an example of mutation and selection alone without recombination. The individual selection pressures from the combination therapy are discrete selection pressures that act and particular points on enzyme systems for the virus and can not simply be summed up. The selective advantage for hemoglobin S heterozygote in certain malaria endemic environments occurs because homozygote hemoglobin S have sickle cell disease, homozygote normal hemoglobin get malaria and heterozygote hemoglobin S get neither because of only slightly defective hemoglobin.

You have not shown a case where multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than a single selection pressure.
Adding an n-th selection pressure means that a creature that has all n traits that are selected for, simultaneously, is less likely to occur than a creature that only has n-1 traits. But it doesn't mean that the emergence of any individual trait will be slowed down.
Another evolutionist flocks to this thread yet fails to read the thread. What you say here is contradicted by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and selection and numerous real examples of this phenomena. Perhaps you advocate the return to monotherapy for the treatment of HIV?
You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?No, what I'm interested in should be much more simple for you. Publish these mathematics you continually claim you possess. You already have them, right? Just pretend to play a real scientist for a bit, work out the proofs for those mathematics, and publish them for peer review in a mathematical journal. Perhaps in something like the Journal of Mathematical Biology. See, simple.
What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review? Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications. These results already have important clinical medical implications for the treatment of infectious diseases. These results suggest that monotherapy should never be used for the treatment of bacteria like Gonorrhea, MRSA and pseudomonas as well as confirming the use of combination therapy for HIV and TB. Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation that shows mathematically how mutation and selection works. The model refutes the theory of evolution but does show important principles of mutation and selection that will affect the way medicine will be practiced.
This is an excellent hypothesis. I think Kleinman is google-bashing: hoping that people who search for "Schneider Ev" will come across Kleinman's laughable misuse of the Ev model.

I'd been wondering why Kleinman was so venal in his remarks here. It just doesn't seem very christian to me, what with all the turning the other cheek and so forth. A christian would go on a rampage of revenge, but not, as I've heard, true christian...
Pussy cat, I think you have a fur ball.

[I less than three logic]

What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review?
I don't have anything against the forum. Dr. A, joobz, and the others have done a fine job thus far in exposing your ideas as nonsense.

Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications.
So you claim. I'll look for your publications, but I sure won't be holding my breath. All evidence suggests you're only interested in playing pretend scientist on web forums than in actual scientific inquiry.

[kleinman]

What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review?I don't have anything against the forum. Dr. A, joobz, and the others have done a fine job thus far in exposing your ideas as nonsense.
Their analysis is the evolutionist version of gif and awe. How can anyone withstand such a withering attack? Well, I’ll be a tickle me elmo, see me dancing on the grave of the theory of evolution.
Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications.So you claim. I'll look for your publications, but I sure won't be holding my breath. All evidence suggests you're only interested in playing pretend scientist on web forums than in actual scientific inquiry.
Hey, everything I have said is mathematically testable. Why don’t you pretend to be a mathematician and test them?

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.
Sorry. I was busy finishing my M.S.
You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one: ... Multiple Selection Pressures...
Great! Since we've already done that, I'll stop working on my time machine, since you're obviously convinced.

[kleinman]

Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.Sorry. I was busy finishing my M.S.
Congratulations!
You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one: ... Multiple Selection Pressures...Great! Since we've already done that, I'll stop working on my time machine, since you're obviously convinced.
It was your Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape that convinced me. Since you are stopping your work on your time machine, you have time for your PhD thesis topic, “How multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution”. Perhaps you better go back to working on your time machine.

[Dr Adequate]

So kleinman's returned to his vomit.

[kjkent1]

What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome.Anyone care for red herring with their string cheese?
And, so you prove my point. If anyone presents peer-reviewed research challenging your hypothesis of existence, you immediately dismiss that research as nonsense.

In the kleinman world, only evidence which supports the Christian bible is true – all other evidence is false. That’s not science. Science takes the evidence as either proven or not and if the evidence doesn’t support the current theory, then the theory must change to fit the evidence.

Your refusal to deal with the evidence is immediately demonstrated again in your next statement, below:

kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.

Let’s start with the word "homologous". You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?
Different "species" successfully crossbreed, despite their lack of homologous DNA. See Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16710306&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Furthermore, retroviral insertions, fusions, deletions, additions, etc, do not necessarily prevent a mutation from being conserved in future generations of the same species.

Chanting a talisman like "homologous" as a means of voiding peer-reviewed research, does not render that research null. The research exists whether or not it supports the Biblical story of creation, and if you choose to accept Genesis in preference to the research, then that means you’re not a scientist, because Genesis is an appeal to magic – not science.

[Dr Adequate]

Posting a gif or jpeg does not qualify as mathematical skills. They do not. However, mathematical skills count as mathematical skills.

That’s right the effect of increasing population on generations for convergence is non-linear. With small populations the effect of increasing population is much, much greater on the generations of convergence than with increases of large population. Of course if you had run a few cases with ev you would know this. I do in fact know this. I explained it to you. You were too stupid to understand the explanation.

Let me explain something to you. You are an innumerate halfwit. When you try to patronise me, you look like a complete buffoon. Of course, it is possible that this is your objective.

Poor adebz, the reason why it is not useful for cases with many possible solutions is seen if you read a little further. No it isn't, this is a halfwitted lie.

We've read the article, we all know that you're lying.

We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process. I never said any such thing. This is a halfwitted lie.

Why do you lie so much, kleinman?

[kleinman]

Let’s start with the word "homologous". You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?Different "species" successfully crossbreed, despite their lack of homologous DNA. See Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees.

Furthermore, retroviral insertions, fusions, deletions, additions, etc, do not necessarily prevent a mutation from being conserved in future generations of the same species.
What part of these bizarre speculations convinces you that theory of evolution has any truth?
Chanting a talisman like "homologous" as a means of voiding peer-reviewed research, does not render that research null. The research exists whether or not it supports the Biblical story of creation, and if you choose to accept Genesis in preference to the research, then that means you’re not a scientist, because Genesis is an appeal to magic – not science.
Well, we can add something to your string cheese theory of evolution. You think that genetic material flows back and fourth between living things like the sloshing of the primordial soup. Nothing stops that flow, not homology, nothing stops that flow. Where did all those genes arise from anyway?
We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process.I never said any such thing.
So get beyond your gif and awe strategy and show us how it works, silly adebz. Multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, ev shows this, numerous real examples show this. If you think mutation and selection works differently than this, prove it and stop being so silly.

[Thabiguy]

Another evolutionist flocks to this thread yet fails to read the thread. What you say here is contradicted by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and selection and numerous real examples of this phenomena. Perhaps you advocate the return to monotherapy for the treatment of HIV?

No, it is not. It's just that you're too obtuse to comprehend it.

When using multiple drugs to combat an illness, resistance is less likely to occur, because 1) the population is dramatically reduced, and so the chance of a favorable mutation occurring are reduced, 2) the selection pressure is not for the occurence of any individual trait, but for their combination. Because developping individual drug resistance no longer ensures survival, its individual selection pressure is effectively lowered.

That's akin to trying to breed dogs by getting a rifle and shooting all wolves you can find, unless they happen to be white, making white wolves more prevalent - and then wondering why, if you instead shoot wolves unless they look like a poodle, white wolves do not evolve quite so readily. You might conclude that it's because multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, and everyone else will correctly conclude that you are an idiot who knows nothing about breeding dogs.

Multiple selection pressures in the real world don't work by killing organisms left and right unless they acquire several traits simultaneously (sometimes that happens and species usually respond to it by going extinct). Having better teeth is a survival advantage and increases fitness - there is a selection pressure. Another selection pressure is added when having better eyes is also a survival advantage and also increases fitness. It does not mean that not having better eyes suddenly makes everyone die. Nor does it mean that having better teeth no longer increases fitness unless the creature simultaneously has better eyes.

You fail to comprehend this because in your distorted world, using another drug is adding another selection pressure. You ignore the fact that it is, first and foremost, global reduction of the fitness of all organisms in the population and that it is not independent, as it reduces selection pressures on other traits by no longer making them a significant survival advantage. That is not the case for multiple selection pressures in the real world that are actually independent.

[kleinman]

Another evolutionist flocks to this thread yet fails to read the thread. What you say here is contradicted by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and selection and numerous real examples of this phenomena. Perhaps you advocate the return to monotherapy for the treatment of HIV?No, it is not. It's just that you're too obtuse to comprehend it.
Well Thabiguy, perhaps you want to explain what is said in Wikipedia about the fitness landscape or is that also too obtuse.
When using multiple drugs to combat an illness, resistance is less likely to occur, because 1) the population is dramatically reduced, and so the chance of a favorable mutation occurring are reduced, 2) the selection pressure is not for the occurence of any individual trait, but for their combination. Because developping individual drug resistance no longer ensures survival, its individual selection pressure is effectively lowered.
Of course selective pressures reduce population, but what you are missing is what ev shows, it is much easier to evolve to a single selection pressure than to multiple selection pressures. That is what is being said in the Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape as well.
That's akin to trying to breed dogs by getting a rifle and shooting all wolves you can find, unless they happen to be white, making white wolves more prevalent - and then wondering why, if you instead shoot wolves unless they look like a poodle, white wolves do not evolve quite so readily. You might conclude that it's because multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, and everyone else will correctly conclude that you are an idiot who knows nothing about breeding dogs.
Another evolutionist who thinks recombination and natural selection works like mutation and selection. Would you get your evolutionary processes straight?
Multiple selection pressures in the real world don't work by killing organisms left and right unless they acquire several traits simultaneously (sometimes that happens and species usually respond to it by going extinct). Having better teeth is a survival advantage and increases fitness - there is a selection pressure. Another selection pressure is added when having better eyes is also a survival advantage and also increases fitness. It does not mean that not having better eyes suddenly makes everyone die. Nor does it mean that having better teeth no longer increases fitness unless the creature simultaneously has better eyes.
Obviously you haven’t read this thread since you would have seen the numerous references to multiple selection pressures besides combination antimicrobials such as combination pesticides, combination herbicides and combination rodenticides, all of which show that the evolution of resistant strains is slowed by the use of the combination selection pressures. You also haven’t studied the ev computer model of mutation and selection and you haven’t read the Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape. If you had, you would have some idea how mutation and selection really works.
You fail to comprehend this because in your distorted world, using another drug is adding another selection pressure. You ignore the fact that it is, first and foremost, global reduction of the fitness of all organisms in the population and that it is not independent, as it reduces selection pressures on other traits by no longer making them a significant survival advantage. That is not the case for multiple selection pressures in the real world that are actually independent.
Adding another drug when doing combination therapy is adding another selection pressure and does reduce the global fitness of the creature. Of course selection pressures are independent and their effects on reproduction when combined are not linear. If you had any idea how ev works, this would be obvious to you. Evolutionists should really be made to take entire mathematics courses rather than dumbbell math then perhaps they would have a chance to understand ev. If you think that multiple selection pressures in the “real world” behave differently, then show us mathematically and/or give us real examples of this otherwise, join the roster of mathematically incompetent evolutionists who think they understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

[kjkent1]

What part of these bizarre speculations convinces you that theory of evolution has any truth?I provided you with citations to peer-reviewed science and you call them bizarre speculations. You just keep proving my point over and over, that you're not interested in anything scientific. This is all about you trying to raise your self esteem.

Well, we can add something to your string cheese theory of evolution. You think that genetic material flows back and fourth between living things like the sloshing of the primordial soup. Nothing stops that flow, not homology, nothing stops that flow.The evidence proves that horizontal gene transfer occurs. If you want to "believe" that it occurs due to divine intervention, be my guest. But, that's religion, not science. If you're a scientist, then you will seek to identify the processes giving rise to HGT, instead of denying the possibility because your belief system demands otherwise.Where did all those genes arise from anyway?Just turn off all of ev's selection pressures, and all those genes will arise istantly -- just like what must have occured at the time of abiogenesis, when no selective pressures existed.

After all, if it happens in ev, then it must be true, because as you have repeatedly stated, you are not the one discrediting Schneider's model, because that would prove that your goal is to obtain revenge from your perception that he has discredited you on his blog.

[Thabiguy]

Well Thabiguy, perhaps you want to explain what is said in Wikipedia about the fitness landscape or is that also too obtuse.
What particular part of the Wikipedia article about fitness landscape would you like me to explain?

[kleinman]

What part of these bizarre speculations convinces you that theory of evolution has any truth?I provided you with citations to peer-reviewed science and you call them bizarre speculations. You just keep proving my point over and over, that you're not interested in anything scientific. This is all about you trying to raise your self esteem.
Post the quote(s) from your peer-reviewed science that you think supports your point.

Oh yes, you are s