Annoying creationists

[Belz...]

Your input is not in vein.

Well, that's a weird thing to say.

[joobz]

Well, that's a weird thing to say.
:D

[kjkent1]

Not sure I agree with that, but I've been aware of the contradiction for a while.

I still don't get why killing the atheist seems like a good way to keep one's faith. What, silencing your opponents is the same as negating their arguments ? Weird.Has nothing to do with keeping the faith. Has everything to do with survival.

Selection for belief in an afterlife increases the likelihood that there will be warriors available to defend the tribe without concern for personal safety, because death is no obstacle if one is immortal.

Atheists are simply less inclined to ride into the valley of death for Der Furer.

[Kotatsu]

Kotatsu, Have no worries. I did not ignore your posts and have learned from you. Your input is not in vain.

Thank you!

Besides, I do thank him for presenting the multiple selection pressure argument. I find it very amusing that his theory helps prove that evolution is possible. He contends, rightly, that a set of strong selection pressures can create an environment where no adaptation is possible. His then must pretend that nature is a constant set of extremely high selection pressures for his theory to be accurate.

It would have been very interesting to see if he could produce such an example form the real world. I mean, there are some pretty advanced niches out there which nonetheless have organisms adapted to them.

I'll continue to post examples of weather to help him realize that the natural environment(where life exists) is almost never constant.

While Kleinman will never appreciate why you do it, I find it hilarious.

[Dr Adequate]

So did he do anything new this week?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We thought he had crashed and burned on the whole ethics thing, but then he pulled up at the last moment. We're back to the same old thing now.

~~ Paul

[rocketdodger]

So did he do anything new this week?

He claimed you and I have asserted many times that "n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures," which of course is nonsense.

I told him to quote us, so he came up with a number of posts where we state something along the lines of n+1 pressures leading to faster fixation or higher fixation rates, etc.

I then challenged him to explain how those things we said are equivalent to "n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures." Predictably, he dodged and moved on to arguing with other people instead of responding.

[Kotatsu]

So did he do anything new this week?

He revealed to everyone that I practise eugenics. I was saving that for my 1000th post, but he had to ruin everything.

Or was that last week? His posts sort of float together...

[Dr Adequate]

He claimed you and I have asserted many times that "n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures," which of course is nonsense. The thing is that when he cuts and pastes this stuff, he doesn't need to read it, so I guess he'll never notice that it's gibberish.

"Selection pressures evolve" ... I wonder how many times he's posted that phrase now?

I told him to quote us, so he came up with a number of posts where we state something along the lines of n+1 pressures leading to faster fixation or higher fixation rates, etc.

I then challenged him to explain how those things we said are equivalent to "n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures." Predictably, he dodged and moved on to arguing with other people instead of responding. That isn't new, he's been doing it for months.

[delphi_ote]

It is clear from ev that the shape of the fitness landscape is strongly dependent on the number of selection pressures. It is this mathematical fact that ev demonstrates that you are in denial of.
:notm
The nature of interaction between selection pressures is what matters, not the number. If you're so hot with math, you know that the combination of two functions depends on the functions being combined and the operation used to make the combination. That is the principle mathematical principle you don't seem to be grasping. Given two fitness function g(x) and h(y), combining them using some other operation f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes. Unless you define that combination operator (and f(x) and h(y)) in the context of "multiple selection pressures" argument, you're just another incoherent madman ranting on the internet.

Stop making ignorant ad hominems and learn from people who understand this better than you do.

[kleinman]

Any of you evolutionists figure out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process yet? Or are you evolutionists still advancing your mathematically irrational and illogical concept which contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process? Let’s see who is still working on the latest bloody chapter in the story of evolutionism.
After all this time working with your model, you still don’t recognize that there is a measure of the complexity of the sorting conditions. That measure is dependent on the number of loci the sorting conditions must evolve in order to get to a local optimum and the availability of a trajectory for the population to get to that local optimum.Most excellent. Now we know that when we argue about whether n+1 pressures are faster or slower than n, we are arguing simplistically.
Obfuscate the argument as much as you want Paul but the fact of the matter is that is what your own model shows.
It is this type of empirical evidence along with the mathematical evidence from the peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and selection, ev, written by Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute which shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when more than a single selection pressure is applied to a population and therefore the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.So let me see if I understand this -- you put Schneider on a pedestal and throw his title around in this forum as if it somehow makes his work more important, and then proceed to claim that his interpretation of his own project is incorrect.
Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection does properly model the essentials of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. However, using a single 256 base case to describe the behavior of a complex model has led Dr Schneider to an incorrect interpretation of the behavior of his model. If Dr Schneider had simply done what he called for in his own publication, he would have learned what his model actually shows. And what his model shows is the mutation and selection process is profoundly slowed when you have combined selection pressures. It shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
If Scheider is the head of computational molecular biology at NCI, with peer reviewed and published material, what makes you think you know more about his area of expertise than he does?
That’s simple rocketdodger, I did the study that Dr Schneider called for in his publication and it shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. What his model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
Now. You can not prove something does not exist. You are attempting to prove that evolution does not exist. You can no more prove that evolution does not exist, than you can prove that I do not have an invisible elf living in my backyard.
I’m not proving that evolution does not exist, I am showing you how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works both mathematically and empirically. And the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
Evolutionists can not describe the selection pressures that would lead to the transformation of a reptile population to a bird populationYet at least one evolutionist has done so repeatedly in this very thread. I listed about 30 selection pressures that alone or in combination would lead to the evolution of birds from a dinosaur ancestor. These posts still stand, so you can go back and read them again, if you like to.
Kotatsu, your speculations may go over well on the SciFi channel but they do not qualify as repeatable scientific measurements. Tell us what the target genes are to your 30 selection pressures and the mutations which would lead to the transformation of a reptile to a bird. Your story telling does not qualify as science, it is simply mushy story telling.
So did he do anything new this week?
Just more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, somebody needs to counter the mathematically irrational and illogical assertions that you evolutionists advance about this process so that we can try to reverse the millions of premature deaths that people suffering from diseases like HIV which are subject to the mutation and selection process.
We thought he had crashed and burned on the whole ethics thing, but then he pulled up at the last moment. We're back to the same old thing now.
We all know evolutionist ethics, survival of the fittest. We are now learning evolutionist mythematics.
He claimed you and I have asserted many times that "n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures," which of course is nonsense.The thing is that when he cuts and pastes this stuff, he doesn't need to read it, so I guess he'll never notice that it's gibberish.
You evolutionists keep on making the claim that the more complex sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process proceeds and you won’t even need to have passed Sesame Street to know that your arguments are irrational and illogical.
It is clear from ev that the shape of the fitness landscape is strongly dependent on the number of selection pressures. It is this mathematical fact that ev demonstrates that you are in denial of. http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/sno.gif
The nature of interaction between selection pressures is what matters, not the number. If you're so hot with math, you know that the combination of two functions depends on the functions being combined and the operation used to make the combination. That is the principle mathematical principle you don't seem to be grasping. Given two fitness function g(x) and h(y), combining them using some other operation f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes. Unless you define that combination operator (and f(x) and h(y)) in the context of "multiple selection pressures" argument, you're just another incoherent madman ranting on the internet.
So now you are going to try to express joobz’s nonsense of cooperative selection pressures to mathematically? Let’s go for it. Let’s start with your own Wikipedia reference to the fitness landscape concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape)
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).
Your own example shows that once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful, it becomes almost impossible to check all the possible routes. So, when you claim “f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes”, you are almost correct, it results in 4^G possible fitness landscapes.

The combination operator for two selection pressures g(x) (you erroneously said f(x)) and h(y) in the context of "multiple selection pressures" argument can not be superposition because the mathematical behavior of these combined functions is not additive. However, what you are doing physically when combining selection pressures is superimposing the behavior of g(x) on h(y). It is the mathematical and empirical behavior of superimposing two selection pressures simultaneously which shows the blunder in the theory of evolution. You can not extrapolate the rapid evolution of a microbial population to a single targeted selection pressure to the massive transformation of the genetic structure of one life form to another life form. The superposition of the huge number of fitness functions prohibits this. You can’t sort mutations for huge number of fitness functions simultaneously. That is what Dr Schneider’s program shows and that is what the huge number of empirical examples of mutation and selection shows.
Stop making ignorant ad hominems and learn from people who understand this better than you do.
Delphi, tell us all about the mathematical and empirical studies you have done which show that huge number of fitness functions can evolve simultaneously.

While you are trying to do this, I’ll continue to post citations which show that multiple fitness functions interfere with the evolutionary process when these fitness functions are superimposed on each other.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/505711 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/505711)
Prior virologic and biochemical studies have shown phenotypic antagonism between K65R and multiple thymidine-analogue mutations (TAMs) in site-directed mutants tested in vitro. We hypothesized, on the basis of this observed antagonism, that K65R and T215Y/F with multiple TAMs would not be selected on the same human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genome in vivo. We searched a large database of patient genotypes (n=59,262) for the frequency of K65R in combination with ≥3 TAMs as determined by standard population sequencing. K65R and multiple TAMs were rarely detected (<0.1%) in the same plasma sample. Samples with both K65R and ≥3 TAMs (n = 21) were further analyzed by use of single-genome sequencing. K65R was never found on the same genome with T215F/Y and ≥2 other TAMs, except in the presence of the Q151M multiple nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)–resistance complex. These results indicate that antagonism between the K65R and T215Y/F pathways of NRTI resistance occurs at the genomic level. Therapy with NRTI combinations that select both pathways simultaneously may delay the emergence of NRTI resistance and prolong treatment response.
http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCR D&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=16&abstractID=1045 (http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCR D&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=16&abstractID=1045)
Between 7/1999 and 11/2001 300 patients (pts.) with BCR-ABL+ CML (173 m., 127 f.; median age 60, range 16-82 years; late chronic phase, CP, n=135, accelerated phase, n=86, blast crisis, n=78) were treated with imatinib (STI571, Glivec, 400-800 mg/day) at a single institution in close cooperation with the referring centers as part of multiinstitutional trials. Median treatment duration is 260 days with a maximum observation time of 850 days. Pts. are evaluated for induction of hematologic response, major cytogenetic response, molecular response, time to progression, survival, and safety. In CP, cytogenetic response after six months was predictable with real-time PCR after two months. All pts. in complete cytogenetic remission (n=55) remained RT-PCR positive after a median observation time of 1.3 years. Mechanisms of resistance have been evaluated in 50 pts.. 5/46 pts. showed a more than 10fold increase in BCR-ABL levels. Genomic amplification of BCR-ABL was found in 2/26 pts.. Clonal evolution was observed in 15/29 pts.. Heterogenous point mutations of the ABL tyrosine kinase domain leading to amino acid substitutions were detected in 11/50 pts.. (Y253F, n=1; Y253H, n=2; E255K, n=2; E255V, n=1; T315I, n=3; M351T, n=2). ABL autophosphorylation assays demonstrated an increase of the IC50 for imatinib from 0.025 μM for wildtype ABL to 1.8 μM for Y253F and >5.0 μM for E255K and V and T315I. Reactivation of BCR-ABL was confirmed by CRKL immunoblotting in eight pts. with point mutations. We conclude (i) that imatinib is an effective treatment for CML pts. with interferon resistant CP and advanced disease; (ii) quantitative RT-PCR is the method of choice for response monitoring; (iii) in relapsing pts., restored activity of the BCR-ABL protein in resistant cells suggests that the chimeric oncoprotein remains a rational drug target; (iv) early combination therapy is suggested in advanced disease to prevent clonal selection of resistant cells.
Delphi, this is what the combination operator does when you combine selection pressures.

[joobz]

So now you are going to try to express joobz’s nonsense of cooperative selection pressures to mathematically? It's not my nonsense, it is your own theory that I am presenting. It's just that you don't yet understand the nature of the theory you are suggesting.

Remember, by your own theory, which I think hits the important aspects of selection pressures, variation in the intensity and number of selection conditions can accelerate the process of evolutionary adaptation.

Since, nature is a variable environment, we know that evolution is not only possible, it is real.

It seems you still doubt this, so here is some more proof that nature does indeed have weather.

[Kotatsu]

Kotatsu, your speculations may go over well on the SciFi channel but they do not qualify as repeatable scientific measurements. Tell us what the target genes are to your 30 selection pressures and the mutations which would lead to the transformation of a reptile to a bird. Your story telling does not qualify as science, it is simply mushy story telling.

The target genes are of course different depending on exactly which morphological, physiological or ecological change you are interested in. For the changes from scale to feather, the genes coding for the structure and construction of the scales are targeted. For the changes in breast bone structure, other genes (those which govern the construction and structure of this bone) are targeted.

All in all, of course, the entire genome is targeted by the combined selection pressures which lead to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

[kleinman]

Kotatsu, your speculations may go over well on the SciFi channel but they do not qualify as repeatable scientific measurements. Tell us what the target genes are to your 30 selection pressures and the mutations which would lead to the transformation of a reptile to a bird. Your story telling does not qualify as science, it is simply mushy story telling.The target genes are of course different depending on exactly which morphological, physiological or ecological change you are interested in. For the changes from scale to feather, the genes coding for the structure and construction of the scales are targeted. For the changes in breast bone structure, other genes (those which govern the construction and structure of this bone) are targeted.


Do not make up quotes from other posters.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]All in all, of course, the entire genome is targeted by the combined selection pressures which lead to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
And they lived happily ever after.

[rocketdodger]

Since your existence no longer means anything to me, Kleinman (as I have learned all I can from debating you, since you post no new material or arguments), I am going to begin reporting your unfair tactics in an attempt to get you banned from this forum. Consider yourself warned.

The above post has been reported for misuse of the quote feature.

[Shalamar]

Klienman still clings to his hope that Evolution is wrong, morally bankrupt.

I really really hope he doesn't 'practice' medicine, since, apperently, all of biology is wrong as well.

If we're evil Evolutionists, can I call him an evil gravitationalist?

[Kotatsu]

And they lived happily ever after.

Ah, paedomorphosis.

I take it, then, that you either don't understand the subject, can't come up with any arguments for what I say is wrong, or a combination thereof. Not really a surprise.

[kleinman]

Since your existence no longer means anything to me, Kleinman (as I have learned all I can from debating you, since you post no new material or arguments), I am going to begin reporting your unfair tactics in an attempt to get you banned from this forum. Consider yourself warned.
Aren’t you the good little censor.
The above post has been reported for misuse of the quote feature.
Did you run home and tell your mommy a mean old creationist is showing that you are irrational and illogical?
Klienman still clings to his hope that Evolution is wrong, morally bankrupt.
Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

[joobz]

Did you run home and tell your mommy a mean old creationist is showing that you are irrational and illogical?Of course not. I informed her that Dr. Kleinman deveoped a theory that helped provide proof that evolution is mathematically possible.

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

Any luck proving that weather doesn't exist?

[Henners]

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical.

Oooooh. Get her

[kjkent1]

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.Why don't you provide us with some evidence that research using multi-drug therapies to control disease has been suspended or abated in response to a general acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific community?


If you can't, then your comments about the moral bankruptcy of the theory of evolution are defamatory.

They're also really dumb.

[Kotatsu]

The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

Yes, let us instead return to the medieval way of looking at medicine --- as that is the period you seem to want to live in.

Henceforth, we should treat all diseases with leeches, blood-letting or a variety of methods which restore the four humours of the body. Let us abandon germ theory as well; the notion that diseases are produced by noxious fumes from swamplands was good enough when Christianity ruled Europe, so it's good enough now as well. When nothing else works, pray!

This will save all those millions of people, no doubt.

[Shalamar]

Aren’t you the good little censor.

Did you run home and tell your mommy a mean old creationist is showing that you are irrational and illogical?

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

DO you have any proof of your mathematical claims? Actual, you know, math? With Equasions? Or are you still hoping for that?

DO you believe in Gravity, Klienman? After all, Gravity causes thousands of deaths each you.. You evil Gravitationalist, you. I have proof that Gravity is false, as well!

[kjkent1]

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.Hey, kleinman, here's a little Christmas present for ya:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/88511241/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It appears from this article that despite multi-drug therapies, a frame shift permitted HBV to escape. Now, that's just my first try to find a research report directly contradicting your position.

So, in the last week, you're now confronted with a statistical survey showing that evolution in humans has accelerated, and a research report showing that other than random-point mutation can have a profound effect in the evolution of an organism, despite controlled multi-drug therapy.

I'd say that there are at least a few black swans swimming around your theory at the moment.

[kjkent1]

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.Damn, kleinman, I've found another Christmas present for ya! This one's got MATH, and it should give you an opportunity to show us how you will go about defeating a mathematical argumnt which appears to be in direct contradiction to your own.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17967052

Have fun!

[kleinman]

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical. When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.Why don't you provide us with some evidence that research using multi-drug therapies to control disease has been suspended or abated in response to a general acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific community?
Evidence of how the mutation and selection process actually works was available more than 50 years ago.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html)
In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics - such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.

As an important example of the application of these same concepts of microbial genetics to mammalian cells, we may cite the probable mutational origin of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents in leukemic cells 44, and the increasing and effective simultaneous use of two or more chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of this disease.
Instead of properly teaching how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, you evolutionists have and continue to teach the mathematically and empirically irrational concept that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into bird. Because of evolutionist irrationality we now have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant HIV, multidrug resistant Malaria,… And you evolutionists want to perpetuate this. Your theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically irrational, it is morally bankrupt and has caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.
The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.Yes, let us instead return to the medieval way of looking at medicine --- as that is the period you seem to want to live in.
It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.

[kjkent1]

Evidence of how the mutation and selection process actually works was available more than 50 years ago.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html)

Instead of properly teaching how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, you evolutionists have and continue to teach the mathematically and empirically irrational concept that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into bird. Because of evolutionist irrationality we now have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant HIV, multidrug resistant Malaria,… And you evolutionists want to perpetuate this. Your theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically irrational, it is morally bankrupt and has caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.

It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.I see. So, since 1958, due to the conclusions of the Nobel Lecturer, there has been no ongoing study of multi-drug therapy and disease?

Oh, wait! All of your quoted research is from studies done since 1958. So, in fact you have proven that there has been no suspension or abatement of multi-drug theraputic studies.

So, your remarks are defamatory -- by virtue of your own multitude of proofs.

I think you owe the entire scientific community an apology.

[rocketdodger]

Awesome job finding those studies kjkent1!!!

I actually learned something from reading this thread today!

[kjkent1]

Awesome job finding those studies kjkent1!!!

I actually learned something from reading this thread today!Well, Merry Christmas to you!

[kleinman]

Evidence of how the mutation and selection process actually works was available more than 50 years ago.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html)

Instead of properly teaching how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, you evolutionists have and continue to teach the mathematically and empirically irrational concept that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into bird. Because of evolutionist irrationality we now have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant HIV, multidrug resistant Malaria,… And you evolutionists want to perpetuate this. Your theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically irrational, it is morally bankrupt and has caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.

It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.I see. So, since 1958, due to the conclusions of the Nobel Lecturer, there has been no ongoing study of multi-drug therapy and disease?
You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago. You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds. This type of thinking is not only irrational and illogical, you evolutionists have successfully institutionalized this irrational and illogical thinking and it is causing the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon. The theory of evolution interferes with science.

[joobz]

Well, Merry Christmas to you!
I agree, those are some interesting papers. I am interested to see how Kleinman decides to address them.

Perhaps he'll pretend like they don't exist, just like he pretends that weather doesn't exist.

[kjkent1]

You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago. You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds. This type of thinking is not only irrational and illogical, you evolutionists have successfully institutionalized this irrational and illogical thinking and it is causing the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon. The theory of evolution interferes with science.Once again, you will be upended by your own words. You have repeatedly claimed "100s of studies" showing the effect of multiple drug therapies on various pathogens. And, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 100s of studies was reported after 1958 -- clearly and convincingly demonstrating the fact that there has been no slow down in research into the effect of multi-drug therapies as immunoprophylaxis.

You're wrong, kleinman -- totally, completely, utterly, full of crap. Now apologize.

[kleinman]

Well, Merry Christmas to you!I agree, those are some interesting papers. I am interested to see how Kleinman decides to address them.
The evolutionist playbook is so thin that you replay the same old arguments over and over. Kjkent1 is playing the recombination argument again. We all know now that HIV does recombination but combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. Joobz now whines that the weather explains the theory of evolution. I never thought joobz could propose anything dumber than his cooperative chemistry speculations for abiogenesis. Joobz, you have surpassed yourself.
You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago. You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds. This type of thinking is not only irrational and illogical, you evolutionists have successfully institutionalized this irrational and illogical thinking and it is causing the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon. The theory of evolution interferes with science.Once again, you will be upended by your own words. You have repeatedly claimed "100s of studies" showing the effect of multiple drug therapies on various pathogens. And, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 100s of studies was reported after 1958 -- clearly and convincingly demonstrating the fact that there has been no slow down in research into the effect of multi-drug therapies as immunoprophylaxis.
The vast majority of the studies cited were published after 1990. The dumb ass mathematically incompetent interpretation of the mutation and selection process by evolutionists is finally being overcome by medical necessity. Dr Schneider’s own model shows the same principle mathematically as do these hundreds of empirical studies show in reality but his own coworker talks about Rcapacity. I wonder if there will be any end to the illogical and irrational nonsense that evolutionists assert about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. It is you evolutionists who owe an apology to people show suffer from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process. It is the evolutionists’ irrational and illogical assertions which have interfered with the scientific understanding of this process. And kjkent1, your string theory assertion is one of the dumbest; it goes well with joobz weather nonsense.

[Shalamar]

Please supply the math, and the equations to show your 'proof'.

I see you are harping more, and more on the 'evolution is immoral'.

Evolution is Science. It is neither Moral, nor immoral. It simply is.

PLease stop your illogical nonsense, just because you believe in Creationism.

[cyborg]

Wait - how exactly can people die prematurely from diseases subject to an impossible phenomena?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Instead of properly teaching how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, you evolutionists have and continue to teach the mathematically and empirically irrational concept that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into bird. Because of evolutionist irrationality we now have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant HIV, multidrug resistant Malaria,… And you evolutionists want to perpetuate this. Your theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically irrational, it is morally bankrupt and has caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.
Toast.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago. You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds. This type of thinking is not only irrational and illogical, you evolutionists have successfully institutionalized this irrational and illogical thinking and it is causing the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon. The theory of evolution interferes with science.
Both slots of the toaster.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Wait - how exactly can people die prematurely from diseases subject to an impossible phenomena?
Mutation and selection is not impossible, it is your theory of evolution by mutation and selection which is mathematically and empirically impossible. It is the irrational and illogical interpretation of this process which evolutionists assert which contributes to the misunderstanding of the mutation and selection process which causes people to die prematurely from diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Of course, you have proved that the theory of evolution is true by the cruft principle. Belz calls this evolution by beggaminases.

[joobz]

The evolutionist playbook is so thin that you replay the same old arguments over and over. Kjkent1 is playing the recombination argument again. We all know now that HIV does recombination but combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. Joobz now whines that the weather explains the theory of evolution. I never thought joobz could propose anything dumber than his cooperative chemistry speculations for abiogenesis. Joobz, you have surpassed yourself.It's not my theory, it's your theory of impossible evolution that I'm using. If you have problems with the argument, you should take it up with the author, yourself.

As it stands, by YOUR theory, in order for evolution to be impossible, nature must possess a steady/constant level of large multiple selection pressures to prevent life from evolving. As such, you've been arguing that nature is constant and has no weather.

This is, of course, not what is seen. So, I will continue to post examples of weather until you start to realize that nature isn't a constant level of multiple selection pressures, but rather a dynamic environment which allows for evolution to happen.

And kjkent1, your string theory assertion is one of the dumbest; it goes well with joobz weather nonsense.

So, tell me now, how is it that nature has no weather?

[kleinman]

Instead of properly teaching how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, you evolutionists have and continue to teach the mathematically and empirically irrational concept that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into bird. Because of evolutionist irrationality we now have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant HIV, multidrug resistant Malaria,… And you evolutionists want to perpetuate this. Your theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically irrational, it is morally bankrupt and has caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.Toast.
and
You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago. You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds. This type of thinking is not only irrational and illogical, you evolutionists have successfully institutionalized this irrational and illogical thinking and it is causing the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon. The theory of evolution interferes with science.Both slots of the toaster.
Paul, your own mathematical model and the empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and puts your turkey of a theory of evolution into the toaster oven and bakes it to a cinder. You would teach children that your silly Rcapacity concept stops the evolutionary process in ev. You demonstrate the irrationality of the evolutionist mentality perfectly.

[Shalamar]

You make too many assumptions, Klienman regarding your hypothosis, when it is clearly untrue.


You are grasping at a thread, but you fail to look at the entire tapestry. Here, I've written up a more accurate version of your statement:

"It is likely that when multiple (1+n) selections pressures of unknown, but equal strength are applied to simple (viral) organisms in an artificial environment, that this may slow down evolutionary processes to the point of extinction of the organisms involved. However, not knowing how many pressures (n) in nature, and considering the possible variable nature of unequal strengths in nature, it is likely that (1+n) pressures of varying, and unequal strengths may allow the organisms to adapt more rapidly to the pressures, increasing the speed at which evolutionary processes occur."

[cyborg]

Mutation and selection is not impossible, it is your theory of evolution by mutation and selection which is mathematically and empirically impossible.

Right...

It is the irrational and illogical interpretation of this process which evolutionists assert which contributes to the misunderstanding of the mutation and selection process which causes people to die prematurely from diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

And the logical and rational interpretation is and will stop people dying from diseases subject to mutation and selection how?

[Kotatsu]

You still have evolutionists like Adequate, rocketdodger and Kotatsu claiming that n+1 selection conditions evolve more quickly than n selection conditions or that the mutation and selection process is acting on the entire genome simultaneously to transform reptiles into birds.

And you still have not been able to formulate an argument or show any evidence which counters that claim.

[kjkent1]

The evolutionist playbook is so thin that you replay the same old arguments over and over. Kjkent1 is playing the recombination argument again. We all know now that HIV does recombination but combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. Joobz now whines that the weather explains the theory of evolution. I never thought joobz could propose anything dumber than his cooperative chemistry speculations for abiogenesis. Joobz, you have surpassed yourself.

Gee, kleinman, you don't mean to suggest that an organism can resist multiple selection pressures in nature via recombination, do you? Why that would mean that an organism could survive those pressures in the wild, by developing resistance via recombination (which you've repeatedly admitted is a very fast process). And then, after resistance is generally developed, the organism would be free to evolve under the influence of the strongest remaining single pressure.

DAMN, KLEINMAN, YOU"VE JUST PROVIDED A MECHANISM TO DEFEAT YOUR OWN THEORY!!!

Way to go, you bovine excretion, you!

The vast majority of the studies cited were published after 1990. The dumb ass mathematically incompetent interpretation of the mutation and selection process by evolutionists is finally being overcome by medical necessity. Dr Schneider’s own model shows the same principle mathematically as do these hundreds of empirical studies show in reality but his own coworker talks about Rcapacity. I wonder if there will be any end to the illogical and irrational nonsense that evolutionists assert about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. It is you evolutionists who owe an apology to people show suffer from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process. It is the evolutionists’ irrational and illogical assertions which have interfered with the scientific understanding of this process. And kjkent1, your string theory assertion is one of the dumbest; it goes well with joobz weather nonsense.Ad hominem attacks mean nothing to me, kleinman.

String theory, as well as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is an entirely plausable mechanism for explaining how an entirely deterministic multiverse could require the happening of seemingly improbable events (because, if everything happens, albeit in only one of a multitude of universes, then it's trivial to recognize that we may be the product of that absolute deterministic outcome -- anthropic principle in a nutshell).

Now, onto your last stupifyingly droll point:

Your argument that the vast majority of your studies were all conducted after 1990, suggests that some change in the scientific wind must have occurred in that same time frame. Well, let's just see now...hmmm, okay, I've got it!

1. The vast majority of your studies concern HIV.
2. HIV wasn't recognized as a disease until 1981.

So, it took the scientific community a whole 9 years to try to figure out what the heck HIV is, biologically, and then to start attacking it with multi-drug therapies.

Wow -- everyone sure was sitting on their hands due to the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory, now weren't they kleinman?

Alan, if you ask me, you spent far too much time in the Caribbean swilling rum, and getting sunstroke, rather than studying medicine.

Once again, you're totally, utterly, completely, full of crap, and you owe the entire scientific community an apology for your incredibly cruel and hostile comments.

[kleinman]

It is the irrational and illogical interpretation of this process which evolutionists assert which contributes to the misunderstanding of the mutation and selection process which causes people to die prematurely from diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.And the logical and rational interpretation is and will stop people dying from diseases subject to mutation and selection how?
There are many problems facing society that are governed by the mutation and selection process, not only multi-drug resistant microbes but multi-herbicide resistant weeds, multi-pesticide resistant insects, and multi-rodenticide resistant rodents and so on. These life forms have come about by sequential use of targeted selection pressures.

In medical school, you are taught to use single targeted drugs if at all possible to treat microbial diseases. This strategy has led to these multi-drug resistant microbes. Initially when treating HIV, sequential monotherapy was used and the consequence of this is multi-drug resistant HIV viruses in the gene pool. The failure of evolutionists to properly describe how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has contributed to this erroneous usage of targeted therapy on rapidly reproducing populations and future generations of children are going to pay for these multi-resistant life forms that we have produced by these targeted selection pressures. In order for future generations to have a chance at dealing with these life forms, they will have to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. If you evolutionists have your way, they will not understand how mutation and selection actually works.

[cyborg]

You haven't answered the question - namely you haven't said how one will actually stop children dying, just that a proper understanding will.

[kleinman]

The evolutionist playbook is so thin that you replay the same old arguments over and over. Kjkent1 is playing the recombination argument again. We all know now that HIV does recombination but combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. Joobz now whines that the weather explains the theory of evolution. I never thought joobz could propose anything dumber than his cooperative chemistry speculations for abiogenesis. Joobz, you have surpassed yourself.Gee, kleinman, you don't mean to suggest that an organism can resist multiple selection pressures in nature via recombination, do you? Why that would mean that an organism could survive those pressures in the wild, by developing resistance via recombination (which you've repeatedly admitted is a very fast process). And then, after resistance is generally developed, the organism would be free to evolve under the influence of the strongest remaining single pressure.
No it doesn’t legal beagle, recombination does not change the fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection. If that were the case, combination therapy would not work on HIV, HBV, Malaria,… and all the other life forms that are able to do recombination. Now perhaps in one of your 10^500 alternative universes this might happen but it doesn’t happen in this universe we live in.

[Shalamar]

In medical school, you are taught to use single targeted drugs if at all possible to treat microbial diseases. This strategy has led to these multi-drug resistant microbes. Initially when treating HIV, sequential monotherapy was used and the consequence of this is multi-drug resistant HIV viruses in the gene pool. The failure of evolutionists to properly describe how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has contributed to this erroneous usage of targeted therapy on rapidly reproducing populations and future generations of children are going to pay for these multi-resistant life forms that we have produced by these targeted selection pressures. In order for future generations to have a chance at dealing with these life forms, they will have to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. If you evolutionists have your way, they will not understand how mutation and selection actually works.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You mean... these microbes actually evolved? And that mono-therapy gave us multi-resistant HIV? You mean.. HIV.. evolved? And now treatments are trying to use more aggressive therapies now? Yeah.. We're killing our kids. They're dying in the streets...

Yup.. Evolution sure is a crock...

[cyborg]

recombination does not change the fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection.

Evolution by mutation and selection does not occur kleinman - remember?

If that were the case, combination therapy would not work on HIV, HBV, Malaria,… and all the other life forms that are able to do recombination.

Would you please explain why those on combination therapy still succumb in the end to HIV?

[kleinman]

You haven't answered the question - namely you haven't said how you it will actually stop children dying, just that a proper understanding will.
A proper understanding of how mutation and selection actually works will markedly reduce the development of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-herbicide resistant weeds, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-drug resistant cancers and so on. The way we have been taught to use these targeted selection pressures plays directly into the way you can accelerate the evolutionary process by mutation and selection. Use the selection pressures singly and sequentially and you will give the next generation populations of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…

[kjkent1]

No it doesn’t legal beagle, recombination does not change the fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection. If that were the case, combination therapy would not work on HIV, HBV, Malaria,… and all the other life forms that are able to do recombination. Now perhaps in one of your 10^500 alternative universes this might happen but it doesn’t happen in this universe we live in.Oh, my rum-soaked friend, take your position up with the author of the mathematical model. He cites to several studies which show recombination as a means of defeating mulitdrug therapies.

And while you're at it, you need to apologize to the scientific community, because your comments concerning death due to evolutionary theory is entirely the product of your own insane delusion. You haven't provided a single fact that suggests that research has been slowed by evolutionary theory.

[cyborg]

The way we have been taught to use these targeted selection pressures plays directly into the way you can accelerate the evolutionary process by mutation and selection.

Please do make up your mind as to whether evolution is possible or not.

Use the selection pressures singly and sequentially and you will give the next generation populations of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…

And use them combinatorially and they still do. You showed the studies that demonstrate this.

Now what?

[kleinman]

No it doesn’t legal beagle, recombination does not change the fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection. If that were the case, combination therapy would not work on HIV, HBV, Malaria,… and all the other life forms that are able to do recombination. Now perhaps in one of your 10^500 alternative universes this might happen but it doesn’t happen in this universe we live in.Oh, my rum-soaked friend, take your position up with the author of the mathematical model. He cites to several studies which show recombination as a means of defeating mulitdrug therapies.
If you got em, post em legal beagle. If recombination could defeat multi-drug therapies then these treatments wouldn’t be used to treat HIV, HBV, Malaria,… However combination therapy is used on these microbes that do recombination and combination therapy does work. The facts overrule your speculations.
Use the selection pressures singly and sequentially and you will give the next generation populations of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…And use them combinatorially and they still do. You showed the studies that demonstrate this.
It is far more difficult for populations to evolve against these selection pressures in combination and often time they do it because they were exposed to the selection pressures singly and resistant strains are already existent in the gene pool because evolutionists’ irrational and illogical assertions of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists have really screwed up the description of how the mutation and selection process actually works and people have and will continue to die prematurely from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection because you evolutionists have obfuscated how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization actually works, another bloody chapter in the theory of evolution in the making.

Here is how medical necessity is overcoming the evolutionists irrational and illogical assertions of how mutation and selection works.
ftp://genesilico.pl/iamb/papers/2006.CMM.Chiang.Malaria.pdf (ftp://genesilico.pl/iamb/papers/2006.CMM.Chiang.Malaria.pdf)
Furthermore, in contrast to the unabated emergence in the resistance to most of the existing malaria drugs, no apparent resistance to the artemisinin drugs has been reported yet [13]. For this reason and to avoid future drug resistance, combination therapy in which an artemisinin derivative is mixed
with another potent anti-malarial has been recommended [13].

[kjkent1]

A proper understanding of how mutation and selection actually works will markedly reduce the development of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-herbicide resistant weeds, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-drug resistant cancers and so on. The way we have been taught to use these targeted selection pressures plays directly into the way you can accelerate the evolutionary process by mutation and selection. Use the selection pressures singly and sequentially and you will give the next generation populations of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…Okay, let me get this straight. You have bacteria species Z, floating around in space, subject to all of the natural selective pressures that exist, including the human immune system (A) which clearly exerts strong selective pressure against it.

Then you mix in one man-made antibiotic (B), which makes two strong selective pressures, and for a while, that keeps Z from evolving, but eventually evolution occurs, and Z is resistant to both A and B.

Then, you take the bacteria and subject it to B and C (a previously untried antibiotic), and now evolution is profoundly slowed.

I wonder if you realize how incredibly stupid this theory is, kleinman.

Here's the analogy: take your average deer and shoot it in the toe. It doesn't run very well, but it runs well enough to survive predators. Then take another deer and shoot it in all four feet. It can't run so it dies, after the first predator attack.

That's really all there is to it. If you attack something sufficiently, you will kill it. But, it's absolutely clear that bacteria were able to survive both the human immune system and many individual antibiotics for decades, as well as who knows how many other natural selective pressures -- and resistance was developed.

So, your theory boils down to this: a machine gun will kill more people than a bolt action rifle.

Genius, man...pure genius. Someone get me the White House. kleinman needs a motorcade and confetti.

[cyborg]

It is far more difficult for populations to evolve against these selection pressures in combination

Yes.

And yet they will.

So now what?

and often time they do it because they were exposed to the selection pressures singly and resistant strains are already existent in the gene pool because evolutionists’ irrational and illogical assertions of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

So let me get this straight... the irrational and illogical assertion of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is that a single selection pressure will cease evolution?

You evolutionists have really screwed up the description of how the mutation and selection process actually works and people have and will continue to die prematurely from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection because you evolutionists have obfuscated how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization actually works,

Which is the assertion that a single selection pressure will stop evolution?

[kjkent1]

If you got em, post em legal beagle. If recombination could defeat multi-drug therapies then these treatments wouldn’t be used to treat HIV, HBV, Malaria,… However combination therapy is used on these microbes that do recombination and combination therapy does work. The facts overrule your speculations.Look moron, I've posted at least three cites in the past week, each of which falsifies your position, and you've ignored every one of em! So, posting against you is largely a waste of time, because you simply ignore any evidence that contradicts your theory.

You could be swimming in a lake filled with black swans, but you'll just close your eyes and imagine only white.

I've wrecked your theory twenty ways to Sunday today alone (I gave you a counter to HBV only today, and you've yet to address it). The only reason why you don't see it is because you haven't the necessary testosterone.

If you want to debate, then debate the facts. Otherwise, you're just the coward from Clovis.

[kleinman]

A proper understanding of how mutation and selection actually works will markedly reduce the development of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-herbicide resistant weeds, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-drug resistant cancers and so on. The way we have been taught to use these targeted selection pressures plays directly into the way you can accelerate the evolutionary process by mutation and selection. Use the selection pressures singly and sequentially and you will give the next generation populations of multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…So, your theory boils down to this: a machine gun will kill more people than a bolt action rifle.
I like your analogy legal beagle. Not only do multiple selection pressures kill more members of the population, they interfere with the population’s ability to evolve to these selection pressures when applied simultaneously.

[kjkent1]

I like your analogy legal beagle. Not only do multiple selection pressures kill more members of the population, they interfere with the population’s ability to evolve to these selection pressures when applied simultaneously.Good, because my analogy doesn't prohibit evolution, because in order to stop evolution you have to KILL THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

Now, how could you have missed that obvious point?

Damn.

[kleinman]

I like your analogy legal beagle. Not only do multiple selection pressures kill more members of the population, they interfere with the population’s ability to evolve to these selection pressures when applied simultaneously.Good, because my analogy doesn't prohibit evolution, because in order to stop evolution you have to KILL THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.

[kjkent1]

So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.I'm claiming that selection leaves the fittest members of the population despite the number of selective pressures in existence at any instant, because those pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population.

If you shoot one deer in all four feet, there is still an entire population which were not shot at all. Your theory is based on entire populations always being subjected to a uniform and unyielding set of multiple pressures. But that's not how reality works, and if you understood the deer analogy that would have been obvious.

But, instead you chose to try to manipulate the analogy to mean something different, because that's all you can see.

Open your eyes.

[kleinman]

So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.I'm claiming that selection leaves the fittest members of the population despite the number of selective pressures in existence at any instant, because those pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population.
Of course selection leaves only the fittest members of the population. And selection pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population. HIV viruses in someone not receiving treatment are not subjected to those selection pressures. What you don’t comprehend and what Dr Schneider’s program shows is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is a profoundly slow process for any more than a single targeted selection pressure. Weak selection pressures which don’t kill large portions of the population also do not have strong sorting affect on the population to achieve the transformations required to morph a reptile population into a bird population. You can not transform large numbers of genes simultaneously by strong or weak selection pressures. That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.

[kjkent1]

Of course selection leaves only the fittest members of the population. And selection pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population. HIV viruses in someone not receiving treatment are not subjected to those selection pressures. What you don’t comprehend and what Dr Schneider’s program shows is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is a profoundly slow process for any more than a single targeted selection pressure. Weak selection pressures which don’t kill large portions of the population also do not have strong sorting affect on the population to achieve the transformations required to morph a reptile population into a bird population. You can not transform large numbers of genes simultaneously by strong or weak selection pressures. That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.That's not what ev shows. As a matter of fact, when selection occurs in ev, it has added up all three of the mistake weights and sorted based on the aggregate value of the weights.

So, it really doesn't matter to ev whether there are 0, 1, 2, 3 or three trillion different mistake counts, because ev''s just sorting on the aggregate value.

The reason why ev is faster with a mistake count disabled is because the final creature is not the same as the creature that evolves with all mistake counts enabled. It's a simpler organism, so it evolves faster.

In nature, an organism doesn't go from random mush to a bird in one single run. No one sets up the genome in advance and says, "Here's all the necessary functions for a bird, now, let's start evolving."

Nature doesn't have a goal. The organism just moves from one place to another in response to the environment then existing.

[joobz]

So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.
Please post the quote where I said such a thing. While your at it, post your proof that weather doesn't occur.

[joobz]

Of course selection leaves only the fittest members of the population. And selection pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population. HIV viruses in someone not receiving treatment are not subjected to those selection pressures. What you don’t comprehend and what Dr Schneider’s program shows is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is a profoundly slow process for any more than a single targeted selection pressure. Weak selection pressures which don’t kill large portions of the population also do not have strong sorting affect on the population to achieve the transformations required to morph a reptile population into a bird population. You can not transform large numbers of genes simultaneously by strong or weak selection pressures. That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.
See, your own blind devotion to obsolete texts has blinded you to the fact that nature is a variable environment. Your theory, which is based off of Dr. Schneider's peer reviewed model, demonstrates how under multiple constant selection pressures, evolution is exrtemely slow. Yet, when the environment isn't constant, evolution can be rapidly accelerated.

Now, we all know nature isn't constant, because we see weather. HOwever, you seem to want to pretend that there is no weather. While you present NO EXAMPLES to prove this, I'll be continue to present examples of weather.

HEre's the preciptation forcast for your neck for the greater northwest.

[sol invictus]

]That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Still posting about ev? Even after you chickened out of betting on it, showing you don't believe in your own canards?

Why bother? You have less than zero credibility left.

[Belz...]

Any of you evolutionists figure out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process yet?

What mathematics ?

[Belz...]

Aren’t you the good little censor.

Gosh, is there anything you do understand ?

Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical.

Really, someone should tell all those scientists.

When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.

Wait, I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I must've missed this. Didn't Rockerdodger and Adequate present results that prove this wrong ?

This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

What does math have to do with it ?

The reason why the theory of evolution is morally bankrupt is that it misleads people on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and this misdirection has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

Don't forget the evil Nazis.

[cyborg]

The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.

Which is that a single selection pressure will stop the evolution of HIV right? That's the illogical and irrational conclusion that evolutionists have made isn't it? That's why we need the correct understanding of the optimization/sorting process isn't it? To stop evolutionists thinking they can stop evolution with a single selection pressure.

As kleinman has now shown us it requires the magic number of 3 to stop evolution.

[Belz...]

You evolutionists have so obfuscated and confused how the mutation and selection process works both mathematically and empirically that there has been little advance in the understanding of this phenomenon since Tatum gave his Nobel lecture 50 years ago.

"But we, the children of GOD, understand!"

I agree, those are some interesting papers. I am interested to see how Kleinman decides to address them.

Adress ? How about "ignore" ?

The evolutionist playbook is so thin that you replay the same old arguments over and over. Kjkent1 is playing the recombination argument again. We all know now that HIV does recombination but combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. Joobz now whines that the weather explains the theory of evolution. I never thought joobz could propose anything dumber than his cooperative chemistry speculations for abiogenesis. Joobz, you have surpassed yourself.

See ?

Mutation and selection is not impossible, it is your theory of evolution by mutation and selection which is mathematically and empirically impossible.

I do believe this is what you english speakers mean when you say "having your cake and eat it, too."

[Henners]

Gosh, is there anything you do understand ?


How to turn a fast buck as a quack.

[Belz...]

Belz calls this evolution by beggaminases

No, Kleinman. I specifically said that "beggaminases" is not evolution. Gosh, you really can't follow a conversation, can you ?

recombination does not change the fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection.

And this despite the examples shown to you that prove that it DOES.

Initially when treating HIV, sequential monotherapy was used and the consequence of this is multi-drug resistant HIV viruses in the gene pool.

Are you going to claim that those drugs were the ONLY selection pressure acting on the virus ?

[Belz...]

in order to stop evolution you have to KILL THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.

You cannot read.

[Belz...]

As kleinman has now shown us it requires the magic number of 3 to stop evolution.

Of course it's three, cyborg. Otherwise it'd have to be 7, 12 or 40 days and nights.

[Mr. Scott]

are you evolutionists still advancing your mathematically irrational and illogical concept which contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process?

That is a claim for which you have never provided evidence.

Your links to combination therapy don't qualify as evidence because they are in accord (not in conflict) with standard evolutionary theory.

Please present your evidence that Darwin's theory of evolution contributes to the deaths of millions. What claims of evolutionists result in millions of deaths by disease? What claims of creationists will save these lives? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[Shalamar]

One of the problems I have, is that he touts single drug therapy to treat diseases as 'killing people', something supported by evil evolutionists. My understanding is that combining drugs may will defeat the disease, but the patient may also be dead.

I thought doctors were generally very very careful about combination drug therapy, because it can do horrible things to a human being, and why good pharmacists always ask what other drugs a person is taking.

Or is it a plot by the evil evolutionists?

[cyborg]

Or is it a plot by the evil evolutionists?

If it is then we're all lying about our understanding of evolution - or else kleinman says we think a single selection pressure will stop evolution.

[delphi_ote]

So, when you claim “f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes”, you are almost correct, it results in 4^G possible fitness landscapes.
I'd just like to point out that this demonstrates kleinman's complete lack of understanding of the fitness landscape. There are 4^G possible inputs to the function. There are infinitely many possible functions. Hell, there are infinitely many functions that could describe a single fitness landscape.

kleinman has been ranting about fitness functions for months now, but he doesn't know what the input and output are!

[joobz]

One of the problems I have, is that he touts single drug therapy to treat diseases as 'killing people', something supported by evil evolutionists. My understanding is that combining drugs may will defeat the disease, but the patient may also be dead.

I thought doctors were generally very very careful about combination drug therapy, because it can do horrible things to a human being, and why good pharmacists always ask what other drugs a person is taking.

Or is it a plot by the evil evolutionists?
Some combinations are relatively safe. However, you are correct to point out that kleinman has been grossly oversimplifing the nature of pharmacological action.

Multiple drugs is a simple way to get arround the resistance issue. You can also change the mechanism of delivery for a single drug and counteract drug resistence. For instance, cancers that develop drug resistence typically do so by upregulating the expression of drug efflux pumps. As such, drug concentrations do not build up high enough inside the cell. Such a process results in multi-drug resistence because these pumps can work on a variety of different drugs.


Yet, if you delivery a drug payload (e.g., via a liposome, nanoparticle, micelle) inside the cell instead of having drug passively diffuse into the cell from outside, you result in extremely high drug levels which the cell can not counteract. As such, you can improve therapy/counteract resistance by simply chaning the delivery of just 1 drug.


Such a lack of understanding of pharmacology does make one question his abilities as a physician. But then again, it isn't that suprising. After all, he's been trying to tell us that there's no such thing as rain, snow, sleet, sunshine...

The moment he finally accepts that nature isn't a constant environment, he'll see that his multiple selection pressure argument proves that evolution is possible.

[Shalamar]

Some combinations are relatively safe. However, you are correct to point out that kleinman has been grossly oversimplifing the nature of pharmacological action.

Multiple drugs is a simple way to get arround the resistance issue. You can also change the mechanism of delivery for a single drug and counteract drug resistence. For instance, cancers that develop drug resistence typically do so by upregulating the expression of drug efflux pumps. As such, drug concentrations do not build up high enough inside the cell. Such a process results in multi-drug resistence because these pumps can work on a variety of different drugs.


Yet, if you delivery a drug payload (e.g., via a liposome, nanoparticle, micelle) inside the cell instead of having drug passively diffuse into the cell from outside, you result in extremely high drug levels which the cell can not counteract. As such, you can improve therapy/counteract resistance by simply chaning the delivery of just 1 drug.


Such a lack of understanding of pharmacology does make one question his abilities as a physician. But then again, it isn't that suprising. After all, he's been trying to tell us that there's no such thing as rain, snow, sleet, sunshine...

The moment he finally accepts that nature isn't a constant environment, he'll see that his multiple selection pressure argument proves that evolution is possible.


I thought that was the case. It just seemed like he was screaming 'SINGLE THERAPY BAD! MULTIPLE THERAPY GOOD!' without the consequences.

Drug delivery is also a good point. He is.. technically correct with his mutation, and selection claims, but only in a controlled laboratory environment. And as you say, nature is far, far too variable.

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[delphi_ote]

That is a claim for which you have never provided evidence.
The only evidence he has provided (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3256613#post3256613) on this subject is evidence that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of fitness landscapes. All this time he has wasted talking about this "mathematically impossible" subject, and he doesn't even know what goes in and what comes out of a fitness function!

[joobz]

The only evidence he has provided (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3256613#post3256613) on this subject is evidence that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of fitness landscapes. All this time he has wasted talking about this "mathematically impossible" subject, and he doesn't even know what goes in and what comes out of a fitness function!
Why should he concern himself with such mundane details as accuracy and reality. Afterall, he's already proved that probablities can exceed 1.

[Belz...]

He did ?

[joobz]

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.
You'd think he was simply making an example of why what he suggests is wrong. But follow Myriad's link to see that, Indeed, he thought that probability could be greater than 1.

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

(emphasis addedd)

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

Respectfully,
Myriad
while seaching for that, I found this gem that i completely forgot about.

Since natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics, what selection pressure would lead to the formation of a self replicating ligase?
Bolding mine, to highlight the stupid.

[Olowkow]

There is a wonderful podcast called "DNA Files Podcast" that can be found on Itunes. I just listened to the segment entitled "The heat is on: evolution in action". Some very nice examples of "evolution on the fast track". Could be enlightening to the discussion.

[kleinman]

I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas, what do you celebrate this time of year? Do you celebrate Survival of the Fittest Day? Or how about do you celebrate Merry Primordial Soup Day? What you evolutionists need is a song to celebrate your mathematically and empirically impossible mythical belief system and I have one that will just fit your irrational and illogical thinking. This is to be sung to the music of Joy to the World. Make sure you get out tonight and sing this to all your neighbors.

Death to the World, selection is come!
Let earth receive the fittest;
Let every heart evolve its chamber,
And mutation and selection sing,
And mutation and selection sing,
And mutation, and mutation, and selection sing.

Death to the World, the fittest reigns!
Let evolutionists their myths employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Refute their whining cries,
Refute their whining cries,
Refute, refute, their whining cries.

Now that we have gotten into the evolutionist Bah, Humbug mood for the season, let’s see if any of you evolutionists have figured out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem.
Of course selection leaves only the fittest members of the population. And selection pressures do not necessarily affect the entire population. HIV viruses in someone not receiving treatment are not subjected to those selection pressures. What you don’t comprehend and what Dr Schneider’s program shows is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is a profoundly slow process for any more than a single targeted selection pressure. Weak selection pressures which don’t kill large portions of the population also do not have strong sorting affect on the population to achieve the transformations required to morph a reptile population into a bird population. You can not transform large numbers of genes simultaneously by strong or weak selection pressures. That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.That's not what ev shows. As a matter of fact, when selection occurs in ev, it has added up all three of the mistake weights and sorted based on the aggregate value of the weights.

So, it really doesn't matter to ev whether there are 0, 1, 2, 3 or three trillion different mistake counts, because ev''s just sorting on the aggregate value.

The reason why ev is faster with a mistake count disabled is because the final creature is not the same as the creature that evolves with all mistake counts enabled. It's a simpler organism, so it evolves faster.
What ev is showing is that simple sorting conditions sort much, much faster than more complex sorting conditions. It doesn’t take very complex sorting conditions to bring the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to a standstill. This mathematical phenomenon that ev demonstrates is also demonstrated in the hundreds of empirical examples cited.
So now you are claiming that extinction doesn’t occur? I thought only joobz was dumb enough to make that claim.Please post the quote where I said such a thing. While your at it, post your proof that weather doesn't occur.
Do you really want me to repost your dozens of posts where you claim that just because you can slow evolution doesn’t mean you can stop evolution? And of course we know that weather exists, you are always in a fog.
That is what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows and that is what the empirical data shows about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.Still posting about ev? Even after you chickened out of betting on it, showing you don't believe in your own canards?
Sol, if you insist that I take your money, I will oblige you. You claim that you can show that ev will sort n+1 selection conditions more quickly than n selection conditions. Show this or pay the $10,000.
Any of you evolutionists figure out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process yet?What mathematics ?
For you Belz, it is Beggaminasematics.
Not only is the theory of evolution morally bankrupt, it is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical.Really, someone should tell all those scientists.
I will once some scientists start posting on this thread. So far there have only been evolutionists dogmatists posting on this thread.
When more than a single selection pressure is targeted at a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.Wait, I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I must've missed this. Didn't Rockerdodger and Adequate present results that prove this wrong ?
The rocket who fizzled forgot his results and Adequate has already contradicted his own claim. And neither has been able to present a single empirical example of their mathematically illogical and irrational claims.
This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.What does math have to do with it ?
Oh, that’s right, it has everything to do with Beggaminases.
The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists assert.Which is that a single selection pressure will stop the evolution of HIV right? That's the illogical and irrational conclusion that evolutionists have made isn't it? That's why we need the correct understanding of the optimization/sorting process isn't it? To stop evolutionists thinking they can stop evolution with a single selection pressure.

As kleinman has now shown us it requires the magic number of 3 to stop evolution.
Really Cyborg, you should know by now that only single selection pressures targeted at a single gene allow for the possibility of rapid sorting of mutations. It doesn’t always require 3 selection pressures to profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
So, when you claim “f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes”, you are almost correct, it results in 4^G possible fitness landscapes.I'd just like to point out that this demonstrates kleinman's complete lack of understanding of the fitness landscape. There are 4^G possible inputs to the function. There are infinitely many possible functions. Hell, there are infinitely many functions that could describe a single fitness landscape.
Delphi, if you would sober up you would realize that if there were infinitely many possible functions that would allow evolution, then why do populations subject to more than a single selection pressure targeted at a single gene have profound difficulty finding one of these so called functions? This idea may sound plausible when you are drunk but a sober analysis of your speculation shows that it has no mathematical or empirical basis for this type of speculation, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works like your Wikipedia citation to the fitness landscape describes. Why don’t you describe to us some of these infinitely many functions that would use a temperature change to transform a reptile into a bird?
One of the problems I have, is that he touts single drug therapy to treat diseases as 'killing people', something supported by evil evolutionists. My understanding is that combining drugs may will defeat the disease, but the patient may also be dead.

I thought doctors were generally very very careful about combination drug therapy, because it can do horrible things to a human being, and why good pharmacists always ask what other drugs a person is taking.

Or is it a plot by the evil evolutionists?Some combinations are relatively safe. However, you are correct to point out that kleinman has been grossly oversimplifing the nature of pharmacological action.

Multiple drugs is a simple way to get arround the resistance issue. You can also change the mechanism of delivery for a single drug and counteract drug resistence. For instance, cancers that develop drug resistence typically do so by upregulating the expression of drug efflux pumps. As such, drug concentrations do not build up high enough inside the cell. Such a process results in multi-drug resistence because these pumps can work on a variety of different drugs.
What joobz fails to mention is that sequential single drug therapy is the way you evolve multidrug resistant populations such as MRSA, multi-drug resistant Gonorrhea, multi-drug resistant Malaria… What joobz demonstrates is his gross misunderstanding of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The simpler the sorting conditions the easier it is for a population to sort beneficial and detrimental mutations. And the relationship between complexity of the sorting conditions and the number of generations required to adapt to these sorting conditions is far from linear. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works quickly for extremely simple sorting conditions that target only a single gene. It is joobz’s and other evolutionists’ failure to understand this simple mathematical and empirical fact that will lead to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. Evolutionists have failed to properly elucidate the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process because if they did properly describe the phenomenon it would contradict their speculation that reptiles evolved into birds.
Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?
Mr Scott, I assure you, whatever therapy I used, I would not lie to you like your atheist parents did with you.
The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.You'd think he was simply making an example of why what he suggests is wrong. But follow Myriad's link to see that, Indeed, he thought that probability could be greater than 1.
If you follow the link, you will find that I acknowledge my error and that what Myriad showed explains the behavior of ev as you increase population in the model. I originally thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would occur at a particular locus based on the additive rule of probabilities. In fact increasing population does not increase the probabilities of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus additively. In fact it increases the probabilities at much less than additively and ev shows this effect. The evolutionist claim that huge populations will markedly accelerate the evolutionary process is wrong. Myriad showed why this is true and ev demonstrates this. The dominant parameter in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is not the population size, it is the number of selection pressures the population is subject to. This is why subjecting huge, rapidly reproducing populations like HIV, Malaria,… to only 2 or 3 selection pressures targeting two different genes profoundly slows the ability of the population to evolve to these combination selection pressures simultaneously.

So, what do you give to the evolutionist who knows nothing about the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. I know exactly what you evolutionists love to get, more empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works empirically. Here are a few more examples for you mathematically deprived evolutionists which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.retrovirology.com/content/4/1/25 (http://www.retrovirology.com/content/4/1/25)
The current findings with RT-SHIV are consistent with but also extend previous observations on the K65R mutation in the SIV model [20,22,80], with the novel observation of the tenofovir-selected K70E mutation (which was not detected by population sequencing in tenofovir-treated SIVmac251-infected macaques). The observations in macaques suggest that for persons infected with K65R HIV-1, both immune-mediated and drug-dependent antiviral activities may play a role in controlling viremia, and that even in the presence of K65R virus, continuation of tenofovir treatment as part of HAART may be beneficial, particularly when assisted by antiviral immune responses. In other words, the detection of K65R may by itself not be a valid reason to withdraw tenofovir from the patient's regimen, unless more effective salvage regimens, which are also feasible in terms of cost, toxicity and compliance are available. While preliminary data already suggest the virologic benefits of including tenofovir in drug regimens for HIV-1 infected patients with K65R mutants [82,83], additional long-term studies are warranted to determine also the potential clinical benefits of continuing tenofovir therapy in the presence of K65R mutants. Such information is also relevant to develop treatment guidelines for resource-poor areas, where access to 2nd or 3rd line anti-HIV drugs may be limited, and regular monitoring of virus levels and drug resistance (such as K65R) is not always feasible. Simple treatment strategies for which decisions to alter the regimen would be less dependent on frequent monitoring of such laboratory parameters will be more practical and affordable, and can thus benefit the largest number of people.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Drug_combination_shrinks_breast_cancer_metastases_ in_brain.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Drug_combination_shrinks_breast_cancer_metastases_ in_brain.asp)
A combination of a "targeted" therapy and chemotherapy shrank metastatic brain tumors by at least 50 percent in one-fifth of patients with aggressive HER2-positive breast cancer, according to data presented by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute investigators at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Lapatinib (Tykerb) and capecitabine (Xeloda) were paired in an extension of a Phase 2 clinical trial in which lapatinib given alone shrank brain metastases significantly in six percent of 241 patients.

In the extension trial, capecitabine was added to lapatinib in 49 patients whose metastases - cancerous colonies in the brain spread from their primary cancer - had progressed while on treatment. With the combination therapy, brain metastases shrank by 20 percent or more in 18 patients (37 percent) and shrank by at least 50 percent in 10 patients (20 percent), reported Nancy Lin, MD, of Dana-Farber's Breast Oncology Center.

"Very few medications have shown activity in the treatment of brain metastases, particularly in HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients," said Lin, who led the study with Eric Winer, MD, director of the Dana-Farber Breast Oncology Center. "Therefore, these data are quite encouraging, and further studies are warranted."
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Researchers_Report_Possible_New_Therapy_for_Patien ts_with_Platinum-Resistant_Ovarian_Cancer.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Researchers_Report_Possible_New_Therapy_for_Patien ts_with_Platinum-Resistant_Ovarian_Cancer.asp)
Mayo Clinic today reported promising interim results from a Phase II trial of a new combination therapy for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer that is resistant to platinum therapy. Thirty-three percent of study participants achieved either complete or partial tumor regression from the therapy, which combines flavopiridol and cisplatin.

Findings from this Phase 2 Consortium (P2C) clinical trial were presented by the study's primary investigator, Keith Bible, M.D., Ph.D., at the Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics International Conference, a jointly-sponsored symposium of the American Association for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

"We are encouraged by the interim results of this trial," says Dr. Bible, a medical oncologist and researcher at Mayo Clinic. "Platinum-resistant ovarian cancer responds poorly to traditional therapies, and we've been working toward developing more effective treatments for this disease. This combination looks very promising."

More than 22,400 women in the United States will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year, according to the American Cancer Society, and nearly 15,300 women will die from it. Women with late-stage ovarian cancer have very few options, and most standard treatments include platinum-based therapies (cell-damaging agents).

In this study, the researchers evaluated a combination therapy using flavopiridol (an investigational anti-cancer agent that also boosts the effects of other therapeutics including cisplatin) with cisplatin (a platinum compound) for women with platinum-resistant ovarian or primary peritoneal (lining of the abdominal cavity) cancers. The researchers found in earlier preclinical studies that flavopiridol significantly boosts the anti-cancer effects of cisplatin, and later conducted a Phase I clinical trial to pilot the combination in patients (KC Bible et al, Clinical Cancer Research, 11:5935, 2005). The present Phase II trial was designed to extend this work and better determine this therapy's effectiveness against platinum-resistant cancers.

Dr. Bible and his co-investigators treated 18 platinum-resistant Caucasian patients with this combination therapy. Of the 18 patients, all of whom were receiving the therapy as a second-line treatment after disease progression, one patient experienced complete response (all signs of cancer gone) and five other patients experienced partial responses (tumor regression). The 33 percent overall response rate (6 of 18 patients) is about twice as high as seen using traditional chemotherapy regimens.

The researchers also offered the combination therapy to five patients with platinum-sensitive (original therapy resulted in no recurrence for greater than 12 months) ovarian cancer. Of these women, one experienced complete response and three others partial response.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Combination_Targets_Some_Drugs_May_Work_Best_When_ They_Work_Together.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Combination_Targets_Some_Drugs_May_Work_Best_When_ They_Work_Together.asp)
While some targeted therapies - drugs developed to attack specific molecules in the critical chemical pathways occurring within cancer cells - work well by themselves, increasingly researchers are finding that they work better when teamed with other targeted and conventional therapies.

Reported today at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, multiple-target applications of new and existing drugs are offering new hope in the fight against cancer and drug resistance, from lung and breast cancer to rare tumors of the bile duct.

Synergistic effects of multi-level targeting of the MAPK and PI3-kinase pathways in breast cancer cells: Abstract B 128.

The chemical signaling pathways that control the life cycle of cells offer many important targets for cancer researchers hoping to stop the growth of tumors, yet the complex nature of these pathways may make it impossible to kill a cell with a single therapeutic bullet, as researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have discovered in a study of breast cancer cells. Their findings suggest that molecules used to inhibit the MEK protein, similar to those being studied to control breast cancer growth, can "switch on" another pathway that keeps cancer cells from dying.

Their solution is to look elsewhere to see where these pathways intersect, which has allowed them to uncover two targets that, when chemically inhibited at the same time, caused apoptosis -cell suicide. This combination therapy approach might make it difficult for cancer cells to resist the disruption of a single protein along a particular signaling pathway.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Breast_cancer_drug_in_fight_against_prostate_cance r.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Breast_cancer_drug_in_fight_against_prostate_cance r.asp)
A drug commonly used to treat breast cancer also gives impressive results for prostate cancer when combined with radiation therapy - according to researchers from UNSW and the Prince of Wales Hospital.

In one instance, tumour growth was reduced by 97 percent in preclinical laboratory studies when the drug, Paclitaxel, was given prior to radiation therapy, according to the research published in the journal The Prostate.

"We found that delivering the drug first made the prostate cancer cells more sensitive to radiation therapy," said one of the authors, UNSW Professor Pam Russell, who is based at the Prince of Wales Hospital.

"We also found that the timing and the size of the dose were crucial," said Professor Russell. "We used relatively low doses of the drug aiming to keep the likelihood of additional toxicity as low as possible, but we still had excellent results."

Current treatments for prostate cancer, which is the most common cancer in men, include surgery and radiation.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Study_suggests_brain_tumors_need_treatment_with_mu ltiple_targeted_drugs.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Study_suggests_brain_tumors_need_treatment_with_mu ltiple_targeted_drugs.asp)
Researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have shown that several, rather than just one, cell-growth switches are simultaneously overactive in many brain tumors and other solid tumors, explaining why treatment with just a single "targeted" switch-blocking drug often yields disappointing results. The laboratory finding argues for quickly moving to clinical trials that combine three or more such targeted drugs for such cancers to shut down all the malfunctioning growth switches, according to the team led by Ronald DePinho, MD, director of the Center for Applied Cancer Science at the Dana-Farber. Their report is being posted online on Sept. 13 by the journal Science and will appear in a forthcoming print issue.

The switches are formed by molecules called receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) that often are mutated and hyperactive in cancer cells. Since a number of kinase-blocking drugs are already available — Gleevec and Tarceva are two of the best-known — the researchers said clinical trials of combinations of the compounds should be planned quickly.

"This is a transformative finding that will motivate clinicians and our pharmaceutical colleagues to design clinical trials with regimens using several inhibitors," said DePinho. He noted that in the laboratory study using cancer cell lines and fresh specimens of brain tumors, three or more kinase inhibitors were needed to quell the abnormal cell-growth signals.

The study focused on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), an aggressive brain tumor that is nearly always fatal. The scientists also found similar patterns of multiply activated RTKs in other common cancers of the pancreas and lung. Jayne Stommel, PhD, lead author of the report and a post-doctoral fellow in the DePinho lab, undertook a survey of molecular RTK "signaling pathways" in GBM cells to find the sources of abnormal growth.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/HIV_Protease_Inhibitors_Show_AntiCancer_Potential. asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/HIV_Protease_Inhibitors_Show_AntiCancer_Potential. asp)
Several protease inhibitors that are used in combination with other drugs to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection may also be effective against certain types of cancer, according to researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health. Nelfinavir (Viracept®), Ritonavir (Norvir®), and Saquinavir (Invirase®) inhibited growth of several types of cancer cells, with Nelfinavir being the most effective. These results appear in the September 1, 2007 issue of Clinical Cancer Research.

The NCI research team investigated HIV protease inhibitors because these drugs are known to inhibit the activation of Akt, a protein that has been implicated in the development of many types of cancer, including non-small cell lung cancer. Using lab studies (called in vitro studies) and mouse models, the researchers tested six different protease inhibitors against non-small cell lung cancer as well as a panel of 60 human cancer cell types, in cultures (called cell lines) derived from nine different kinds of malignant tissue. When given in doses that were previously proven to be safe in HIV-infected patients, three of the six protease inhibitors (nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir) inhibited growth of non-small cell lung cancer and every cell type in the set of 60 kinds of cancer cells.

"There are many common threads between cancer and HIV/AIDS, and this research underscores the value of NCI's involvement in HIV/AIDS research," said NCI Director John E. Niederhuber, M.D.

In this study, nelfinavir and saquinavir were more potent than the other HIV protease inhibitors examined. They each had similar abilities to prevent tumor growth, and induce programmed cell death, or apoptosis, which is a normal process that rids the body of old or damaged cells. The molecular structures of these two drugs share a trait that is not found in the other drugs that were tested, and the researchers speculate that this trait might provide an explanation for the relatively higher potency of these two drugs. Nelfinavir was the most effective of all the protease inhibitors tested, and was able to cause two different types of cancer cell death - apoptosis and non-apoptotic cell death.

In this study, non-apoptopic cell death was related to induction of stress on part of the cell that synthesizes proteins called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), which subsequently led to autophagy, a normal process of self digestion that generates energy for the cell under conditions of stress. In the past, other anti-cancer agents have been shown to induce either ER stress or autophagy in a test tube, but in this study nelfinavir was also able to initiate this process in cells that had been transplanted into mice. Other studies have also shown that nelfinavir could induce apoptosis, but non-apoptopic cell death via nelfinavir was a new discovery.

"ER stress and autophagy are cellular processes that are gaining importance in cancer research because we suspect that impaired autophagy may contribute to cancer development," said Niederhuber. "Markers of ER stress and autophagy will be useful biomarkers for nelfinavir as its clinical development proceeds."

Nelfinavir was successful in inhibiting growth of both drug-sensitive and drug-resistant breast cancer cells, indicating that this drug could be useful against cancer cells that have acquired resistance to common anti-cancer therapies, such as tamoxifen and trastuzumab. There is also evidence that use of nelfinavir may be able to overcome resistance to radiation.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Can_Cancer_Drugs_Combine_Forces.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Can_Cancer_Drugs_Combine_Forces.asp)
Individuals with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are treated first with a drug known as imatinib (Gleevec), which targets the protein known to cause the cancer (BCR-ABL).

If their disease returns, because BCR-ABL mutants emerge that are resistant to the effects of imatinib, individuals are treated with a drug known as dasatinib (SPRYCEL), which targets BCR-ABL in a different way. However, patients that relapse after treatment with dasatinib, because BCR-ABL mutants emerge that are resistant to the effects of this drug, are now beginning to be seen in the clinic.

Researchers from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, now suggest that treating patients with a combination of the drugs might decrease the chance of the cancer returning, or at the very least increase the time before a relapse occurs.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Researchers_Identify_New_Combination_Therapy_that_ Promotes_Cancer_Cell_Death.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Researchers_Identify_New_Combination_Therapy_that_ Promotes_Cancer_Cell_Death.asp)
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine identified a combination therapy as a way to sensitize resistant human cancer cells to a treatment currently being tested in clinical trials. They propose that the therapy may help to selectively eliminate cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact, providing a cancer treatment with fewer side effects. The Penn team reports their findings in the July issue of Cancer Cell.

To test the ability of the combined therapy in treating cancerous tumors, senior author Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, and colleagues administered TRAIL, a tumor necrosis factor, and sorafenib, an inhibitor currently used to treat renal cancer, to mice with colon carcinomas. The sorafenib and TRAIL therapy reduced the size of tumors in mice with few side effects, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of the combined treatment on human colon cancers.
http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Study_Shows_Combination_Chemotherapy_and_VEGF_Bloc ker_Improves_Progression-free_Survival_of_Metastatic_Melanoma_Patients.asp (http://www.curingdeath.com/Research/Study_Shows_Combination_Chemotherapy_and_VEGF_Bloc ker_Improves_Progression-free_Survival_of_Metastatic_Melanoma_Patients.asp)
Two chemotherapy drugs combined with an agent that prevents the growth of blood vessels significantly delayed the spread of tumors in patients with metastatic melanoma, according to study findings presented today at the 2007 American Association of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.

In this phase II clinical trial of 53 patients, tumor growth was delayed by almost six months, whereas, typically, these cancers begin spreading again eight weeks after chemotherapy treatment, researchers say.

The researchers from Mayo Clinic and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG), caution that while the findings are promising, they are preliminary.

"This is the most effective treatment we have ever tested at Mayo Clinic for this type of cancer, but the results need to be validated," says Svetomir Markovic, M.D., Ph.D., a Mayo Clinic oncologist and the study's principal investigator. "It is important for the public to know there is hope for patients with melanoma."
Now you evolutionists have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day or a Merry Primordial Soup Day or whatever you celebrate and for the rest of you, Merry Christmas.

[cyborg]

Now you evolutionists have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day or a Merry Primordial Soup Day or whatever you celebrate and for the rest of you, Merry Christmas.

Yes but do evolutionists believe that a single selection pressure will stop evolution or we lying about our knowledge and purposely breeding better diseases - hence killing the children we despise so?

[kleinman]

Now you evolutionists have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day or a Merry Primordial Soup Day or whatever you celebrate and for the rest of you, Merry Christmas.Yes but do evolutionists believe that a single selection pressure will stop evolution or we lying about our knowledge and purposely breeding better diseases - hence killing the children we despise so?
You evolutionists believe that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the evolutionary process occurs by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds. This is not only mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical, it is people like you with your cruft theory of evolution which obscures the fact that sequential applications of selection pressures is how you develop multi-drug resistant populations. If you don’t believe that this is occurring, look what happened with MRSA, Malaria, HIV,… when monotherapy was used to treat these infections. This is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, both mathematically and empirically. Mutation and selection does not achieve the ridiculous speculation that reptiles evolved into birds. Mutation and selection achieves multi-drug resistant populations when the selection pressures are applied sequentially. Until you evolutionists understand this mathematical and empirical fact, you will be contributing to the deaths of children and others suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. Until then, we can all watch you spread your irrational and illogical myths about how mutation and selection actually works and watch the death toll rise because you teach children a mathematically and empirically irrational theory.

[Kotatsu]

I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas, what do you celebrate this time of year? Do you celebrate Survival of the Fittest Day?

As a matter of fact, yes. We devote the day to the worship of Santa Gene, who keeps track of all our selection pressures across the past year. Kids who are under a lot of selection pressures are placed on one list, and those under few selection pressures are placed on another. Those on the first list get presents --- wrapped in obfuscation, of course --- suitable for their obviously very slow mode of life (1), such as slippers, new brakes for their bikes, and chairs. Those of the second list get more speed-related gifts, such as race cars, machine guns and copies of Money Idol Exchanger (2) impossible to play at lower than the highest speed. Kids under more than three selection pressures obviously get a coffin.

We then dance around a phylogenetic tree, adorned by small copies of Haeckel's embryos and the Piltdown man, while singing time-honoured tunes like "'Tis the Season to be Selected For", "I'm Dreaming of a Perfect Genome" and, of course, the all-time favourite "Rudolf the Red-nosed Transitional Form Between Two Pliocene Ancestors to the Reindeer". In many families, this is where we do the traditional moving of the goalpost as well, as most people will already be up and about.

For us young evolutionists, SOTF-day is extra special, because if you walk backwards around the phylogenetic tree while ignoring the empirical and mathematical data which destroys our most cherished theory, and then look into the cauldron of blood from genetically inferior people we have on a special table, you will be able to see the face of the person you're going to marry. The last few years, I have been vastly disappointed by the results, though, so I do what we evolutionists do best: ignore them and pull some results out of my backside. Naturally, I still have no girlfriend. There's a lesson for everyone in there somewhere, but I won't point it out in case it punctures the remnants of my pride.

Then comes the food, of course! I don't really know what you Americans eat, but here in Sweden, it's mainly minced meat shaped into oblong objects called "meat balleles" (3), and of course ham, string cheese, various sausages and potato-derived products.

After the food, Santa Gene arrives in his flying Frame Shift, and enters through the chimney. We get our presents, insult God, and wallow in our own denial and godlessness until people get tired and everyone goes home.

Oh man, this was fun! I can't wait until next week when I get to tell you how we evolutionists celebrate New Years or, as we like to call it, Next Step in Evolution! See you then, Kleinman!

I will once some scientists start posting on this thread.

Wait no longer! I am a paid and active scientist at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity. You can see my temporary work homepage here! (http://www.zoologi.gu.se/kontakta_oss/forskarstuderande/gustafsson_daniel/) I don't think it's been updated in a while, though, but it seems everything is in order, apart from the fact that the focus on my work has shifted slightly.

---
(1) Because, as we have now had explained to us by several mathematical formulae and empirical evidence, these selection pressures slow them down.
(2) Look this up! It's a great game!
(3) Oh, what a clever pun!

[kleinman]

I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas, what do you celebrate this time of year? Do you celebrate Survival of the Fittest Day?As a matter of fact, yes. We devote the day to the worship of Santa Gene, who keeps track of all our selection pressures across the past year. Kids who are under a lot of selection pressures are placed on one list, and those under few selection pressures are placed on another. Those on the first list get presents --- wrapped in obfuscation, of course --- suitable for their obviously very slow mode of life (1), such as slippers, new brakes for their bikes, and chairs. Those of the second list get more speed-related gifts, such as race cars, machine guns and copies of Money Idol Exchanger (2) impossible to play at lower than the highest speed. Kids under more than three selection pressures obviously get a coffin.
Oh really, you have a Santa Gene who keeps track of all your selection pressures in the past year? I thought you said it was irrelevant to track selection pressures and the mutations associated with those selection pressures. You claim that selection pressures operate on the entire gene. With that type of irrationality it will be more than kids under more than three selection pressures to get a coffin.
We then dance around a phylogenetic tree, adorned by small copies of Haeckel's embryos and the Piltdown man, while singing time-honoured tunes like "'Tis the Season to be Selected For", "I'm Dreaming of a Perfect Genome" and, of course, the all-time favourite "Rudolf the Red-nosed Transitional Form Between Two Pliocene Ancestors to the Reindeer". In many families, this is where we do the traditional moving of the goalpost as well, as most people will already be up and about.
At least you include phylogenetic trees with the other hoaxes from evolutionism mythology. You can also include your mythical interpretation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process with the rest of your evolutionism hoaxes.
I will once some scientists start posting on this thread.Wait no longer! I am a paid and active scientist at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity. You can see my temporary work homepage here! I don't think it's been updated in a while, though, but it seems everything is in order, apart from the fact that the focus on my work has shifted slightly.
Isn’t that something! You claim to be a scientist and yet say it is irrelevant to identify selection pressures and the target genes for these pressures. It is this kind of mush you evolutionists like to call science. You claim to be a scientist yet know nothing about the mathematics or empirical behavior of the mutation and selection process. Here are some more examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/3/150 (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/3/150)
Advanced premalignant lesions have a high risk of transformation to malignancy as well as resistance to single-agent retinoid therapy. Biochemoprevention, which combined retinoids with interferon (IFN) and -tocopherol,195 was therefore designed to target this group. Papadimitrakopoulou et al. conducted a nonrandomized clinical trial in 36 patients with advanced premalignant lesions using IFN-, -tocopherol, and 13cRA for one year.195 Biochemoprevention prevented laryngeal lesions but had no effect on oral cavity lesions (P = 0.009). From biopsy specimens at different time points in this trial, it was discovered that patients with high p53 expression had lower complete response rates (P = 0.04) and higher disease progression rates (P =0.02) than patients with low p53 expression.196 Based on this study, another trial using biochemoprevention induction therapy for one year followed by two years of maintenance fenretinide or placebo is underway.
And
Other agents under investigation in colorectal chemoprevention include difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), which irreversibly inhibits ornithine decarboxylase and blocks cell proliferation. Ursodeoxycholic acid reduces the concentration of secondary bile acid deoxycholic acid in the colon and affects arachidonic acid metabolism.169–171 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl Coenzyme A reductase inhibitors are usually used in the setting of lowering cholesterol but also have antioxidant antiinflammatory properties and inhibit cell proliferation.172 Preclinical work in mutant APC murine models have show that sulindac in combination with EGFR inhibitor EKI-785 can decrease intestinal polyps.173 Almost one-half the mice treated with the combination agents did not develop polyps. With the recent success of bevacizumab, an antibody to the VEGF-receptor in metastatic colorectal cancer, and cetuximab, an antibody to EGFR, further strategies will be applied to prevention.
http://cardenjennings.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,17;journal,34,67;linkingpublication results,1:106944,1 (http://cardenjennings.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,17;journal,34,67;linkingpublication results,1:106944,1)
Imatinib mesylate and rituximab are molecularly targeted drugs against the BCR-ABL fusion protein and the CD20 antigen, respectively. Although these drugs have excellent anticancer effects, a major concern is drug resistance. We have investigated the case of a patient with Philadelphia chromosome-positive and CD20+ acute lymphocytic leukemia who acquired resistance to imatinib and rituximab. Imatinib therapy resulted in prompt cytogenetic remission, but resistance developed shortly thereafter. Sequencing of the kinase domain of the ABL gene and allele-specific polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed a point mutation resulting in an E255V substitution that was present before the therapy. After the patient received mild chemotherapy followed by rituximab administration, hematologic and cytogenetic remission was sustained for 5.5 months. The recurrent leukemic cells after the rituximab therapy showed not only the E255V mutation in the ABL gene but also loss of the CD20 antigen due to impaired transcription of the CD20 gene. The results of 2-color flow cytometry analysis showed that a small population of CD20- leukemic cells existed before the imatinib therapy. These results suggest that leukemic subclones carrying a genetic perturbation of the targeted molecules for both imatinib and rituximab were present before the therapies. The preexistence of primary resistant clones suggests the inability of combination therapy with 2 molecularly targeted drugs to overcome drug resistance in leukemia. Int J Hematol. 2004;80:62-66.
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/3/2/111.pdf (http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/3/2/111.pdf)
Recent progress in antiretroviral treatment has led to dramatic improvements in HIV-related morbidity and mortality. These improvements have been fostered by advances in our understanding of HIV-related pathogenesis, the use of plasma HIV RNA levels to monitor patients, and the availability of 11 licensed antiretroviral drugs, including the potent protease inhibitors. Numerous drug combinations, especially those containing three agents, can suppress plasma HIV RNA levels below the lower limit of detection in the majority of treated patients. However, the limitations of this therapeutic response—patient compliance, drug resistance, and a residual burden of chronically infected cells which are refractory to treatment—should be familiar to the oncologist. The Oncologist 1998;3:111-118
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=3088999&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=3088999&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google)
The ability of antibiotic combinations to limit the emergence of resistance during therapy was evaluated in a murine model. Peritonitis was produced by injecting a mixture containing 10(8) colony-forming units of bacteria and sterilized talcum into the peritoneum. Two hours later, a single antibiotic dose was administered subcutaneously. The next day, peritoneal bacterial populations were analyzed on Szybalski's gradients. Acquired resistance was recorded when there was at least a fourfold increase in minimum inhibitory concentrations compared with untreated animals. No resistance emerged after amikacin monotherapy (15 mg/kg); however, resistance was frequently observed after monotherapy with ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg) or pefloxacin (25 mg/kg). Resistance to ceftriaxone and pefloxacin emerged, respectively, in 15 percent and 83 percent of animals with Klebsiella pneumoniae, 71 percent and 54 percent with Enterobacter cloacae, 0 percent and 83 percent with Serratia marcescens, 25 percent and 100 percent with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 0 percent with both Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. In mice with K. pneumoniae or E. cloacae infections, any dual combination of amikacin, pefloxacin, and ceftriaxone produced less acquired resistance than did monotherapy. In these animals, the combination of ceftriaxone and pefloxacin abolished all resistance, whereas the combinations of amikacin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin plus pefloxacin reduced the frequency of resistance by more than half. In animals with P. aeruginosa or S. marcescens infections, resistance to pefloxacin diminished or disappeared after treatment with the combinations of pefloxacin plus ceftriaxone or pefloxacin plus amikacin. However, combinations with ceftriaxone resulted in more frequent resistance to ceftriaxone than did ceftriaxone alone. This was the case in P. aeruginosa infections treated with ceftriaxone plus amikacin (p less than 0.01), and in S. marcescens infections treated with ceftriaxone plus pefloxacin (p less than 0.05). Despite these certain notable exceptions, our data confirm that in most cases combination therapy does limit the emergence of resistance.
It seems they let those with weak understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process pretend they are scientists at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity.

[Kotatsu]

It seems they let those with weak understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process pretend they are scientists at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity.

And it seems they let those with no immediately obvious understanding of anything at all pretend they are... well, what is it you are, actually, Kleinman? Apart from a clown, that is.

[kleinman]

It seems they let those with weak understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process pretend they are scientists at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity.And it seems they let those with no immediately obvious understanding of anything at all pretend they are... well, what is it you are, actually, Kleinman? Apart from a clown, that is.
It seems that the people at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity think that all it takes for a reptile to grow wings and feathers is for it to be chased up into a tree by a predator. That place sounds like an entire circus, not a scientific institution. Does everyone at that institution dance around a phylogenetic tree, adorned by small copies of Haeckel's embryos and the Piltdown man or is there anyone competent in mathematics at that Mathishard University.

[Kotatsu]

It seems that the people at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity think that all it takes for a reptile to grow wings and feathers is for it to be chased up into a tree by a predator. That place sounds like an entire circus, not a scientific institution. Does everyone at that institution dance around a phylogenetic tree, adorned by small copies of Haeckel's embryos and the Piltdown man or is there anyone competent in mathematics at that Mathishard University.

It seems that in whatever institute you are incarcerated, idiocy is a synonym of coherency, and bluster one for fact. How very curious.

[kleinman]

It seems that the people at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity think that all it takes for a reptile to grow wings and feathers is for it to be chased up into a tree by a predator. That place sounds like an entire circus, not a scientific institution. Does everyone at that institution dance around a phylogenetic tree, adorned by small copies of Haeckel's embryos and the Piltdown man or is there anyone competent in mathematics at that Mathishard University.It seems that in whatever institute you are incarcerated, idiocy is a synonym of coherency, and bluster one for fact. How very curious.
Oh, Kotatsu, I am not incarcerated, but you claim to be a scientist at a University and expert in the theory of evolution but you have absolutely no idea of how mutation and selection works, either mathematically or empirically. You simply list a series of evolutionist hoaxes and include your own specialty, creating phylogenetic trees in that list. It interesting that is what the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity produces. What other hoaxes are produced there at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity circus? Reptiles growing feathers and wings because they are chased into a tree, that’s a good one.

[kjkent1]

What ev is showing is that simple sorting conditions sort much, much faster than more complex sorting conditions. It doesn’t take very complex sorting conditions to bring the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to a standstill. This mathematical phenomenon that ev demonstrates is also demonstrated in the hundreds of empirical examples cited.There is NO sorting based upon the three mistake weights. Were this not true, then enabling all three mistake weights and simultaneously disabling "selection" in ev would cause the program to produce information gain.

But it doesn't, so your conclusion is demonstrably false.

PS. Your recent tirade on the evil of evolutionists is neither Christian nor in the Christmas spirit.

Lump of coal is on its way to your location.

[kleinman]

What ev is showing is that simple sorting conditions sort much, much faster than more complex sorting conditions. It doesn’t take very complex sorting conditions to bring the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to a standstill. This mathematical phenomenon that ev demonstrates is also demonstrated in the hundreds of empirical examples cited.There is NO sorting based upon the three mistake weights. Were this not true, then enabling all three mistake weights and simultaneously disabling "selection" in ev would cause the program to produce information gain.
Enabling any of the three selection conditions reduces the disorder of the genetic sequences and thus increases the information content of the population. Any mutation and selection sorting/optimization algorithm will attempt to increase the information content of a gene pool. The point here is that the process is profoundly slow for all but the simplest selection (sorting) conditions. This is the mathematical and empirical fact of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works.
PS. Your recent tirade on the evil of evolutionists is neither Christian nor in the Christmas spirit.
What would you know about Christianity or the Christmas spirit; you think God is a misogynist. It is a fact that the complete failure of evolutionists to properly elucidate how the mutation and selection process works either mathematically or empirically has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from disease subject to the principles of mutation and selection. I will continue to post citations which shows this and why the theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically and irrational and illogical theory but a despicable theory which harms people.
Lump of coal is on its way to your location.
Aren’t you concerned that burning coal will cause global warming? Obviously not, because you could care less that the irrational and illogical interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization asserted by evolutionists contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. I wonder how many more generations of children will be confused by this despicable theory.

[Belz...]

Death to the World, selection is come!
Let earth receive the fittest;
Let every heart evolve its chamber,
And mutation and selection sing,
And mutation and selection sing,
And mutation, and mutation, and selection sing.

Death to the World, the fittest reigns!
Let evolutionists their myths employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Refute their whining cries,
Refute their whining cries,
Refute, refute, their whining cries.


You've gone completely, stark raving mad, Kleinman. Why, only a madman could take on such a vast army of strawmen on his own!

[Belz...]

You evolutionists believe that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the evolutionary process occurs by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds. This is not only mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical

How can something be mathematically or emprically illogical ?

If you don’t believe that this is occurring, look what happened with MRSA, Malaria, HIV,… when monotherapy was used to treat these infections.

And look how much they spread before that, when an unknown, but greater than one, number of pressures were present.

This is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, both mathematically and empirically.

Except in models you don't like.

Mutation and selection does not achieve the ridiculous speculation that reptiles evolved into birds.

And yet it happened. Odd, eh ?

Isn’t that something! You claim to be a scientist and yet say it is irrelevant to identify selection pressures and the target genes for these pressures. It is this kind of mush you evolutionists like to call science.

Oh, so now he's not a real scientist ?

It seems they let those with weak understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process pretend they are scientists at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity.

It must really keep you awake at night, Klein, to think that your entire religion could be thrown asunder by such a theory as evolution. My, you must twist and turn endlessly trying to figure out how to rationalise this to maintain your faith. Fear not. You're not alone. Muslim fundamentalists do that, too.

It seems that the people at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Systematics and Biodiversity think that all it takes for a reptile to grow wings and feathers is for it to be chased up into a tree by a predator.

That would be Lamarckism, again. Sheesh, you'd think someone as well-versed in evolution as you would know this by now.

That place sounds like an entire circus

There's certainly at least one buffoon, here.

What would you know about Christianity or the Christmas spirit; you think God is a misogynist.

No, I think he is a psychopathic mass murderer. You ?

Aren’t you concerned that burning coal will cause global warming?

Yeah, we need to beggaminase our technology.

Things change over time, Klein. Get over it.

[joobz]

What joobz fails to mention is that sequential single drug therapy is the way you evolve multidrug resistant populations such as MRSA, multi-drug resistant Gonorrhea, multi-drug resistant Malaria… That example prefectly demonstrates how multiple selection pressures really work. When such pressures are not constant and varying, evolution occurs rapidly. I know this is very difficult to understand, when you are so obviously drunk on egg nog. But I'm always willing to help you out.

Let's give another example of nature being a variable environment. This example is seasonal, just for you.

Oh the weather outside is Frightful,
But the fire is so delightful
And since we've no place to go
Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow.

[Mr. Scott]

I see you dodged my question, so I'll repeat it until you answer it.


Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[Shalamar]

I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas, what do you celebrate this time of year? Do you celebrate Survival of the Fittest Day? Or how about do you celebrate Merry Primordial Soup Day? What you evolutionists need is a song to celebrate your mathematically and empirically impossible mythical belief system and I have one that will just fit your irrational and illogical thinking. This is to be sung to the music of Joy to the World. Make sure you get out tonight and sing this to all your neighbors.

Now you evolutionists have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day or a Merry Primordial Soup Day or whatever you celebrate and for the rest of you, Merry Christmas.

Now this is just stupid, and insulting. Fir for a troll.

You claim to be Christian, but obviously, you are not.

I'll be happy to say that I am with family, we opened gifts. We went to Christmas Mass. We did none of the things that you claim. I demand you retract your statement here, as it is obviously full of lies. Every word of it. You are so blinded by your limited thinking, That you are stooping to personally insulting those who look at evidence.

WHY does evolution threaten your faith, Klienman? It doesn't threaten MY faith. And I am Catholic.

[Tokenconservative]

I Thought this was going to be a "how to" thread...

You know, "10 Easy Ways to Really, REALLY Piss of Creationists!"

Tokie

[kjkent1]

Enabling any of the three selection conditions reduces the disorder of the genetic sequences and thus increases the information content of the population. Any mutation and selection sorting/optimization algorithm will attempt to increase the information content of a gene pool. The point here is that the process is profoundly slow for all but the simplest selection (sorting) conditions. This is the mathematical and empirical fact of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works.If the information content of the population were increased under your scenario, then ev would display the convergence of Rseq -> Rfreq with selection disabled. But, it doesn't. So, once again, your conclusion is demonstrably false.

There is only one selection condition in ev and it occurs by calculating the aggregate value of all mistake weights and then sorting each creature by its aggregate mistake weight. Then, ev wipes out half the population by overwriting the half with the lowest numbers, with a copy of the half with the highest numbers.

The reason why ev is faster with a mistake weight disabled is because the final (perfect) creature is simpler than the creature which arises with the mistake weights enabled. And, in the case where all mistake weights are disabled, the creature is so simple that it is declared perfect in the first generation, despite the genome being nothing but random noise.

Your conclusion is profoundly slow. Ev, however is just fine.

What would you know about Christianity or the Christmas spirit; you think God is a misogynist. It is a fact that the complete failure of evolutionists to properly elucidate how the mutation and selection process works either mathematically or empirically has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from disease subject to the principles of mutation and selection. I will continue to post citations which shows this and why the theory of evolution is not only mathematically and empirically and irrational and illogical theory but a despicable theory which harms people.I don't "think" your Lord is a misogynist. Your Lord is a misogynist by HIS own declarations. He causes all women to suffer the corruption of blood for Eve's sin: excruciating pain in childbirth, Such action would be considered both unconstitutional under U.S. law, AND, felony criminal assault, AND felony torture, AND felony terrorism.

Your Lord is one sick puppy -- as are you, in my opinion.

Aren’t you concerned that burning coal will cause global warming? Obviously not, because you could care less that the irrational and illogical interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization asserted by evolutionists contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. I wonder how many more generations of children will be confused by this despicable theory.Who said anything about burning coal?

I was merely suggesting that you insert the coal into your rectum and then try to squeeze out something useful for a change.

Merry Christmas, Alan.

[hammegk]

...I was merely suggesting that you insert the coal into your rectum and then try to squeeze out something useful for a change.

Merry Christmas, Alan.

Ah. A post just dripping with JREF civility.

[Belz...]

Do you mean that this is the norm, here ?

[kleinman]

So did all you evolutionists have a Merry Survival of the Fittest Day? Did you get your selection you were looking for? I found some citations at a post Primordial Soup Day sale for you which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works empirically. After all, we already know how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works mathematically, Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute wrote a peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection which shows mathematically how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem actually works. Check out these post Primordial Soup Day gifts for you below. But first, let’s see if any you evolutionists have the foggiest idea of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
What joobz fails to mention is that sequential single drug therapy is the way you evolve multidrug resistant populations such as MRSA, multi-drug resistant Gonorrhea, multi-drug resistant Malaria…That example prefectly demonstrates how multiple selection pressures really work. When such pressures are not constant and varying, evolution occurs rapidly. I know this is very difficult to understand, when you are so obviously drunk on egg nog.
Sure it demonstrates how sequential selection pressures work. So now joobz, you claim that you put a reptile into one side of a fog bank and out from the other side pops out a bird. Your weather explanation for evolution does a wonderful job explaining the fog that you are in. Oh, you are confusing me with Delphi, he is the one who needs a drink. He’s got his own fog to deal with.
I see you dodged my question, so I'll repeat it until you answer it.
When are you going to tell us what the lies your atheists parent told you? I don’t lie to my patients. Just because your parents lied makes you think everyone is a liar.
WHY does evolution threaten your faith, Klienman? It doesn't threaten MY faith. And I am Catholic.
It just goes to show that Catholics can be ignorant of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
I Thought this was going to be a "how to" thread...

You know, "10 Easy Ways to Really, REALLY Piss of Creationists!"
No, no Tokie, this is a thread where you piss off evolutionists with the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You start with evolutionists Dr Tom Schneider and Paul Anagnostopoulos’s computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and then you post hundreds of citations of real examples of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process which demonstrates the same thing. Then you watch the evolutionist mythematicians whine that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. That is a fitting irrational and illogical speculation for a mathematically irrational and illogical theory of evolution.
...I was merely suggesting that you insert the coal into your rectum and then try to squeeze out something useful for a change.

Merry Christmas, Alan.Ah. A post just dripping with JREF civility.
Don’t worry about it martillo. Kjkent1 is a legal beagle who couldn’t find an ambulance to chase so he landed here on this thread. Kjkent1 is using a typical legal beagle strategy, if you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, attack your opponent. Kjkent1 has neither mathematical nor empirical facts to argue with so he does what he was trained to do. Kjkent1 can’t find a loophole so he resorts to the only tactic left to him.

Now here is how you use empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works to show that the theory of evolution is an irrational and illogical theory.
http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-8275-1__fulltext.pdf (http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_uu_diva-8275-1__fulltext.pdf)
The best approach for preventing resistance development would be a combination-therapeutic approach, where two antibiotics are used which inhibit different mechanisms in the bacteria (FIRSOV et al. 2004; ISEMAN 1994). This is based on the assumption that the probability of two resistance mutations to occur independently
would be low.
http://www.cmlsupport.com/leuk0804resistance.pdf (http://www.cmlsupport.com/leuk0804resistance.pdf)
Management of resistance may include therapeutic strategies such as dose escalation to achieve individual optimal levels, combination therapy, as well as treatment interruption.
http://www.ashpadvantage.com/website_images/pdf/cancer_amgen.pdf (http://www.ashpadvantage.com/website_images/pdf/cancer_amgen.pdf)
A final strategy for utilizing HER1/EGFR receptors in cancer therapy is to combine biologics to create synergistic effects. For example, bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF ligand binding antibody that has a direct effect on VEGF. HER1/EGFR inhibitors would have an indirect effect on the synthesis of VEGF, and, when combined with bevacizumab, the combination of biologics would have dual mechanisms of action in those tumors that overexpress HER1/EGFR or VEGF alone.
Once again, more empirical evidence which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is what the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection written by Dr Tom Schneider of the National Cancer Institute shows and this is what the empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process shows. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

[joobz]

Sure it demonstrates how sequential selection pressures work.
What's another word for sequential selection pressures? Multiple pressures in a variable environment! See how well your theory proves evolution. Thank you, Kleinman for making it clear to so many that evolution isn't just mathematically possible, but real. Now if only you could see past the fog to see the truth.
So now joobz, you claim that you put a reptile into one side of a fog bank and out from the other side pops out a bird.
Well, by our own discussion, the fog bank would represent a single constant pressure. See, you are still having a hard time understanding weather. I can see you still doubt what so many creationists know, weather is real. Nature isn't constant.
You see, it changes from season to season, month to month. It isn't constant. You need multiple constant pressures to stop evolution. Since weather isn't constant, by your own theory, evolution is possible.
Now if only creationists would only listen to you, they would know that such an environment makes evolution quite possible. We wouldn't have to worry about such nonsense like ID.

[kleinman]

Sure it demonstrates how sequential selection pressures work.What's another word for sequential selection pressures? Multiple pressures in a variable environment! See how well your theory proves evolution. Thank you, Kleinman for making it clear to so many that evolution isn't just mathematically possible, but real. Now if only you could see past the fog to see the truth.
The author of the bizarre speculation that chemistry somehow cooperates to bring about abiogenesis now gives a new bizarre speculation that sequential selection pressures cooperate to transform reptiles into birds. You evolutionists just get weirder and weirder in your speculations. The only think missing from your speculation on cooperative chemistry is a sequence of chemical reactions that would give life from your so-called primordial soup and a sequence of selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird. Other than those two minor omissions in your bizarre speculations, your concepts are totally reasonable.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only think missing from your speculation on cooperative chemistry is a sequence of chemical reactions that would give life from your so-called primordial soup and a sequence of selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird.
People state this kind of objection quite often. I find it interesting, because in no case can they present a sequence of events for their own proposal, assuming they have a proposal at all.

~~ Paul

[The Gnomon]

Yet the Bumblebee, in spite of it being impossible, has been observed to fly.
And the gonococcus, in spite of evolution and selection being impossible, has become resistent to penicillin.
Really, folks, the debate should be about the "how," not the "whether."

[Belz...]

So did all you evolutionists have a Merry Survival of the Fittest Day?

Did you get that particular strawman as a present ?

I don’t lie to my patients.

Depends. If you tell them the same crap you tell us, here, then yes, you lie to them.

Just because your parents lied makes you think everyone is a liar.

In order to lie you have to know that what you're saying is a lie. You know, like you do.

No, no Tokie, this is a thread where you piss off evolutionists with the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

So far, the only facts you've brought to bear actually prove us right. Now THAT must be pissing YOU off !

The author of the bizarre speculation that chemistry somehow cooperates to bring about abiogenesis

What, besides chemistry, would YOU expect to cause abiogenesis ?

now gives a new bizarre speculation that sequential selection pressures cooperate to transform reptiles into birds.

What, besides mutation, could transform any life form ?

You evolutionists just get weirder and weirder in your speculations.

I don't see why you say this, since we've been saying all this for over a year, now.

[Belz...]

Yet the Bumblebee, in spite of it being impossible, has been observed to fly.
And the gonococcus, in spite of evolution and selection being impossible, has become resistent to penicillin.
Really, folks, the debate should be about the "how," not the "whether."

Really, Gnomon. The gonococcus evolved resistance because it was subjected to a single selection pressure. Obviously! Yep. NO OTHER pressure was present. None at all. Nope.

Oh, well, aside from all those pressures that the bacterium would be subject to if the penicillin wasn't there, but then Kleinman would have us believe that when you add the first human-made selection pressure, all those natural ones dissapear, somehow.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Management of resistance may include therapeutic strategies such as dose escalation to achieve individual optimal levels, combination therapy, as well as treatment interruption.
Treatment interruption? Is that like reducing the number of pressures?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, well, aside from all those pressures that the bacterium would be subject to if the penicillin wasn't there, but then Kleinman would have us believe that when you add the first human-made selection pressure, all those natural ones dissapear, somehow.
That's it! You're a genius!

Kleinman has been trying to tell us that we are a giant experiment in the lab of some alien biologists. All the pressures are alien-made, which is why no evolution has occurred. Shhh. Mum's the word.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

The only think missing from your speculation on cooperative chemistry is a sequence of chemical reactions that would give life from your so-called primordial soup and a sequence of selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird.People state this kind of objection quite often. I find it interesting, because in no case can they present a sequence of events for their own proposal, assuming they have a proposal at all.
Your own computer model shows how the sequence of events for the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and hundreds of empirical examples verifies that the more complex the selection conditions, the much, much, much more slowly the evolutionary process becomes. Perhaps you think that joobz’s ridiculous speculations qualify as science but in reality that’s what your theory of evolution is made up of, ridiculous speculations. We have your mathematical model and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which tell us how this process works. Your evolutionist faith system is based on irrational and illogical logic yet you still think it is worthwhile to teach to naïve school children. Keep your religious beliefs out of our public schools.
And the gonococcus, in spite of evolution and selection being impossible, has become resistent to penicillin.
Really, folks, the debate should be about the "how," not the "whether."
What a surprise, another evolutionist enters the discussion who is completely ignorant of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. The way you get multi-resistant gonococcus is by using single drug therapy sequentially. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the ability of a population to evolve to these selection pressures simultaneously. This is the mathematical and empirical fact of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process that you evolutionists have yet to figure out.
You evolutionists just get weirder and weirder in your speculations.I don't see why you say this, since we've been saying all this for over a year, now.
I must admit that your beggaminases concept does not even qualify as speculation. What surprises me is that you evolutionists think that people should take your claims seriously.
Management of resistance may include therapeutic strategies such as dose escalation to achieve individual optimal levels, combination therapy, as well as treatment interruption.Treatment interruption? Is that like reducing the number of pressures?
Paul, you should know the answer to this already. Your own model shows what happens when you turn off selection.
Oh, well, aside from all those pressures that the bacterium would be subject to if the penicillin wasn't there, but then Kleinman would have us believe that when you add the first human-made selection pressure, all those natural ones dissapear, somehow.That's it! You're a genius!
I’m still waiting for you evolutionists to describe these magical “natural” selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird. I guess Belz’s genius stops there.
Kleinman has been trying to tell us that we are a giant experiment in the lab of some alien biologists. All the pressures are alien-made, which is why no evolution has occurred. Shhh. Mum's the word.
That’s not it Paul, what I am trying to tell you is that the theory of evolution is something suitable for a fictional writing course and that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization can be described mathematically as you and Dr Schneider have done and it properly shows how this sorting process works. You would think if you were a scientist, you would want this mathematical behavior to be taught to children so that as they learned more, they could find better ways to treat diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. But it seems you evolutionists would rather teach the fiction that mutation and selection can transform reptiles into birds.

[kjkent1]

Don’t worry about it martillo. Kjkent1 is a legal beagle who couldn’t find an ambulance to chase so he landed here on this thread. Kjkent1 is using a typical legal beagle strategy, if you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, attack your opponent. Kjkent1 has neither mathematical nor empirical facts to argue with so he does what he was trained to do. Kjkent1 can’t find a loophole so he resorts to the only tactic left to him.Merely a well-deserved response to your continued psycho babble about "evolutionists" (whomever they are) being responsible for the deaths of millions.

I've tried arguing facts, but you just ignore mine (and everyone else's), while concentrating only on your own.

Interestingly, in court, if you don't directly address your opponent's argument, you lose any affirmative points made against you. Whereas here, ignoring an opponent's argument is the way to stay in the debate.

And, kleinman, you are the preeminent expert in this area of evasion.

[joobz]

The author of the bizarre speculation that chemistry somehow cooperates to bring about abiogenesis now gives a new bizarre speculation that sequential selection pressures cooperate to transform reptiles into birds. You evolutionists just get weirder and weirder in your speculations. The only think missing from your speculation on cooperative chemistry is a sequence of chemical reactions that would give life from your so-called primordial soup and a sequence of selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird. Other than those two minor omissions in your bizarre speculations, your concepts are totally reasonable.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?

Kleinman, you keep forgetting. These aren't my speculations or concepts that help prove evolution. It is your own theory. You've managed to highlight a very important point, that being a variable environment is quite useful in accelerating the evolutionary process.

All we need you to get to see now is that weather is real. I know it's hard for you to accept. After all, this fact coupled with YOUR theory based upon Dr. Schneider's math proves your desired wishes false.

Here's some more help:

The weather right now in Chicago is:
Raining, 39ºF.



Perhaps you'd like to start presenting examples of no weather patterns? It's the only way your theory would argue that evoution is too slow in nature.

[Mr. Scott]

"We found that delivering the drug first made the prostate cancer cells more sensitive to radiation therapy," said one of the authors, UNSW Professor Pam Russell, who is based at the Prince of Wales Hospital.

"We also found that the timing and the size of the dose were crucial," said Professor Russell. "We used relatively low doses of the drug aiming to keep the likelihood of additional toxicity as low as possible, but we still had excellent results."

Well, Kleinman, I actually read that citation, and it seems to argue the opposite of what you want it to argue.

Your thesis seems to be that organisms in nature are subject to simultaneous selection pressures, which slow/stop evolution, disproving Darwin's theory of the origin of species.

However, this example you cite is an example of carefully timed and dosed sequential selection pressures. There is little reason to expect that to prevail in nature. Such a sequence would be rare to the extent of irrelevancy to extinction or the emergence of resistance. Indeed, you've argued that sequential selection pressures result in accelerated evolution. I don't think you've thought out the real implications of that citation.

It doesn't support your thesis. It refutes it. Other posters have found other examples of your citations refuting your thesis. Your strategy to cite any article with the keywords "combination therapy" is backfiring quite spectacularly.

[Mr. Scott]

When are you going to tell us what the lies your atheists parent told you? I don’t lie to my patients. Just because your parents lied makes you think everyone is a liar.

Your wish to turn my question into a game proves its proximity to your Achilles heel. It's irrational because my question is 100% on-topic and yours is 100% off-topic. Your game is DOA and as lame as your sense of humor.

However, you implicitly promised to answer my question if I answered yours, so I'll play to see if you have even a microscopic particle of integrity.

I felt the question in my sig, initially alone, needed some kind of answer. At first, it was one from Carl Sagan: "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." Later I thought of the rather snarky one you keep harping on: "Because our parents lied to us.." I removed it when I thought it out and realized I meant it collectively, but not personally. My parents really didn't lie to me about that kind of important stuff. That's why I removed it. The question is philosophical and works better without a sig-sized attempt at an answer.

So, now that I've been 100% open regarding the question you've asked, you are obliged to do likewise:

Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

Answering with a "yes" or a "no" would be satisfactory for the time being.

[godless dave]

I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas,

Why do you think that? Many evolutionists are Christian.

[Belz...]

the more complex the selection conditions, the much, much, much more slowly the evolutionary process becomes.

You still haven't understood that when you kill off an entire population, that population ceases to evolve ?

Your evolutionist faith system is based on irrational and illogical logic yet you still think it is worthwhile to teach to naïve school children. Keep your religious beliefs out of our public schools.

I'm still waiting for the scientific community to confirm your findings, Kleinman. Why not contact them and present them your conclusions ?

I must admit that your beggaminases concept does not even qualify as speculation.

Just for laughs, Kleinman. What did I say "beggaminases" means ?

I’m still waiting for you evolutionists to describe these magical “natural” selection pressures that would transform a reptile into a bird.

Mainly by altering their scales into feathers. This has been shown to you to be quite feasible.

[Belz...]

Your thesis seems to be that organisms in nature are subject to simultaneous selection pressures, which slow/stop evolution, disproving Darwin's theory of the origin of species.

Which is quite ironic, because Kleinman also tried to argue that, when you remove the human-made selection pressures, those virii and bacteria aren't under any kind of pressure, hinting that there are NO pressures in nature. Of course, that's ridiculous.

[kleinman]

Don’t worry about it martillo. Kjkent1 is a legal beagle who couldn’t find an ambulance to chase so he landed here on this thread. Kjkent1 is using a typical legal beagle strategy, if you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, attack your opponent. Kjkent1 has neither mathematical nor empirical facts to argue with so he does what he was trained to do. Kjkent1 can’t find a loophole so he resorts to the only tactic left to him.Merely a well-deserved response to your continued psycho babble about "evolutionists" (whomever they are) being responsible for the deaths of millions.
Let’s see, you claim that there are 10^500 alternative universes yet you won’t send us a single postcard from any of them. You must have visited at least one of these alternative universes when you were taken up in a UFO.

Teaching children that mutation and selection transforms reptiles into birds is a mathematically and empirically irrational interpretation of the process when the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection pressure. If you continue to teach children that increasing the number of selection conditions imposed on a population accelerates evolution, you might as well hire more grave diggers to bury people who will die prematurely with HIV and other diseases subject to the mutation and selection phenomenon. That is what your irrational and illogical evolutionist belief system is bringing to this world. You lawyers will have a bigger law suit against evolutionists than you ever had against tobacco companies.
Well, Kleinman, I actually read that citation, and it seems to argue the opposite of what you want it to argue.
My, my, kitty kat read a citation and now want to claim that it argues against combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Of course timing of the selection pressures have a strong affect on the process. If the selection pressure are applied sequentially, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs much, much more quickly than if the selection pressures are applied concurrently. Perhaps you want to jump on the joobz bandwagon without wheels and claim that reptiles evolved into birds by a sequence of single selection pressures caused by the weather? Then you can add joobz to your list which includes your parents.
I’ve been busy wrapping Christmas gifts and haven’t had a chance to talk with you recently. Since you evolutionists don’t celebrate Christmas,Why do you think that? Many evolutionists are Christian.
Oh really, I suppose you are one of those godless Christians.

http://www.bionewsonline.com/x/2/multidrug_resistance_c.htm (http://www.bionewsonline.com/x/2/multidrug_resistance_c.htm)
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, fludarabine, cytarabine and cyclosporine combination regimen in patients with CD33+ primary resistant or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia; Tsimberidou A et al.; Clinical resistance to gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with blast multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotype . A Phase II study of Mylotarg, fludarabine, ara-C and the MDR-modifier, cyclosporine (CSA) (MFAC) was conducted in 32 patients with primary resistant (11, 34%) or relapsed (21, 66%) AML . Nine (28%) patients obtained complete remission (CR), two (6%) CR with incomplete platelet recovery . Overall median survival was 5.3 months, 12-month survival rate 19% . Fourteen patients (44%) developed grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia; six (18%) grade 3/4 hepatic transaminitis; three (9%) hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) . CSA inclusion in gemtuzumab ozogamicin-based regimens is feasible . MFAC is an effective regimen for refractory AML.
And
{Results of treatment of multiresistant tuberculosis}; Bartu V et al.; BACKGROUND: Multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) is an infectious disease with limited therapeutic possibilities . Beside its epidemiological importance, MDR TB represents a problem also for long-term therapy with antituberculous drug combination and for its economical costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated retrospectively the effect of treatment of MDR TB according to the clinical, radiological and bacteriological findings of 11 patients hospitalised in our department in years 1996 to 2000. Individual chemotherapy regimens were chosen according to the susceptibility test results for the first and second-line antituberculosis drugs. Despite the fully controlled and long-term treatment, seven patients died during the regimen; in three of them the cause of death was different from MDR TB. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of MDR TB cases in the Czech republic has remained in the same level for several previous years and it represents about 20-30 persons. To prevent acquired resistance with its negative consequences, it would be optimal to implement the recommended standardized treatment regimens.
And
Reversal of P-glycoprotein expressed in Escherichia coli leaky mutant by ascorbic acid; El-Masry EM et al.; It has been reported that functional expression of the multidrug resistance protein P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in E . coli is useful for screening P-gp substrates and inhibitors. In the present study, we have constructed by nitrosoguanidine and UV mutagenesis 28 leaky mutants of E . coli UT5600 . These mutants are significantly susceptible to the toxic effect of known P-gp substrates and lipophilic cancer drugs. Mouse mdr1 was functionally expressed in the most permeable E . coli mutant (UTP17). Expression of P-gp in this mutant confers cross-resistance to mitomycin C, tegafur, daunorubicin, rhodamine 6G, tetraphenylphosphonium bromide and ciprofloxacin. To examine the reversal of P-gp expressed in this heterologous system, UTP17 cells expressing mouse mdr1 or lac permease as negative control were treated with various concentrations of mitomycin C with or without ascorbic acid. We found that ascorbic acid abrogated P-gp mediated multidrug resistance, suggesting that ascorbic acid might be used in combination with anticancer drugs to reduce emergence of multidrug resistance. We also demonstrated that tomato lectin antagonized the inhibitory action of ascorbic acid. This study provide a heterologous system for mdr1 expression in E. coli leaky mutant that can be used as a system for the screening of P-gp inducers and inhibitors, since it is quick and simple.
And
"]{Reversal of anti-apoptotic action by tetrandrine in human breast carcinoma multidrug-resistant MCF-7 cells}[/B]; Wang JH et al.; OBJECTIVE: To study whether the anti-apoptotic action is reversed by tetrandrine in a combination with vincristine in human breast carcinoma MCF-7 multidrug-resistant cells. METHOD: Chromatin condensation was observed by co-staining of fluorescent dyes Hoechst 33342 and propidium iodide; and G1 sub-peak was detected by flow cytometry. Apoptotic cells were detected with TUNEL method. Cellular free ca2+ was determined with Fluo-3 staining method. RESULT: Two types of chromatin condensation were observed after the sensitive and drug-resistant MCF-7 cells were treated with an antitumor drug vincristine 5 mumol.L-1 for 24 h. The number of cell with chromatin condensation was obviously reduced in the drug-resistant cells treated with the same concentration of vincristine, as compared with the sensitive MCF-7 cells. The number of the apoptotic cells was increased by a combination of non-cytotoxic tetrandrine 20 mumol.L-1 and vincristine in both the sensitive and drug-resistant cells, which was confirmed with fluorescent indication and TUNEL method. The increment of introcellular free Ca2+ level in the cells treated with tetrandrine in a combination of vincristine was detected with Fluo-3 staining method. CONCLUSION: The anti-apoptotic action of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells can be effectively reversed by tetrandrine.
These are more empirical examples which show that combination selection pressures have a profound slowing effect on the ability of a population to evolve to these combined selection pressures. This is the mathematical and empirical fact of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process that you evolutionists refuse to understand or acknowledge. You would rather teach your false belief system to naïve school children so that they are confused on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. This is how evolutionists contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

[Mr. Scott]

My, my, kitty kat read a citation and now want to claim that it argues against combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Of course timing of the selection pressures have a strong affect on the process. If the selection pressure are applied sequentially, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs much, much more quickly than if the selection pressures are applied concurrently. Perhaps you want to jump on the joobz bandwagon without wheels and claim that reptiles evolved into birds by a sequence of single selection pressures caused by the weather? Then you can add joobz to your list which includes your parents.

Gosh, you didn't apply your brain to any of the substance of what I was saying. You are intellectually dead. You have no contribution to any coherent conversation on the nature of biological processes. You are completely loonytoons. I'm not suprised you ended up in malpractice court.

I held up my end of the bargain, so you have no excuse to ignore my question:

Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[kleinman]

My, my, kitty kat read a citation and now want to claim that it argues against combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Of course timing of the selection pressures have a strong affect on the process. If the selection pressure are applied sequentially, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs much, much more quickly than if the selection pressures are applied concurrently. Perhaps you want to jump on the joobz bandwagon without wheels and claim that reptiles evolved into birds by a sequence of single selection pressures caused by the weather? Then you can add joobz to your list which includes your parents.Gosh, you didn't apply your brain to any of the substance of what I was saying. You are intellectually dead. You have no contribution to any coherent conversation on the nature of biological processes. You are completely loonytoons. I'm not suprised you ended up in malpractice court.
Do you really think a malpractice case has any bearing on whether combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? You need to find better reasons than this if you are going to contradict the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[kleinman]

Dr. Kleinman, have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?
Is that what you think I did in the malpractice case I am involved in and if not, what bearing does the malpractice case I am involved in have to do with the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Kitty kat, you have made the following claim:
Well, Kleinman, I actually read that citation, and it seems to argue the opposite of what you want it to argue.
Why don’t you post the citation and the quote from the citation that contradicts my claim that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution or is all that you can do is level accusations without any facts to back up your accusations?

We all know that your atheist parents lied to you and that has had a sad effect on your development. We can help you with this. You can start with acknowledging the mathematical and empirical evidence which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[Mr. Scott]

Is that what you think I did in the malpractice case I am involved in and if not, what bearing does the malpractice case I am involved in have to do with the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Many of the documents about the case are available online and I've read them. My current question has nothing to do with the Powell case.

Why don’t you post the citation and the quote from the citation that contradicts my claim that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution or is all that you can do is level accusations without any facts to back up your accusations?

I already did that. Today. Have you been screened for Alzheimer's? Early onset?

I see your tactic of raising side issues to avoid answering my question, so I'll decline to acknowledge them until you answer what you promised to answer:

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[Belz...]

Woo-woos continually make promises they can't keep.

[kjkent1]

Many of the documents about the case are available online and I've read them. My current question has nothing to do with that case.



I already did that. Today. Have you been screened for Alzheimer's? Early onset?

I see your tactic of raising side issues to avoid answering my question, so I'll decline to acknowledge them until you answer what you promised to answer:

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?Yes, kleinman, please do answer this question.

[kleinman]

Is that what you think I did in the malpractice case I am involved in and if not, what bearing does the malpractice case I am involved in have to do with the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Many of the documents about the case are available online and I've read them. My current question has nothing to do with the Powell case.
You have brought this case up numerous times. What does this issue have to do with the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process?

I’m sorry that you had atheist parents who lied to you. You don’t have to be like them, we can help you.

[Mr. Scott]

Answer what you promised to answer:

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[Olowkow]

Drum roll:

http://www.lofe.org/lib/bclose.wav

or rim shot?

[joobz]

Answer what you promised to answer:

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?
Yes, Kleinman. Please answer this question.
You wouldn't want anyone here to think you are a simple, dishonest two-faced liar, would you? Of course not.

[kleinman]

Yes, Kleinman. Please answer this question.
It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this. While you evolutionists partake in your silly speculation fest, I will continue to post real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And of course, it works the way Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection works. What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. So here are some more of the evolutionist’s favorite reading.
http://www.cirquemeded.com/AGA/FCU2006/Kwo.pdf (http://www.cirquemeded.com/AGA/FCU2006/Kwo.pdf)
221649: Evolution of Multi-Drug Resistant HBV: Implications on Rescue Therapy. Hyung Joon Yim, Munira Hussain, Stephen Wong, Ying Liu, Scott K Fung, Anna S Lok
Background: Multi-drug resistant HBV have been reported in patients who received sequential treatment with nucleoside monotherapy. In vitro studies showed that HBV constructs with mutations resistant to lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir (ADV) have marked reduction in sensitivity to combination of LAM+ADV, while constructs with mutations resistant to either drug remain sensitive to the other drug. Aims: To determine if mutations conferring resistance to multiple antiviral agents are present on the same HBV genome in vivo and to describe the evolution of these mutations. Methods: Sera from 6 patients found to have dual-resistant HBV mutations on direct sequencing were cloned after nested PCR, 18-20 clones from each sample were sequenced. Results: Mutations to both therapies were present on the same genome in 163/195 (84%) clones from 10 samples with dual-resistant mutations to LAM+ADV, LAM+HBIG, or LAM+entecavir (ETV) on direct sequencing, 32 (16%) clones had mutations to one drug. Evolution of mutations was examined in 3 patients. Patient 1 received LAM+ETV after LAM breakthrough, all 18 clones had L180M and M204V/I at month 0 (start of ETV), clonal analysis first detected ETV-resistant mutation (T184L) at month 20, 6 months earlier than direct sequencing. Both treatments were stopped at month 34 (T184L: 20/20 clones); 6 months later, T184L was detected in 12/20 clones while L180M and M204V/I remained detectable in 19/20 clones. Patient 2 was switched to ETV monotherapy after LAM breakthrough, all 20 clones had L180M+M204V at month 0. At month 36, ETV-resistant mutation I169T was detected in 15 and S202G in 4 clones. At month 41, S202G was present in 17 clones and I169T in 4 clones, LAM-resistant mutations remained detectable in all 20 clones. Patient 3 developed HBV recurrence after transplant despite receiving LAM+HBIG. All 18 clones had M204I and sG145R when HBV recurrence was diagnosed. ADV was added and LAM stopped 7 months later. ADV breakthrough occurred after 41 months of ADV when all 18 clones had ADV-resistant N236T. Four months after reintroduction of LAM, all 20 clones had L180M+M204V, 12 clones had additional V173L change. However, N236T was replaced by a different ADV-resistant mutation P237H. Conclusions: Our study showed that mutations conferring resistance to multiple antiviral agents are present on the same viral genome, suggesting that combination therapy directed against mutants resistant to each treatment may not be adequate in suppressing dual-resistant HBV. Sequential antiviral therapy leads to selection of multi-resistant HBV; mutations evolve during continued treatment resulting in mutants with increased replication fitness.
http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/smacsec2.pdf (http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/smacsec2.pdf)
Unusually among bacterial infections, Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections require treatment with combinations of three or four agents for at least 6 months. Monotherapy leads rapidly to resistance, by selecting spontaneous mutants. Even with combination therapy, resistance emerges when there is non-compliance by the patient, incorrect dosage by the physician or malabsorption.
and
Clinically, three key factors affect the likelihood (or not) of emergence of resistance, and their importance varies with the combination of virus and drug.
a) Mutation rate Resistance is caused by single or multiple mutations. As with bacteria, mutants exist within the individual’s viral population prior to therapy but a drug’s selective pressure encourages their expansion to become the majority population. RNA viruses (eg HIV), do not ‘proof-read’ genes during replication and so generate resistant mutants more rapidly than DNA viruses (eg the herpes family) which do proof-read. In addition, the risk of resistant mutants emerging depends on the total number of virus particles and on their replication rate. Chronic infections with rapid turnover, eg HIV, HCV and HBV are ideally suited to the development of resistance. Reduced immune function increases the viral load and replication rate, also increasing the risk of resistance.
b) Viral ‘fitness’ Viruses are exquisitely adapted to their hosts. Drug-selected mutants may initially have reduced fitness but, as with bacteria (see Section 13.2) there are now many examples of ‘compensatory’ mutations that allow these resistant mutants to regain their fitness.
c) Drug potency If a drug completely stops viral replication, resistance should not appear. In contrast, a drug with minimal potency will not exert sufficient selective pressure to generate resistance. The ideal circumstances in which resistance will occur arise where potent antiviral agents are used suboptimally, eg as monotherapy or dual therapy for HIV, or where there is poor drug compliance.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/432/2007/00000133/00000011/00000226 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/432/2007/00000133/00000011/00000226)
A total of 52 patients with advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer were included. S-1 was given orally twice daily for 21 days and CDDP 30 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8, followed by a 2-week period of no treatment.

Tumor responses among patients included 18 PR, 12 SD, and 16 PD (n = 46). The overall response rate was 36.4% (18/46). The response rate of the patients with prior chemotherapy was 22.2% (4/18) and 50.0% (12/24) among the patients who had no prior therapy. The median survival periods were 555 days and the median progression free survival periods were 183 days, respectively. S-1 in combination with CDDP shows promising activity with acceptable toxicities against colorectal cancer.

A combination of S-1 and CDDP could be a standard therapy for treating colorectal carcinoma.
Now we all know that you evolutionists have no mathematical or empirical examples that would show how a reptile would grow feathers and wings but you do have plenty of speculations. So you evolutionists work hard this weekend and come up with some new speculations of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. And I’ll be back next week to post more real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution, much to slow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically or empirically possible.

[Olowkow]

For all of us who are not experts, this podcast is really an interesting and understandable explanation of evolution, and how GW is driving it.

http://www.dnafiles.org/podcast/2007-12-12/heat-is-on

Sorry I had the wrong podcast last time I posted it.

[joobz]

It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this. While you evolutionists partake in your silly speculation fest, I will continue to post real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And of course, it works the way Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection works. What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. So here are some more of the evolutionist’s favorite reading.What's dumbest is that you are angry with your own theory. It isn't my speculations, it is your own theory of multiple constant selection pressures which help prove evolution is possible and real. unless of course, you can prove that nature is an unchanging constant environment. I'll wait for your proof of that. Remember, you'll have to wish away the weather. You should probably start praying for that.

In the mean time, why are you so afraid to answer Kotatsu's question? your avoidance to answer this rather simple question makes you appear as a weak willed charlatan. I mean, you are a doctor. You've proven this through your claims. However, you seem afraid to answer such a simple question. Why would this be the case. What are you so fearful of? Does the truth scare you?

[Kotatsu]

It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this.

You yourself is also a serious contender for that title, Kleinman. And perpetuating your misunderstanding of what I say doesn't exactly get you further away from the prize...

[Kotatsu]

In the mean time, why are you so afraid to answer Kotatsu's question? your avoidance to answer this rather simple question makes you appear as a weak willed charlatan. I mean, you are a doctor. You've proven this through your claims. However, you seem afraid to answer such a simple question. Why would this be the case. What are you so fearful of? Does the truth scare you?

Sorry, I've been so busy in the other thread that I have more or less entirely forgotten about what this thread is about. Which question are you referring to? The one about nested hierarchies?

[joobz]

Sorry, I've been so busy in the other thread that I have more or less entirely forgotten about what this thread is about. Which question are you referring to? The one about nested hierarchies?
Opps, Sorry about that. I meant Mr. Scott's question.
Kleinman seems completely unable/unwilling to answer it.

[Belz...]

You don’t have to be like them, we can help you.[/SIZE]

You mean, how the Christians used to "help" those not of their faith ?

Lots of dead people, that way, you know ? Oh, that's right. It's evolutionarism that's the religion of mass murderers. Sure.

It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings

Which is indeed dumb, because it would be Lamarckism. You DO understand the difference, right ?

or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this.

Do you deny that different weathers have different survival requirements ?

I will continue to post real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

Yes, please. Seeing you shooting yourself in the foot is always amusing.

And while you're at it, why don't you adress these points:

You still haven't understood that when you kill off an entire population, that population ceases to evolve ?

I'm still waiting for the scientific community to confirm your findings, Kleinman. Why not contact them and present them your conclusions ?

Just for laughs, Kleinman. What did I say "beggaminases" means ?

Mainly by altering their scales into feathers. This has been shown to you to be quite feasible.

With an added point: You keep saying that evolutionarism is "survival of the fittest". Is there any other basic point of evolutionary theory which you don't understand ?

[Nogbad]

Now we all know that you evolutionists have no mathematical or empirical examples that would show how a reptile would grow feathers and wings but you do have plenty of speculations. So you evolutionists work hard this weekend and come up with some new speculations of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. And I’ll be back next week to post more real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution, much to slow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically or empirically possible.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Having had a quick squint through this thread the most notable thing appears to be this mantra. This has been empirically proved how exactly?

A mathematical model is not empirical evidence - the fossil records are empirical evidence. One false assumption in a mathematical model and the result becomes questionable.

[kjkent1]

Opps, Sorry about that. I meant Mr. Scott's question.
Kleinman seems completely unable/unwilling to answer it.kleiman cannot answer a question that would cause him to expressly admit, in public, prescribing for patients in a manner inconsistent with the standard of care due from a medical professional to his/her patients.

Moreover, were kleinman to actually prescribe multiple antibiotic regimes as a routine, the patients' health care providers would refuse to fill the patient prescriptions; the patients would get angry and complain to the authorities; and then kleinman would be in the soupl

[Shalamar]

I figured it out. From reading all of his posts, Klienman doesn't understand evolution at all. So he's making up things that sound good to him, so he can 'disprove' it, even though he's not doing anything of the sort.

His interesting comment about:

Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this.

is blatantly false. He seems to believe it though. Apparently, he thinks that the Theory of Evolution is Pokemon! Creatures suddenly and spontaneously mutate and evolve according to the ToE! And sine thats not what he sees, it MUST be false!

At least, I hope its just a misunderstanding about the ToE. Personally, I think his personal faith is threatened by science, and so, he must destroy all science.

I still want his apology for his stupid stupid stupid holiday comments.

And I want to see that math of his.

[Belz...]

It's rare that people actually understand evolution and DON'T agree with it, Shalamar.

[kleinman]

We are getting ready to enter a new year. Any of you evolutionists figure out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process yet? Or are you still stuck in your irrational and illogical speculations? So let’s see what your weird and irrational speculations and extrapolations are this week.
It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this. While you evolutionists partake in your silly speculation fest, I will continue to post real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And of course, it works the way Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection works. What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. So here are some more of the evolutionist’s favorite reading.What's dumbest is that you are angry with your own theory. It isn't my speculations, it is your own theory of multiple constant selection pressures which help prove evolution is possible and real. unless of course, you can prove that nature is an unchanging constant environment. I'll wait for your proof of that. Remember, you'll have to wish away the weather. You should probably start praying for that.
Joobz, the only thing that I am angry about is your irrational and illogical speculations which obscure how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Your bizarre speculations with no mathematical or empirical basis contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization phenomenon. It is this type of irrational speculation which evolutionists want to teach to naïve children. Other than that, I find your irrational speculations humorous.
It’s difficult to determine which is dumber, Kotatsu’s bizarre speculation that a predator chasing a reptile into a tree would make it grow feathers and wings or your ridiculous speculation that weather would do this.You yourself is also a serious contender for that title, Kleinman. And perpetuating your misunderstanding of what I say doesn't exactly get you further away from the prize...
Well then Kotatsu, now that we know that you are a paid and active speculationist at the University of Gotnomath, Department of Systematics, Biodiversity and Amathematics, you are free to describe to us how a reptile transforms into a bird because a predator chases it into a tree. Does anyone at the University of Gotnomath understand the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process?
Sorry, I've been so busy in the other thread that I have more or less entirely forgotten about what this thread is about. Which question are you referring to? The one about nested hierarchies?Opps, Sorry about that. I meant Mr. Scott's question. Kleinman seems completely unable/unwilling to answer it.
Did Mr Scott have a question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? What I recall is that Mr Scott’s atheist parents lied to him and it seems to have affected his ability to discuss how mutation and selection works.
Now we all know that you evolutionists have no mathematical or empirical examples that would show how a reptile would grow feathers and wings but you do have plenty of speculations. So you evolutionists work hard this weekend and come up with some new speculations of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. And I’ll be back next week to post more real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution, much to slow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically or empirically possible.Having had a quick squint through this thread the most notable thing appears to be this mantra. This has been empirically proved how exactly?

A mathematical model is not empirical evidence - the fossil records are empirical evidence. One false assumption in a mathematical model and the result becomes questionable.
Nogbad, a mathematical model which describes the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution, is not the empirical evidence; it is the hundreds of citations posted of measurable and repeatable examples of mutation which demonstrates what the mathematical model shows, that is the empirical evidence. Now you can save your fossil Rorschach tests for another thread. We are discussing the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which substantiates this mathematics. By the way, I happen to like my mantra, it has mathematical and empirical evidence to support it.
I figured it out. From reading all of his posts, Klienman doesn't understand evolution at all. So he's making up things that sound good to him, so he can 'disprove' it, even though he's not doing anything of the sort.
Shalamar, I understand you are a layman so I’ll try to put this discussion in lay terms so that you can understand it.

Mutation and selection is a sorting process. In this case, it is the sorting of beneficial and detrimental mutations based on selection conditions that determine the ability of a population to reproduce. If a particular mutation is beneficial, it would enhance the ability of that member of the population to reproduce, on the other hand, if the mutation is detrimental, the member of the population with that mutation would be less likely to reproduce. There are many variables that affect this process such as mutation rate, population size, genome size, selection conditions and so on.

You have on several occasions asked me to post my mathematics. What you don’t understand is that Dr Schneider at the National Cancer Institute developed the mathematics and computer simulation to model this process. There are no simple algebraic equations to describe this process. There are too many variables that interact in complex ways to describe with simple algebraic equations. Asking for the equations which are used to describe mutation and selection is like asking for the equations used to describe the weather. This is why I posted Dr Schneider’s computer model. This is what is required to describe the functional relationship of the variables in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that this process is dominated by the number of selection condition imposed on the population. The more complex the selection conditions the much more difficult it is for a population to sort beneficial and detrimental mutations. Consider this simple example. Sort the telephone book, but instead of sorting only by last name/first name, sort also by address and phone number simultaneously, then additionally, start changing individual characters randomly. This is a much more difficult and slower sorting process than simply sorting by last name/first name.

It is this mathematical finding that Dr Schneider’s computer simulation shows which is demonstrated over and over again in real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection. Dr Schneider’s mathematics is completely in sync with what happens in reality. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mutation and selection simply does not work the way evolutionists allege.

Here are some more examples of how mutation and selection actually works.
http://www.pharmiweb.com/pressreleases/pressrel.asp?ROW_ID=2293 (http://www.pharmiweb.com/pressreleases/pressrel.asp?ROW_ID=2293)
Antiviral sales are driven by the antiretroviral drugs which target the treatment of HIV and generated US$8.5 billion in sales in 2006. These drugs are used in a plethora of combinations including reverse transcriptase inhibitors and fusion inhibitors. While several of these leading brands face generic competition by 2012, there are a number of second and third generation products as well as new drugs classes (integrase inhibitors, attachment and entry inhibitors) which are expected to be launched and will fuel future sales. This is a market dominated by GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences.
And
The second largest segment of the antiviral market is derived from the treatment of hepatitis B/C which reported sales of around US$3.81 billion in 2006, generated from combination therapies, pegylated interferon and ribavarin for the treatment of HCV. Roche has gained market share following the launch of Pegasys, which it has bundled with its own ribavarin (Copegsys), while Schering-Plough markets its PEG Intron with its own ribavarin.
http://www.hopkinskimmelcancercenter.org/kpr/attachments/Viral_Oncology_Program.pdf (http://www.hopkinskimmelcancercenter.org/kpr/attachments/Viral_Oncology_Program.pdf)
To demonstrate their theory that IRF-5 is a key ingredient in the dual-drug therapy, the scientists tested various combinations of the drugs in colon cancer cell lines, with or without IRF-5. Irinotecan alone causes 65 percent cell death in lines with IRF-5 proteins present. Knock out IRF-5 proteins and cell deaths drop to 37 percent.
When the investigators combined irinotecan and interferon, more than 80 percent of colon cancer cells with IRF-5 proteins died. Only 28 percent of cells died in those lines with IRF-5 proteins knocked out.

“Not only does the combination of these drugs involve fewer gene activations, it may allow use of smaller amounts of both drugs and limit side effects,” says Barnes. She also believes that cancer cells may find it more difficult to build resistance to two different drugs, a common problem when using single agents.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=malaria.chapter.2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=malaria.chapter.2011)
Because it is difficult to control antimalarial drug resistance once it has emerged, there is a need for strategies that prevent the rare event of initial emergence. Combinations of drugs which have different molecular targets delay the emergence of resistance. However, malaria control programs may be reluctant to adopt this strategy because until resistance emerges, there is no evident benefit to the more expensive combination treatment.
These are more examples which show empirically what Dr Schneider’s computer simulation of mutation and selection shows mathematically. What the mathematics and empirical evidence shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically illogical and irrational.

[joobz]

Joobz, the only thing that I am angry about is your irrational and illogical speculations which obscure how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Your bizarre speculations with no mathematical or empirical basis contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization phenomenon. It is this type of irrational speculation which evolutionists want to teach to naïve children. Other than that, I find your irrational speculations humorous.

It's not my math, Kleinman. It is simply your theory based upon the mathematical model presented in a peer reviewed journal by Dr. Schneider. I think you have clearly outlined the important points of multiple selection pressures. You've help make it very clear that a variable environment, where pressures do not remain constant in magnitude and number, help to accelerate the evolutionary process.

Since we all see that nature is a variable environment, we know that evolution is both quite possible and quite real. I'll continue to present real examples of weather until you are willing to accept the reality with which you are faced. the only sad part is that your devotion to an error makes you blind to the truth.

Here's another example of weather for our new years eve

[Shalamar]

Klienman, you are posting evidence on mutation, and selection in a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

You claim to have the math. Please, SHOW US THE MATH. I wish to see the equations.

[joobz]

Did Mr Scott have a question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? What I recall is that Mr Scott’s atheist parents lied to him and it seems to have affected his ability to discuss how mutation and selection works.
Oh no. He had a question that you had promised to answer, but are now too afraid to respond to.

Answer what you promised to answer:

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?
I really don't know why you are so afraid to answer this question. You seem to believe very strongly that evolution is dangerous to patient care.

Your bizarre speculations with no mathematical or empirical basis contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization phenomenon.

Did Mr Scott have a question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? What I recall is that Mr Scott’s atheist parents lied to him and it seems to have affected his ability to discuss how mutation and selection works.
As a Doctor, you are in a perfect position to improve healthcare based upon your theories. To avoid doing so would be unethical.

I mean, what exact AMA approved medical strategy that is based upon evolutionary theory(and by extension genetic theory) do you not perform or subscribe to because of it being wrong?

[kleinman]

Klienman, you are posting evidence on mutation, and selection in a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

You claim to have the math. Please, SHOW US THE MATH. I wish to see the equations.
Shalamar, the idea that evolution might somehow occur in an “UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT” demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of science. If evolutionists could demonstrate in a controlled environment that multiple simultaneous selection pressures somehow accelerates evolution, they would but every controlled experiment known shows that increasing the number of selection pressures slows the ability of the population to adapt to these selection pressures by mutation and selection. That is the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists refuse or are unable to comprehend.

Now I posted Dr Schneider’s computer model which precisely lists the equations he used to model the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and I was cited for violating rule 6. If you want to see the mathematics, refer to that link. If you want to read some of Dr Schneider’s writings on this topic, refer to these links.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794)
This link is Dr Schneider’s publication on ev.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
This link gives you access to Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s online version of ev and many links to background information on the development of ev.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html (http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html)
This link gives access to numerous discussion about the validity of ev and Dr Schneider’s responses to these criticisms.

Shalamar, read and study these links and you will learn some of the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Once you understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, you will understand why the theory of evolution is irrational and illogical.
Did Mr Scott have a question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? What I recall is that Mr Scott’s atheist parents lied to him and it seems to have affected his ability to discuss how mutation and selection works.Oh no. He had a question that you had promised to answer, but are now too afraid to respond to.
Really, I promised to answer this question, why don’t you post the quote where I made this promise?

Now joobz, why don’t you tell us how the weather accelerates evolution? The only thing you have shown is a fogbank, hazy and cloudy thinking. Of course, what can you expect from an alchemical engineer who doesn’t know anything about evolution?

[Shalamar]

No, Klienman. YOU claim to have the rpoof of the Math. You fail, repeatedly to show it.

You creationists refuse, or are unable to comprehend science. Or math, for that matter.

[Nogbad]

This Tom Schneider?

I confess to some confusion

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html

[kleinman]

No, Klienman. YOU claim to have the rpoof of the Math. You fail, repeatedly to show it.

You creationists refuse, or are unable to comprehend science. Or math, for that matter.
Shalamar, I can only point the way for you to learn how mutation and selection works, you have to walk the path. Here, let me show you how mutation and selection works in the “CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT”.
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/117/2/530.pdf?ck=nck (http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/117/2/530.pdf?ck=nck)
Despite the promise of the quinolones, resistance to them has been shown to develop relatively easily among some Gram-positive organisms. The streptogramin
class has shown excellent activity against a wide range of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive organisms. The agent that has progressed the farthest in clinical trials is the combination quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid; Rhoˆne Poulenc Rorer, Inc;
Collegeville, PA). This parenteral combination produces a synergistic interruption of protein synthesis. 79 Dalfopristin binds to the peptidyltransferase site of the 50S ribosomal subunit, producing a conformational change that increases the binding affinity for quinupristin at a neighboring site. Each individual component is bacteriostatic, but the combination is bacteriocidal. Because dalfopristin utilizes the erythromycin attachment site, there is some concern that synergy is lost for erythromycin-resistant strains. This appears to be true for Enterococcus faecium but not for the pneumococcus. Oral streptogramins that have excellent activity against resistant pneumococci are also in development.
Shalamar, learn how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works and these empirical examples will make sense to you.
This Tom Schneider?

I confess to some confusion

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html (http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html)

Yes indeed, it’s good to see that Dr Schneider is using his noodle and is demonstrating a saucy sense of humor. Do you wonder if this big cheese of evolutionism will acknowledge what his computer model shows or do you think I will grate on him too much?

[Nogbad]

This is a long thread and I haven't time to read it all but am I right in thinking that the Dr Schneider has produced a mathematical model showing how mutation might progress and your good self or some other innovative person has plugged alternative parameters to make it more "real" and thereby show that evolution can't possibly work?

Well bugger me backwards! :eek:

One can do this with any model though and the argument then becomes not whether the model is good (although it may or may not be) but what constitutes workable "real life" parameters. As the planet has had a great variety of those over the last 4.5 billion years I would have thought that a rather difficult and thankless task to incorporate in any one model.

[kleinman]

This is a long thread and I haven't time to read it all but am I right in thinking that the Dr Schneider has produced a mathematical model showing how mutation might progress and your good self or some other innovative person has plugged alternative parameters to make it more "real" and thereby show that evolution can't possibly work?
The Dr Schneider produce a peer reviewed and published mathematical model showing how mutation and selection does progress. And the Dr Schneider is head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute.

I don’t know how innovative I am. I simply did what Dr Schneider suggested to me, which was to study his model. (He also suggested this in his publication on his model.) When it became clear is that when you try to put realistic genome lengths in his model, it took huge numbers of generations to evolve all three selection conditions simultaneously. If you set two of the three selection conditions to zero, the remaining selection condition evolves in trivially small number of generations. It is clear that the number of selection conditions dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Well bugger me backwards!
No thank you.
One can do this with any model though and the argument then becomes not whether the model is good (although it may or may not be) but what constitutes workable "real life" parameters. As the planet has had a great variety of those over the last 4.5 billion years I would have thought that a rather difficult and thankless task to incorporate in any one model.
Well then, why don’t you give us a real example of combination selection pressures evolving rapidly? I’ve already presented hundreds of precisely measured and repeatable empirical examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates what Dr Schneider’s mathematical model shows. Your evolutionist mantra of 4.5 billion years doesn’t cut it here. You may be able to get away with that on the SciFi channel but not here without empirical or mathematical evidence. There is no such thing as cooperative selection pressures in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. That is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical.

By the way, Dr Schneider has argued for years that his model is realistic and has properly captured the essentials of the mathematics of the mutation and selection process and I agree with him on this point.

[Nogbad]

Actually the point I was making was that the planet has been subject to a number of very different conditions and pressures, some short lived some lasting a great length of time. I am unclear as to what the emboldening of the 4.5 billion years means. Presumably you are not suggesting some sort "everything happened last week age for the planet" so billions of years do have a bearing on the evolutionary process.

My apologies if you are a young earth creationist btw as I do not hold to such a view and obviously we would be unlikely to agree on much with so literal a gulf between us.

[kleinman]

Actually the point I was making was that the planet has been subject to a number of very different conditions and pressures, some short lived some lasting a great length of time. I am unclear as to what the emboldening of the 4.5 billion years means. Presumably you are not suggesting some sort "everything happened last week age for the planet" so billions of years do have a bearing on the evolutionary process.
It doesn’t matter if you claim the earth is 4.5 trillion years old. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can not sort mutations for dozens of selection conditions simultaneously let alone for the thousands of genes that would have to be transformed in order to change a reptile population into a bird populations. And that is assuming that you have such selection conditions which accomplish such a metamorphosis which you don’t.
My apologies if you are a young earth creationist btw as I do not hold to such a view and obviously we would be unlikely to agree on much with so literal a gulf between us.
I have not done any studies on the age of the earth but I have heard arguments which would call into question evolutionists’ claims. But this issue does not matter when discussing how mutation and selection works both mathematically and empirically. The mathematical and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection actually works completely contradicts the evolutionist hypothesis. Common descent can not happen by this process.

[cyborg]

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can not sort mutations for dozens of selection conditions simultaneously

Yet it does.

What now for the children!!?!?!

[kleinman]

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can not sort mutations for dozens of selection conditions simultaneouslyYet it does.

What now for the children!!?!?!
Is this your cruft theory of evolution again? If you have examples of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process sorting for dozens of selection conditions simultaneously post your examples, otherwise you are once again revealing the basic principles of the theory of evolution, which is speculation, baseless extrapolation and mathematical deficiency of your theory. It is remarkable how irrational and illogical your theory is. Sociologists will be studying this theory for years trying to figure out how such an irrational and illogical theory could grip the field of biology.

[cyborg]

When all the bacteria adapt to all the antibiotics what will you do then?

[Nogbad]

I have not done any studies on the age of the earth but I have heard arguments which would call into question evolutionists’ claims. But this issue does not matter when discussing how mutation and selection works both mathematically and empirically. The mathematical and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection actually works completely contradicts the evolutionist hypothesis. Common descent can not happen by this process.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Delicately put :)

Surely though, if you believe no time length and no variation in conditions and pressures would make any difference what you are in fact saying is that no mutation worth mentioning takes place at all (to hang with the slowing down thing). In fact put bluntly your position is simply evolution doesn't happen. The chap who wrote the model begs to differ and so, I would suspect, do others in this field.

[joobz]

Really, I promised to answer this question, why don’t you post the quote where I made this promise?
It seems Mr. Scott believes you have.

However, you implicitly promised to answer my question if I answered yours, so I'll play to see if you have even a microscopic particle of integrity.



Is that why you are afraid to answer the question? Because the promise was assumed and not explicit? Is this why you don't actually practice what you preach? Remember, you are the one claiming evolution is immoral because of the methods that the AMA uses based upon it kills millions of children. Are you claiming that you are part of that mass murder?


Now joobz, why don’t you tell us how the weather accelerates evolution? The only thing you have shown is a fogbank, hazy and cloudy thinking. Of course, what can you expect from an alchemical engineer who doesn’t know anything about evolution?Every example of multiple selection pressures which slow evolution have been constant strong pressures. Your own theory requires these constant pressures.

As such, nature must be a constant system for evolution to not occur. Now all that is left for you to prove that evolution is impossible is prove that weather doesn't occur.

Do deny the existence of rain to support your faith?

[kleinman]

When all the bacteria adapt to all the antibiotics what will you do then?
Cyborg, that’s the point, bacteria will adapt to all the antibiotics by sequential use of these selection pressures as monotherapy. That is what the mathematical and empirical evidence shows. It is much, much more difficult for microbes to evolve to combination selection pressures simultaneously. Evolutionists have done such a lousy job elucidating how mutation and selection works, we already have MRSA, multidrug resistant TB, multidrug resistant gonorrhea…
I have not done any studies on the age of the earth but I have heard arguments which would call into question evolutionists’ claims. But this issue does not matter when discussing how mutation and selection works both mathematically and empirically. The mathematical and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection actually works completely contradicts the evolutionist hypothesis. Common descent can not happen by this process.Delicately put

Surely though, if you believe no time length and no variation in conditions and pressures would make any difference what you are in fact saying is that no mutation worth mentioning takes place at all (to hang with the slowing down thing). In fact put bluntly your position is simply evolution doesn't happen. The chap who wrote the model begs to differ and so, I would suspect, do others in this field.
Not at all, evolution (adaptation) occurs but it is a far more limited process than evolutionist allege.

I have had extensive discussions with Dr Schneider privately but he will not discuss the model publicly anymore. If his interpretation of his model differs from my interpretation, he is not willing to discuss this openly. Lots of evolutionists differ with my interpretation of Dr Schneider’s model. The difference is that I have posted hundreds of citations which demonstrates real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates my interpretation of Dr Schneider’s model. Evolutionists have been unable to produce a single measurable and repeatable example which shows that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution by mutation and selection. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting process governed by the selection conditions. It is a profoundly slow process if more than a single selection condition is targeting a single gene at a time.

Now if you want rapid adaptation, recombination is the mechanism to use. Consider how many varied breeds of dogs have been achieved in only a few thousand years, but they are all still dogs.

[kjkent1]

Now if you want rapid adaptation, recombination is the mechanism to use. Consider how many varied breeds of dogs have been achieved in only a few thousand years, but they are all still dogs.Are they all still dogs?

Kindly explain to everyone precisely how a dog would have to change before you would conclude that it was no longer a dog.

[kleinman]

Now if you want rapid adaptation, recombination is the mechanism to use. Consider how many varied breeds of dogs have been achieved in only a few thousand years, but they are all still dogs.Are they all still dogs?

Kindly explain to everyone precisely how a dog would have to change before you would conclude that it was no longer a dog.
Despite the striking difference in appearance of a Chihuahua and Great Dane, they still have homologous genomes. Now perhaps a legal beagle might try to sniff out a legal loophole but he would be barking up the wrong tree.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This Tom Schneider?

I confess to some confusion

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
Yes, that Tom Schneider. Unless someone is pretending to be him.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

Despite the striking difference in appearance of a Chihuahua and Great Dane, they still have homologous genomes. Now perhaps a legal beagle might try to sniff out a legal loophole but he would be barking up the wrong tree.Hundreds of posts -- so much wasted time avoiding direct questions.

Your New Year's resolution should be to work on your reading comprehension. Let's try again, shall we:

Kindly explain to everyone precisely how a dog would have to change before you would conclude that it was no longer a dog.

[Nogbad]

Hundreds of posts -- so much wasted time avoiding direct questions.

Your New Year's resolution should be to work on your reading comprehension. Let's try again, shall we:

Kindly explain to everyone precisely how a dog would have to change before you would conclude that it was no longer a dog.

Presumably when they can no longer interbreed naturally.

It would seem the argument is that adapting to change can work surprisingly quickly within groups but cannot occur to the extent that one creature changes sufficiently to branch off. I don't find that desperately convincing nor do I understand why it would be an issue if were to occur. I will nevertheless keep a weather eye out for Kleinman's hypothesis. If it is simply a question of the maths then it will no doubt be tested.

[Belz...]

you are free to describe to us how a reptile transforms into a bird because a predator chases it into a tree.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, shows why someone who has no grasp of even the most fundamental aspect of evolution shouldn't try to educate anyone else about it.

[Belz...]

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can not sort mutations for dozens of selection conditions simultaneously let alone for the thousands of genes that would have to be transformed

Are you still assuming that evolution has a goal ? Lamarckism is dead, Klein.

Despite the striking difference in appearance of a Chihuahua and Great Dane, they still have homologous genomes.

You mean, just like Chimps and humans, right ? After all, they look like one another just as much as those two dog breeds you mentioned.

[kleinman]

Despite the striking difference in appearance of a Chihuahua and Great Dane, they still have homologous genomes. Now perhaps a legal beagle might try to sniff out a legal loophole but he would be barking up the wrong tree.Hundreds of posts -- so much wasted time avoiding direct questions.

Your New Year's resolution should be to work on your reading comprehension. Let's try again, shall we:

Kindly explain to everyone precisely how a dog would have to change before you would conclude that it was no longer a dog.
Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds. Perhaps you think that cats and dogs will evolve into dats and cogs, but it won’t happen by mutation and selection. I’ll leave the bizarre speculation to you evolutionists. As it stands right now, you evolutionists don’t have the foggiest idea how mutation and selection works but you try to use it as the corner stone for your irrational and illogical theory. We have shattered that stone to powder and all you can do is play in the dust. Prepare yourselves for another year of citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You all have a Happy New Year and delphi, get yourself a designated driver.

[Nogbad]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, shows why someone who has no grasp of even the most fundamental aspect of evolution shouldn't try to educate anyone else about it.

I am forming the view that there is no desire to understand evolution but rather a desire to disprove it.

This is not a bad thing as that which does not kill a theory only makes it stronger. If Kleinman's maths are correct then he will get a feather in his cap (or place of his preference) if it does not evolution will only be the more robust.

Evolution is a mechanism which I think best explains the origins of species but if a better one comes along I will listen. I just haven't heard a better one yet.

[joobz]

This is not a bad thing as that which does not kill a theory only makes it stronger. If Kleinman's maths are correct then he will get a feather in his cap (or place of his preference) if it does not evolution will only be the more robust.
That's the funny part. His interpretation is correct. Multiple strong pressures do slow the rate of emergence of a adaptive trait. Yet, the pressures must remain constant and continuous for this to be meaningful. The moment a pressure relents, and a population number can increase, the next time the pressure hits, there are more individuals who are moderately resistent against that pressure. Keep repeating this process and you'll greatly speed up the rate of emergence. (what he really means when he says rate of evolution). This is partly the concept of directed enzyme evolution that's used in labs today.

What this means is that if you have a variable environment, his "Evolution is impossible" argument is invalid. So, in order for him to prove evolution is impossible, he has to prove to everyone that weather doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, I've presented numerous examples of weather and he has yet to produce any evidence that weather doesn't exist.:)

[Nogbad]

That's the funny part. His interpretation is correct. Multiple strong pressures do slow the rate of emergence of a adaptive trait. Yet, the pressures must remain constant and continuous for this to be meaningful. The moment a pressure relents, and a population number can increase, the next time the pressure hits, there are more individuals who are moderately resistent against that pressure. Keep repeating this process and you'll greatly speed up the rate of emergence. (what he really means when he says rate of evolution). This is partly the concept of directed enzyme evolution that's used in labs today.

What this means is that if you have a variable environment, his "Evolution is impossible" argument is invalid. So, in order for him to prove evolution is impossible, he has to prove to everyone that weather doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, I've presented numerous examples of weather and he has yet to produce any evidence that weather doesn't exist.:)

Yes, I can see that multiple pressures would be deterrent to change. The point you make and the point I vainly tried to make above is that pressure is variable. There have been periods when life has struggled to survive and there have been periods when life has blossomed. Rather than a constant rate of change or mutation there have hiccups and opportunities. Any model would have to allow for periods where all signals are at green as well as periods when they are all at red and that on the planet as a whole many different scenarios are played out at any one time.

However, this is page one hundred and something so I can't see positions changing on either side.

[joobz]

Yes, I can see that multiple pressures would be deterrent to change. The point you make and the point I vainly tried to make above is that pressure is variable. There have been periods when life has struggled to survive and there have been periods when life has blossomed. Rather than a constant rate of change or mutation there have hiccups and opportunities. Any model would have to allow for periods where all signals are at green as well as periods when they are all at red and that on the planet as a whole many different scenarios are played out at any one time.

However, this is page one hundred and something so I can't see positions changing on either side.
the funny part is that this model based off of varying environments has already been presented
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711


Kleinman continues to ignore this fact by pretending that variability doesn't matter, but then that contradicts his entire claim. So he's simply left with proving that weather isn't real.

[Shalamar]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds.

No. Its YOUR bizzare idea that scientists say that reptiles turn into birds.
Evolution is not Pokemon. But, you can do right ahead in believing that, if it makes you happy.

You'd still be dead wrong, however. When you can actually articulate the ToE, then we can discuss your failings.

Please do not alter other poster's quotes.

Hey.. In the new year, maybe you can resolve to actually, I dunno.. PROVIDE THAT MATH you claim to have, but fail to show?

[Shalamar]

the funny part is that this model based off of varying environments has already been presented
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711


Kleinman continues to ignore this fact by pretending that variability doesn't matter, but then that contradicts his entire claim. So he's simply left with proving that weather isn't real.

Interesting link. Klienman.. your take on that article?

[kjkent1]

Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds. Perhaps you think that cats and dogs will evolve into dats and cogs, but it won’t happen by mutation and selection. I’ll leave the bizarre speculation to you evolutionists. As it stands right now, you evolutionists don’t have the foggiest idea how mutation and selection works but you try to use it as the corner stone for your irrational and illogical theory. We have shattered that stone to powder and all you can do is play in the dust. Prepare yourselves for another year of citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You all have a Happy New Year and delphi, get yourself a designated driver.I merely asked you to tell us precisely how a dog would have to change before you would no longer conclude it to be a dog. I asked you twice, and twice you avoided answering the question.

This suggests to me that you cannot answer the question.

Which is a pretty good demonstration that you're either an intellectual coward or pretty ignorant of the subject of which you purport to be such an expert: evolutionary theory.

PS. Happy New Year.

[kleinman]

Are you evolutionist ready to sober up and learn how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works? Let see what the New Year will bring.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, shows why someone who has no grasp of even the most fundamental aspect of evolution shouldn't try to educate anyone else about it.I am forming the view that there is no desire to understand evolution but rather a desire to disprove it.
Oh really, I’m using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection in order to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. What that model shows is that the number of selection conditions dominates the behavior of the model and this finding is reflected in hundreds or real, measurable examples of mutation and selection. So Nogbad, give us your wisdom on how the mutation and selection process works so we can form a view of how you come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is a valid theory.
This is not a bad thing as that which does not kill a theory only makes it stronger. If Kleinman's maths are correct then he will get a feather in his cap (or place of his preference) if it does not evolution will only be the more robust.
This isn’t my mathematical model, it is Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model. What Dr Schneider’s model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by random point mutation and natural selection. This is what reality shows as well. The irrational and illogical theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.
Evolution is a mechanism which I think best explains the origins of species but if a better one comes along I will listen. I just haven't heard a better one yet.
Origins of species by evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. You have no way to get spontaneous occurrence of life, you have no way to evolve genes de novo and the mutation and selection process is so profoundly slow for more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene that you have put your money on a dead horse. The only place for the concept of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is on the SciFi channel.
This is not a bad thing as that which does not kill a theory only makes it stronger. If Kleinman's maths are correct then he will get a feather in his cap (or place of his preference) if it does not evolution will only be the more robust.That's the funny part. His interpretation is correct. Multiple strong pressures do slow the rate of emergence of a adaptive trait. Yet, the pressures must remain constant and continuous for this to be meaningful. The moment a pressure relents, and a population number can increase, the next time the pressure hits, there are more individuals who are moderately resistent against that pressure. Keep repeating this process and you'll greatly speed up the rate of emergence. (what he really means when he says rate of evolution). This is partly the concept of directed enzyme evolution that's used in labs today.
Well, surprise, surprise, joobz finally understands a little about the mathematical and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection process. Now why don’t you tell us whether it is the fog, haze or cloudy thinking that transforms the thousands of genes necessary to metamorphose a reptile population to a bird population, one gene at a time because that is the mechanism that you have just described. Let’s see you take your gross speculation and extrapolation and give us a rational explanation of how you can transform a reptile population into a bird population or are we simply getting your cooperative chemistry speculation in a new form.
Yes, I can see that multiple pressures would be deterrent to change. The point you make and the point I vainly tried to make above is that pressure is variable. There have been periods when life has struggled to survive and there have been periods when life has blossomed. Rather than a constant rate of change or mutation there have hiccups and opportunities. Any model would have to allow for periods where all signals are at green as well as periods when they are all at red and that on the planet as a whole many different scenarios are played out at any one time.
This is the kind of mush you evolutionist try to claim is science. Dr Schneider has produced a mathematical model which properly captures the essentials of the mutation and selection process and its mathematical behavior properly models real examples of mutation and selection. If you think that variable pressures will accelerate evolution, produce the mathematical model and prove it. In fact, I’ll help you with the design of the model. First of all, start with a single selection condition targeting only a single gene. Initially set the intensity of that selection pressure to less than would cause extinction of the entire population. Once you have selected out the less fit members, slowly increase the intensity of the selection pressure so that the more fit members can find a trajectory on the fitness landscape to a new local optimum.

Then let’s see you speculators take this mutation and selection phenomenon and describe the thousands of selection pressures and target genes that would be required to transform a reptile population into a bird population, one gene at a time. We all can get a good laugh at what evolutionists like to claim is science.
However, this is page one hundred and something so I can't see positions changing on either side.
I don’t expect to change the minds of any evolutionist dogmatist but you don’t get a free pass on your silly evolutionist speculations and get to call it science. You evolutionists have your own irrational and illogical belief system and mathematical science shows this to be the case.
the funny part is that this model based off of varying environments has already been presented http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711)

Sure, we remember this citation, Varying environments can speed up evolution, this is the one where you thought these authors were talking about the weather. I like your citations joobz because they prove my point.

Let’s review what these authors said:
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue34/images/medium/zpq0310771490005.gif
Fig. 5. A schematic view of fitness landscapes and evolution under fixed goal and MVG. (a) A typical trajectory under fixed goal evolution. The population tends to spend long periods on local maxima or plateaus. (b) A typical trajectory under MVG. Dashed arrows represent goal switches. An effectively continuous positive gradient on the alternating fitness landscapes leads to an area where global maxima exist in close proximity for both goals.
The top image shows the trajectory that the population takes on the fitness landscape to get to the global optimum for goal 1. The second and third images show the trajectory the population takes when the goals are switched back and forth from goals 1 and 2. The bottom image shows the trajectory the population takes to achieve both goals sequentially. Now if goals 1 and 2 are applied simultaneously, you have two different selection conditions pushing the population on two different trajectories. Selection condition 1 is trying to push the population to the global optimum 1 and selection condition 2 is trying to push the population to global optimum 2. A step that would be advantageous for one condition is disadvantageous for the other condition which confounds both selection conditions in their search for their new optimums. This is why combined selection pressures confound the evolutionary process. This is the same reason ev becomes very slow converging for longer genomes.

Thank you for the citation joobz, it supports my argument.
Interesting link. Klienman.. your take on that article?
I have, again. Joobz foolishly thought this article had something to do with the weather when he first brought it up. If he had read more than the title he would have realized what these authors were talking about, that is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and that single selection pressures in sequence can accelerate the evolutionary process. See the discussion just above for a description of what these authors are talking about.

Now Shalamar, if you had read this thread, you would know that joobz is trying to rehash an old argument that has been discussed previously on several occasions. If you don’t do any reading on your own, expect it will take quite a while for your ignorance on the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to be corrected.
Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds. Perhaps you think that cats and dogs will evolve into dats and cogs, but it won’t happen by mutation and selection. I’ll leave the bizarre speculation to you evolutionists. As it stands right now, you evolutionists don’t have the foggiest idea how mutation and selection works but you try to use it as the corner stone for your irrational and illogical theory. We have shattered that stone to powder and all you can do is play in the dust. Prepare yourselves for another year of citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You all have a Happy New Year and delphi, get yourself a designated driver.I merely asked you to tell us precisely how a dog would have to change before you would no longer conclude it to be a dog. I asked you twice, and twice you avoided answering the question.
Why should I address your speculations? I am addressing the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. Perhaps you want me to discuss the life forms in your 10^500 alternative universes? If you think that dogs change into some other type of life form, present the evidence and describe how it occurred. You can engage in whatever fantasy trip you want but I will present the real mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

Since this discussion started on a mathematical basis, I think it worthwhile to start this New Year with a mathematical paper which discusses how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/q-bio/pdf/0511/0511039v2.pdf (http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/q-bio/pdf/0511/0511039v2.pdf)
The effectiveness of PI therapy is limited by the development of drug resistance. Rapid and highly error prone replication of a large virus population generates mutants that resist the selective pressure of drug therapy. PI resistance is caused by mutations in the protease gene that reduce the binding affinity of the drug to the enzyme. These mutations have been shown to accumulate in a stepwise manner [6]. For most PIs, no single mutation confers a significant level of resistance, but multiple mutations are required for escape from drug pressure. Quantitative predictions of the probability of successful PI treatment would
help in finding effective antiretroviral combination therapies. Selecting a drug combination amounts to controlling the viral fitness landscape.
and
Finally, the PIs form only one out of four distinct classes of antiretroviral drugs that are in current clinical use. The standard of care is combination therapy with at least three different drugs from two different drug classes. Modeling the fitness landscape of combination therapy in terms of viral drug resistance and drug exposure is even more challenging, but can eventually help in designing optimal antiretroviral therapies. Algebraic combinatorics offers tools for the mathematical analysis of these biomedical problems.
Thank you delphi for introducing into the discussion the concept of the fitness landscape. This author describes the modeling of the fitness landscape for HIV and note that fitness landscape for combination therapy is much more complex. The greater the number of selection pressures, the far more complex the fitness landscape. That’s how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works and that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact you evolutionists have it backwards, the greater the number of selection pressures, the much, much more slowly the evolutionary process proceeds.

[joobz]

Sure, we remember this citation, Varying environments can speed up evolution, this is the one where you thought these authors were talking about the weather. I like your citations joobz because they prove my point.
Yes it does. Constant strong multiple pressures results in very slow adaptation. Good thing nature isn't constant, eh?

Did you make a new year's resolution to stop weather?

[kleinman]

Sure, we remember this citation, Varying environments can speed up evolution, this is the one where you thought these authors were talking about the weather. I like your citations joobz because they prove my point.Yes it does. Constant strong multiple pressures results in very slow adaptation. Good thing nature isn't constant, eh?
So joobz, is it your foggy, hazy or cloudy thinking which accelerates evolution? Perhaps you want to make the claim, if there is enough free energy, anything can evolve?
Did you make a new year's resolution to stop weather?
Of course not silly speculator, however I do resolve to continue posting real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, something that you evolutionists are having a hard time understanding.

[joobz]

So joobz, is it your foggy, hazy or cloudy thinking which accelerates evolution? Perhaps you want to make the claim, if there is enough free energy, anything can evolve?
Now this is simply nonsense. I'm using your theory to prove evolution. Thank you for that.


Of course not silly speculator, however I do resolve to continue posting real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, something that you evolutionists are having a hard time understanding.
I see you are starting to see the truth. A non-constant environment can accellerate evolution, just like that reference said. As soon as you recognize that nature isn't constant, you'll see that your belief system is wrong.

That's ok. It may take you some time to get used to that idea, but we're here for you.

[kleinman]

So joobz, is it your foggy, hazy or cloudy thinking which accelerates evolution? Perhaps you want to make the claim, if there is enough free energy, anything can evolve?Now this is simply nonsense. I'm using your theory to prove evolution. Thank you for that.
Joobz, we know exactly how your irrational and illogical speculation works. Here’s how you claim abiogenesis works:
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.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?

Joobz, if the weather changes enough can you evolve a Wookie?
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

Joobz, we know exactly how your irrational and illogical speculation works. Here’s how you claim abiogenesis works:
[/color]I'm not shocked that you don't understand the chemistry I describe. You say silly things like

Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?
and then you say

Joobz, if the weather changes enough can you evolve a Wookie?
Do you have proof that changes in weather don't change the magnitude or number of selection pressures?


While you are trying to get that proof, perhaps you'd like to answer Mr. Scott's question...

Have you ever used a strategy of drug therapy on any of your patients that was based on your own view of adaptive resistance, instead of a more accepted strategy because you believed the more accepted strategy was based on Darwinian evolution or conflicted with creationist, religious, or biblical concepts?

[kleinman]

Joobz, we know exactly how your irrational and illogical speculation works. Here’s how you claim abiogenesis works:I'm not shocked that you don't understand the chemistry I describe.
I acknowledge this is complete speculation
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the weather changes enough can you evolve a Wookie?Do you have proof that changes in weather don't change the magnitude or number of selection pressures?
Here’s a Wookie who has evolved into star baseball pitcher. (Steroids as well as the weather have been proven to accelerate evolution to warp(ed mind) speed.)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:sdZNF9MpS81lJM:tweaker.tv/system/files?file=images/wookie.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[kjkent1]

Why should I address your speculations? I am addressing the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. Perhaps you want me to discuss the life forms in your 10^500 alternative universes? If you think that dogs change into some other type of life form, present the evidence and describe how it occurred. You can engage in whatever fantasy trip you want but I will present the real mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.I made no speculation, and you're an intellectual coward, in my opinion, for avoiding the question posed.

You have just proposed that Great Danes and Chihuahua's are both still dogs. Well, despite their homologous genomes, the practical ability of these two breeds to reproduce in nature is obvious: it is impossible. So, the breeds are reproductively isolated, which is the typical baseline requirement of speciation.

The breeds are also very different, morphologically.

And, so my question is entirely reasonable. What, in your opinion is precisely required for Great Danes and Chihuahuas to become distinct species?

Come on, kleinman, show us how smart you are and answer the question.

[kleinman]

Why should I address your speculations? I am addressing the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. Perhaps you want me to discuss the life forms in your 10^500 alternative universes? If you think that dogs change into some other type of life form, present the evidence and describe how it occurred. You can engage in whatever fantasy trip you want but I will present the real mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.I made no speculation, and you're an intellectual coward, in my opinion, for avoiding the question posed.
You evolutionist try to evolve speculation into fact. You will need to do that on your own. If you want to talk about the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and the evidence which substantiates this mathematics, fine. But if you want to enter the fantasy world of evolutionism, make that trip on your own. You are a skilled speculator, you think there are 10^500 alternative universes. Speculate what you want about how a dog can evolve into a cat, squirrel or wookie.
You have just proposed that Great Danes and Chihuahua's are both still dogs. Well, despite their homologous genomes, the practical ability of these two breeds to reproduce in nature is obvious: it is impossible. So, the breeds are reproductively isolated, which is the typical baseline requirement of speciation.
See legal beagle, you do know how to speculate. What happens when a small Great Dane and a large Chihuahua meet and love rings true?
The breeds are also very different, morphologically.
Amazing what recombination can do. It confused Darwin and Gould and continues to confuse evolutionists to this day. They didn’t realize how quickly this process can transform a population. Recombination and selection is what gave the great variability in finch beaks that Darwin noted. In fact, this is what Gould confused when he proposed punctuated equilibrium. Recombination and selection fits Gould’s proposal but not mutation and selection. Recombination and selection can not transform a reptile population into a bird population.
And, so my question is entirely reasonable. What, in your opinion is precisely required for Great Danes and Chihuahuas to become distinct species?
In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species.
Come on, kleinman, show us how smart you are and answer the question.
I would rather hear your insults rather than your slimy flattery.

[kjkent1]

See legal beagle, you do know how to speculate. What happens when a small Great Dane and a large Chihuahua meet and love rings true?I don't know, because thus far, you have failed to distinguish between these two breeds, or for that matter any other breed. Is a small Great Dane a Great Dane? Or, is it a big Chihuahua?

In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species.Why so afraid to answer the question, kleinman? And, me only an ignorant lawyer painting you into a corner.

You state that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are both still dogs. Okay, now I'm asking you to back it up with proof. In order to show that the two breeds are still dogs, you should be able to tell us what changes must occur for the breeds to no longer be dogs. Otherwise, EVERY organism, no matter how different, is a dog, by your definition.

So answer the question: What precisely must occur for Great Danes and Chihuahuas to become different species (not dogs)?

Come on kleinman...expose us all to your shining heavenly light.

[kleinman]

See legal beagle, you do know how to speculate. What happens when a small Great Dane and a large Chihuahua meet and love rings true?I don't know, because thus far, you have failed to distinguish between these two breeds, or for that matter any other breed. Is a small Great Dane a Great Dane? Or, is it a big Chihuahua?
Well, we have Great Small Danes and Small Great Danes and then we have Chihuahua Magnus. Then we have the cultural differences, dietary differences and language differences. Kjkent1, you are correct, quite a bit of premarital counseling would be required for consummation of this relationship. I don’t think there should be any laws prohibiting this relationship (other than keep them off my lawn).
In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species.Why so afraid to answer the question, kleinman?
If in your opinion, Great Danes and Chihuahuas evolve into distinct species, give us proof.
What an intellectual coward you are. And, me only an ignorant lawyer painting you into a corner.
How dare you insult the legal profession making such a claim! You are the one claiming that dogs evolve into different species. They certainly won’t do it by mutation and selection.
You state that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are both still dogs. Okay, now I'm asking you to back it up with proof. In order to show that the two breeds are still dogs, you should be able to tell us what changes must occur for the breeds to no longer be dogs. Otherwise, EVERY organism, no matter how different, is a dog, by your definition.
Bow wow.
So answer the question: What precisely must occur for Great Danes and Chihuahuas to become different species (not dogs)?
If you put a dog on a bun with a little mustard, you have an entirely different species. You now have a Schnitzle. These have evolved into a diverse population which I will discuss with you with relish.

[kjkent1]

You are the one claiming that dogs evolve into different species.No, I am not. I am asking you to explain what changes must occur before you would conclude that a dog is no longer a dog, because you stated that all dogs are still dogs, despite the apparent substantial differences between certain breeds, such as chihuahuas and great danes.

The fact that you refuse to answer the question, demonstrates that you already know that your "theory" has a serious problem. Otherwise, you would have no trouble answering.

You don't really know what changes would suffice to make a dog not a dog. ROFLMAO! Pretty much makes you a complete buffoon.

Bow wow.My my...an unusal moment of honesty. Impressive.

[Belz...]

Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds.

Whoever said a reptile can turn into a bird ?

It's the umpteenth time I've asked you Kleinman. Do you have a name for tha psychological disorder that prevents you from seeing that ?

Perhaps you think that cats and dogs will evolve into dats and cogs, but it won’t happen by mutation and selection.

And yet all those dog breeds evolved by mutation and selection.

Don't tell me they're "still dogs". The question is: did they EVOLVE by mutation AND selection ?

As it stands right now, you evolutionists don’t have the foggiest idea how mutation and selection works

Coming from someone who thinks the theory of evolution involves Lamarckism, that's quite funny.

Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?

You've been flailing that one for months, now. Do you have any intention of explaining what you mean by it ?

You evolutionist try to evolve speculation into fact.

And again, you show that you have no idea what the word means.

In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species

Who cares ? "Species" is an artificial construct. Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have told you that. All those complicated concepts just make it harder on you.

I would rather hear your insults rather than your slimy flattery.

Well, at least you have the integrity to admit that you're not worth flattery.

[Belz...]

Well, we have Great Small Danes and Small Great Danes and then we have Chihuahua Magnus. Then we have the cultural differences, dietary differences and language differences. Kjkent1, you are correct, quite a bit of premarital counseling would be required for consummation of this relationship. I don’t think there should be any laws prohibiting this relationship (other than keep them off my lawn).

If in your opinion, Great Danes and Chihuahuas evolve into distinct species, give us proof.

How dare you insult the legal profession making such a claim! You are the one claiming that dogs evolve into different species. They certainly won’t do it by mutation and selection.

Bow wow.

If you put a dog on a bun with a little mustard, you have an entirely different species. You now have a Schnitzle. These have evolved into a diverse population which I will discuss with you with relish.

Before you descend completely into insanity, would you mind quoting the post where kjkent1 claims that Danes and Chihuahuas are different species ?

[kleinman]

You are the one claiming that dogs evolve into different species.No, I am not.
Oh, so you are not an evolutionist? You see, even a lawyer can understand that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Next case.

[kleinman]

Hey, it is your bizarre theory that you believe that reptiles turn into birds.Whoever said a reptile can turn into a bird ?
So, now even the fiend god doesn’t believe that reptiles evolve?
Perhaps you think that cats and dogs will evolve into dats and cogs, but it won’t happen by mutation and selection.And yet all those dog breeds evolved by mutation and selection.
Wait a minute; you just claimed that reptiles don’t evolve into birds. Now you are claiming that dogs evolve into birds? Of course there are bird dogs.

Can’t you evolutionists ever make up your minds?

[joobz]

In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species.Do you consider wolves, cyotes to be seperate species from dogs?

I would rather hear your insults rather than your slimy flattery.

Now, now. You shouldn't be so modest. You've made a theory that helped demonstrate how real evolution is. YOu should be proud of yourself. Your multiple constant strong selection pressures help support the treatment paradigm for multi-drug therapy. It gives mathematical proof to doctors to tell patients not to relent on their treatment otherwise they may help resistence to emerge. This theory of evolution helps improve health care and stop the irresponsible care that a more faith based approach would take. As a Doctor, you should be quite proud of this. Helping eliminate dogmatic archaic thinking from medicine. Perhaps next, you can help tell the catholic church that disallowing the use of condoms is morally irresponsible. Just like creationist medicine practices.


Here’s a Wookie who has evolved into star baseball pitcher. (Steroids as well as the weather have been proven to accelerate evolution to warp(ed mind) speed.)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:sdZNF9MpS81lJM:tweaker.tv/system/files?file=images/wookie.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Intresting. Is this your proof that weather doesn't occur?

[joobz]

So, now even the fiend god doesn’t believe that reptiles evolve?

Wait a minute; you just claimed that reptiles don’t evolve into birds. Now you are claiming that dogs evolve into birds? Of course there are bird dogs.

Can’t you evolutionists ever make up your minds?
Oh, I'm afraid kleinman might be sick. He seems to be confusing many things today. I wonder if his belief that weather doesn't exist convinced him it would be ok to go outside naked.

Kleinman, you should really get some rest. You seem to be falling apart mentally.

[kleinman]

In my opinion Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not evolve into distinct species.Do you consider wolves, cyotes to be seperate species from dogs?
What you do is take a wolf or coyote out of the weather and they evolve into dogs. It is thought by evolutionists if you have enough time, these dogs will evolve feathers, wings, scales and fins, that is if you have the correct weather conditions.
Here’s a Wookie who has evolved into star baseball pitcher. (Steroids as well as the weather have been proven to accelerate evolution to warp(ed mind) speed.)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:sdZNF9MpS81lJM:tweaker.tv/system/files?file=images/wookie.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif Intresting. Is this your proof that weather doesn't occur?
Clearly weather does occur, you prove it with your foggy, hazy and cloudy thinking.

Now then, those of you who want to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, here is another empirical example.
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/smd/biostat/events/colloqabs.html (http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/smd/biostat/events/colloqabs.html)
Wilms tumor is an embryonal tumor of the kidney that affects approximately one child per 10,000 before the age of 15 years. It was almost universally fatal a century ago, but cure rates today approach 90% due largely to the use of modern combination chemotherapy. The National Wilms Tumor Study Group (NWTSG), founded in 1969, has been in the forefront of the recent advances. Wilms tumor has served as a model of complexity for understanding of the genetic origins of cancer. It was initially believed to follow the two-hit mutational model proposed by Knudson (1972) on the basis of his statistical analysis of data for retinoblastoma, another childhood tumor involving a paired organ. Simple descriptive analyses of the large NWTSG database, however, suggested that the genetics of Wilms tumor were more complex. This suggestion was subsequently confirmed by laboratory studies demonstrating a role for genomic imprinting in the etiology of Wilms tumor, the limited number of cases associated with mutations in the first (and to date only) Wilms tumor gene to be cloned (WT1), and the linkage of familial cases to at least two other distinct loci. This talk will present several examples of how simple descriptive statistical analyses can challenge prevailing genetic models and suggest new avenues for laboratory investigation.
Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process (except in joobz rain soaked brain).

[joobz]

What you do is take a wolf or coyote out of the weather and they evolve into dogs. It is thought by evolutionists if you have enough time, these dogs will evolve feathers, wings, scales and fins, that is if you have the correct weather conditions.

Clearly weather does occur, you prove it with your foggy, hazy and cloudy thinking.

Now then, those of you who want to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, here is another empirical example.
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/smd/biostat/events/colloqabs.html (http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/smd/biostat/events/colloqabs.html)

Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process (except in joobz rain soaked brain).
Wow, your delirium must be getting really bad. You seem to actually believe that foggy/hazy weather is the same as rain and that both of these are possible inside someone's head.

You really should go see a doctor. I think your faith healer is leading you down a dangerous path of unreality.

BTW, are dogs wolves and cyotes seperate species?

[kjkent1]

Oh, so you are not an evolutionist? You see, even a lawyer can understand that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Next case.Must be terrifying to be forced into resorting to diversion in order to avoid having to answer a question which would crush your entire theory.

Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs, according to you, even though they are clearly reproductively isolated. But, their genomes are a closer match than that of a coyote and a Great Dane -- two creatures which are not reproductively isolated.

But the offspring of a coyote and a dog are quite different from either, because they have a distinctly different estrus cycle.

And so what is this creature that is a coydog? Similar results come with breeding dogs and wolves and/or coyotes and wolves.

But, of course, according to Alan Kleinman, Ph.D., M.D., there is no difference between any of these creatures unless ________.

What's this? kleinman steadfastly refuses to fill in the blank. He will not definitively state his requirements for speciation, for fear that someone will manage to satisfy said requirements and thereby destroy kleinman's entire belief system.

Pathetic.

[kleinman]

Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process (except in joobz rain soaked brain).Wow, your delirium must be getting really bad. You seem to actually believe that foggy/hazy weather is the same as rain and that both of these are possible inside someone's head.
Tell us joobz; does weather evolve reptiles into birds, or dogs into Wookies? If the right weather conditions will dogs evolve feathers and wings. It must have rained on cats so we got catfish. Why don’t you tell the faculty at your college of alchemical engineering that the weather transforms reptiles into birds and cats into fish?
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
You can do that right after you tell them that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously to form life.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

Tell us joobz; does weather evolve reptiles into birds, or dogs into Wookies? If the right weather conditions will dogs evolve feathers and wings. It must have rained on cats so we got catfish. Why don’t you tell the faculty at your college of alchemical engineering that the weather transforms reptiles into birds and cats into fish?
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
You can do that right after you tell them that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously to form life.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
You poor, poor man. Your faith has made you so sick you are unable to even see the difference between the truth we speak and the lies you create in your head.

Please, do yourself a favor and realize that weather is real. This is by far one of your worst delusions. TO think that nature is a constant number of strong selection pressures is just the worst form of nonsense since the concept of an earth centric universe.

[kleinman]

Please, do yourself a favor and realize that weather is real. This is by far one of your worst delusions. TO think that nature is a constant number of strong selection pressures is just the worst form of nonsense since the concept of an earth centric universe.
Announcement
Joobz has proven with evolutionist precision that not only there is weather but it transforms reptiles into birds, cats into fish and dogs into wookies. Details to be provided at some future date.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[kjkent1]

Suddenly, kleinman's little dog has taken on rather profound proportions. It is literally an icon of kleinman's own destruction.

[joobz]

Announcement
Joobz has proven with evolutionist precision that not only there is weather but it transforms reptiles into birds, cats into fish and dogs into wookies. Details to be provided at some future date.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Oh my, it's worse than I thought, you are raving.
Your faith healers have led you astray.

If only you had learned what medicine and science teachs instead of believing nonsense. Now you think that wookies are real beings.

[kleinman]

Suddenly, kleinman's little dog has taken on rather profound proportions. It is literally an icon of kleinman's own destruction.
Wait a minute, this little laughing dog evolved from a Great Dane and Chihuahua. It was a match made in heaven.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[kjkent1]

Wait a minute, this little laughing dog evolved from a Great Dane and Chihuahua. It was a match made in heaven.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gifSo, there we have it. Two animals that are reproductively isolated, morphologically distinct. Left in the wild it would not be long, generationally speaking, to where the accumulation of small microevolutionary changes (already admitted to occur by kleinman) would cause the great dane and chihuahua to be incapable of producing viable offspring, even if they were capable of mechanically accomplishing that process.

Meanwhile, there are jackals and coyotes and wolves and all sorts of other creatures who are slowly diverging in exactly the fashion as predicted by evolutionary theory -- until finally they are sufficiently dissimilar so that even a hardcore creationist such as kleinman would have to concede that they are no longer the same species.

And, so a new species is born.

Now why doesn't ev accommodate the above-described scenario?

Mmmmm, could it be that ev doesn't do recombination -- or sexual reproduction -- or frame shifting, or addition, deletion, fusion, transposition, duplication, etc., ad nauseam?

Duh...gee...ya think?

Yes, kleinman's little dog icon has completely undone his theory of creation. Maybe that's why the bible talks about the antichrist being the spawn of a jackal or some such. Ah well, the beginning of another Happy New Year.

[kleinman]

Wait a minute, this little laughing dog evolved from a Great Dane and Chihuahua. It was a match made in heaven.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gifSo, there we have it. Two animals that are reproductively isolated, morphologically distinct. Left in the wild it would not be long, generationally speaking, to where the accumulation of small microevolutionary changes (already admitted to occur by kleinman) would cause the great dane and chihuahua to be incapable of producing viable offspring, even if they were capable of mechanically accomplishing that process.
You evolutionists really like to tell your stories. Here, let me write one for you.

Once upon a time in a land long ago there was a puddle. Now this was no ordinary puddle. This was the puddle of life. In this puddle was carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and cholesterol. Everything needed in this alphabet soup of life was in this puddle. Now all these chemicals were cooperating. The sun was driving these chemicals in a cooperative frenzy. And the sun beat down and the sun beat down. Day after day, month after month, year after year, centuries passed into millennia, millions then billions of years passed until suddenly there was a self replicator. This little self replicator replicated and replicated. But sometimes this little self replicator made a boo boo. Some of these boo boos were good boo boos and some of these boo boos were not so good boo boos. The good boo boos made this little self replicator a better little self replicator and the bad boo boos, well so much for the less fit. Then one day these little self replicators got together to make groupie self replicators. Some of these self replicators made cell walls and others made organelles. Then the weather came along and made these little self replicators evolve. These little self replicators organized themselves and made all kinds of cells. When it rained these little self replicators grew fins and scales. When it got windy, these little self replicators grew feathers and wings. There was no limit to what the weather would do with these little self replicators. These self replicators figured out that if some of them made proteins and others made DNA that they could work together to make multi-cellular creatures. Some of these creatures lived in the sea and some of these creatures lived on the land. These little self replicators figured out how to make insulin genes and hemoglobin genes and Krebs cycles and coagulation cascades and all kinds of things. They even figured out how to make flagella so that they could get around. Then one day, these little self replicators figured out how to make a brain. And that brain in an evolutionist head figured out how these little self replicators did all this stuff; only the evolutionist brain knew this. And that evolutionist brain knew how reptiles turned into birds and cats turn into fish and dogs turn into wookies. All these things happened by boo boos and well, better luck next time. And all these little replicators live by survival of the fittest ever after.
And, so a new species is born.
What a wonderful story!
Duh...gee...ya think?
I think this is as good as your 10^500 alternative universes story. These are two of the stupidest stories that ever came out of a self replicator.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[kjkent1]

You evolutionists really like to tell your stories. Here, let me write one for you.

Once upon a time in a land long ago there was a puddle. Now this was no ordinary puddle. This was the puddle of life. In this puddle was carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and cholesterol. Everything needed in this alphabet soup of life was in this puddle. Now all these chemicals were cooperating. The sun was driving these chemicals in a cooperative frenzy. And the sun beat down and the sun beat down. Day after day, month after month, year after year, centuries passed into millennia, millions then billions of years passed until suddenly there was a self replicator. This little self replicator replicated and replicated. But sometimes this little self replicator made a boo boo. Some of these boo boos were good boo boos and some of these boo boos were not so good boo boos. The good boo boos made this little self replicator a better little self replicator and the bad boo boos, well so much for the less fit. Then one day these little self replicators got together to make groupie self replicators. Some of these self replicators made cell walls and others made organelles. Then the weather came along and made these little self replicators evolve. These little self replicators organized themselves and made all kinds of cells. When it rained these little self replicators grew fins and scales. When it got windy, these little self replicators grew feathers and wings. There was no limit to what the weather would do with these little self replicators. These self replicators figured out that if some of them made proteins and others made DNA that they could work together to make multi-cellular creatures. Some of these creatures lived in the sea and some of these creatures lived on the land. These little self replicators figured out how to make insulin genes and hemoglobin genes and Krebs cycles and coagulation cascades and all kinds of things. They even figured out how to make flagella so that they could get around. Then one day, these little self replicators figured out how to make a brain. And that brain in an evolutionist head figured out how these little self replicators did all this stuff; only the evolutionist brain knew this. And that evolutionist brain knew how reptiles turned into birds and cats turn into fish and dogs turn into wookies. All these things happened by boo boos and well, better luck next time. And all these little replicators live by survival of the fittest ever after.

What a wonderful story!

I think this is as good as your 10^500 alternative universes story. These are two of the stupidest stories that ever came out of a self replicator.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gifStupid as opposed to the story that the Lord said "Let there be light?" Uh huh...right, kleinman.

My "story" isn't a story. All the evidence supports it. You don't even have a scientifically plausible rebuttal. Instead, you stonewall and refuse to explain what differentiates one species from the other, because you KNOW that as soon as you lay down your line in the sand, someone who posts here with the necessary background in biology will satisfy your requirements and that will be the end of the debate.

No, the only thing stupid here is Alan Kleinman, Ph.D., M.D. A man who insanely clings to his romantic childhood fantasy that there lies some Charlton Heston with a beard looking mofo up in the clouds, who looks down on the world and mandates that the true nature of reality is a bunch of fairy tales about 900 year old men with a boat full of animals -- and another dude who could walk on water in his bare feet.

Sure, all that happened, and there's oh so much scientific evidence to back it up. Why just today I dropped my keys and damned if they didn't smash straight up onto the ceiling of my kitchen, rather than hit the floor.

Evolution is so obviously true, that it really requires a seriously conscious effort to deny it. The sort of denial that you've been exhibiting all day today.

Did you have a stroke or something while you were swilling rum down there in St. Martin or what?

[kleinman]

My "story" isn't a story. All the evidence supports it. You don't even have a scientifically plausible rebuttal. Instead, you stonewall and refuse to explain what differentiates one species from the other, because you KNOW that as soon as you lay down your line in the sand, someone who posts here with the necessary background in biology will satisfy your requirements and that will be the end of the debate.
All the evidence supports your “story”. Do you mean all zero of your citations which show that combination selection pressures accelerate evolution? Or perhaps you mean all zero of the mathematical models you have which show how evolution works mathematically? You have no mathematical or empirical evidence which shows how mutation and selection could evolve creatures from one form to another. All the mathematical and empirical evidence show that the mutation and selection process can only work quickly when transforming a single gene with a single targeted selection pressure.
Mmmmm, could it be that ev doesn't do recombination -- or sexual reproduction -- or frame shifting, or addition, deletion, fusion, transposition, duplication, etc., ad nauseam?
You continually dredge up this same silly argument. HIV does recombination, frame shifting, additions, deletions yet combination selection pressures still profoundly slow the evolution of this virus. Malaria does these and sexual reproduction as well, yet two drug therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this parasite. I have posted hundreds of other real examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates the same thing.

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is dominated by the number of selection conditions. If you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene, evolution is profoundly slowed. That’s the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are unable to or refuse to understand. The irrational and illogical speculations of evolutionists are totally contradicted by the mathematical and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

No amount of evolutionist myth making will overcome the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

Here is another example of how combination selection pressures work.
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969 (http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969)
Background: Trastuzumab (T) combined with i.v. vinorelbine (i.v.VNR) is an active regimen for patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). In order to further improve quality of life of patients undergoing treatment for ABC, a new regimen using oral vinorelbine (oVNR) (d1 + d3) plus q3wks T was tested (ToVNR).

Patients and methods: Thirty-nine patients with ABC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu 3+ or FISH positive received 288 treatment cycles with T 6 mg/kg (loading dose, 8 mg/kg) on d1 and oVNR 55 mg/m2 on d1 + d3, q3wks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Results: Thirty-seven patients and 286 treatment cycles were evaluated (two patients were lost to follow-up). Treatment was very well tolerated. Two patients had complete response (CR), 14 partial response (PR), 17 stable disease (SD) and four disease progression (PD) (overall response rate: 43%). Clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD >24 months) was 73%. Median time to progression was 8.9 months (range 2–27) and median duration of response was 10.9 months (range 2–27).

Conclusions: The ToVNR combination is active and very well tolerated. It favorably compares with the combination of T and weekly i.v. administered VNR, allowing a more convenient once every three weeks hospital admission and leaving patients and care providers free from the unpleasant effect of i.v.VNR.
So where is all your evidence legal beagle?

[joobz]

Here is another example of how combination selection pressures work.
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969 (http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969)

So where is all your evidence legal beagle?
That's funny, Kleinman. You keep supporting your theory that nature allows for rapid evolution. Thank you for that.

So far, it's
100s of examples of evolution

and, you, with zero evidence of weather being imaginary.

I just hope you never tried using creationism to treat your patients.
That would be unethical, considering what we know based off your theories.

[kleinman]

That's funny, Kleinman. You keep supporting your theory that nature allows for rapid evolution. Thank you for that.
What’s even funnier is your bizarre speculation that the weather transforms reptiles in birds, cats into fish and dogs into wookies.

If we include your cooperative chemistry speculations of abiogenesis you have a unified theory of the nonsense, something that is worth 4 years of study for a Bachelor of Speculation at the University of Gotnomath.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

What’s even funnier is your bizarre speculation that the weather transforms reptiles in birds, cats into fish and dogs into wookies.

If we include your cooperative chemistry speculations of abiogenesis you have a unified theory of the nonsense, something that is worth 4 years of study for a Bachelor of Speculation at the University of Gotnomath.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Now, now, kleinman. I have math. I have Dr. Schneider's ev model. Afterall, it was what you used for your theory, which helps prove evolution. You should really give yourself credit. Your theory helps save lives. It keeps doctors from using superstitious nonsense like creationism to form medical theories.

[kjkent1]

All the evidence supports your “story”. Do you mean all zero of your citations which show that combination selection pressures accelerate evolution?I've posted plenty of cites, and my own tests, to challenge your position. You just ignore them, like you're doing today with the speciation discussion. This makes your position frivolous, because you won't face the evidence that opposes your position. Instead, you pick and choose your battles so as to prop up your delusional fantasy. Not my problem -- all yours, bub. Any time you want to face the issues head on, everyone here is available. Meanwhile, we'll all just ridicule your position as seriously f'd up.

Or perhaps you mean all zero of the mathematical models you have which show how evolution works mathematically?In the last day Joobz reposted a mathematical peer-reviewed model that contradicts your position. And, true to form, you ignored it. Once again, making you look like a moron, rather than a professional scientist.

You have no mathematical or empirical evidence which shows how mutation and selection could evolve creatures from one form to another. All the mathematical and empirical evidence show that the mutation and selection process can only work quickly when transforming a single gene with a single targeted selection pressure.Palpably false. The reason why you believe your own story is because you won't allow yourself to investigate any of the possible negations, for fear that your religious view will be destroyed. Sick, if you ask me.

You continually dredge up this same silly argument. HIV does recombination, frame shifting, additions, deletions yet combination selection pressures still profoundly slow the evolution of this virus. Malaria does these and sexual reproduction as well, yet two drug therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this parasite. I have posted hundreds of other real examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates the same thing.This is the height of stupidity, kleinman. HIV is alive and well and killing millions of people. Drug therapy has stopped exactly nothing. Moreover, the drug therapy is intended to reduce viral load, i.e. KILL the virus, not to stop its evolution. It's obvious that reducing the number of virons reduces the opportunity for evolutionary change. This is not the same as the condition which is generally found in nature, where selective pressures are not all targeting the absolute and total destruction of a particular species.

And, to be sure, in the cases where natural events do conspire to kill off a species, guess what happens? Same thing as happens in your cited experiments: the species is rendered extinct.

So, all you've proved is what we already know: evolution happens and so does extinction. Big f'n deal! God you are sooooooo BORING!

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is dominated by the number of selection conditions. If you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene, evolution is profoundly slowed. That’s the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are unable to or refuse to understand. The irrational and illogical speculations of evolutionists are totally contradicted by the mathematical and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Nope. Clearly demonstrated wrong by the fact that HIV survives and continues to kill every single host, no matter what drug cocktail is used.

No amount of evolutionist myth making will overcome the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.That's good, because as it currently stands, the only thing that's mythical is your assertion that you understand evolutionary theory.

Here is another example of how combination selection pressures work.
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969 (http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1969)More incredibly boring irrelevant crap from the deluded mind of a rum soaked creationist.

So where is all your evidence legal beagle?Posted throughout this thread. Anytime you want to actually confront that evidence, you will be swiftly wiped off the face of the Earth by it.

You would actually be doing a public service were you to address the issues rather than spin your mantra. But, I doubt you ever will. You don't have the nuts.

[kleinman]

What’s even funnier is your bizarre speculation that the weather transforms reptiles in birds, cats into fish and dogs into wookies.

If we include your cooperative chemistry speculations of abiogenesis you have a unified theory of the nonsense, something that is worth 4 years of study for a Bachelor of Speculation at the University of Gotnomath.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif Now, now, kleinman. I have math. I have Dr. Schneider's ev model. Afterall, it was what you used for your theory, which helps prove evolution. You should really give yourself credit. Your theory helps save lives. It keeps doctors from using superstitious nonsense like creationism to form medical theories.
Joobz has Dr Schneider’s ev model.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

Joobz has Dr Schneider’s ev model.

It's not my model. I'm using your theory to prove evolution. What's funny is how you thought all this time that it proved evolution impossible, but all along it helped solidy the theory. Nature isn't constant, no matter how much praying you do.

Any luck wishing weather away?

[Shalamar]

Multiple strong constant pressures slow evolution.

Multiple variable pressures speed evolution.

Very good. Shall we consider this more evidence in favour of evolution, and ignore Klienmans pokemon beliefs of evolution?

[joobz]

Multiple strong constant pressures slow evolution.

Multiple variable pressures speed evolution.

Very good. Shall we consider this more evidence in favour of evolution, and ignore Klienmans pokemon beliefs of evolution?
Yup And Kleinman couldn't magic the truth away with dog pictures.

[kjkent1]

Yup And Kleinman couldn't magic the truth away with dog pictures.Hey, but the dogs are laughing, which strongly suggests that dog evolution is well under way!

[kleinman]

Joobz has Dr Schneider’s ev model.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gifIt's not my model. I'm using your theory to prove evolution. What's funny is how you thought all this time that it proved evolution impossible, but all along it helped solidy the theory. Nature isn't constant, no matter how much praying you do.
Joobz, the only things you have are a mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution and a bizarre concept of chemicals cooperating for abiogenesis.
Any luck wishing weather away?
I don’t have to wish away weather but I am amused that you think that the weather makes reptiles grow feathers and wings, cats turn into fish and dogs turn into wookies.
Multiple strong constant pressures slow evolution.
That is multiple strong selection pressures profoundly slow evolution but you are starting to learn.
Multiple variable pressures speed evolution.
Not quite right Darth, it is sequential single selection pressures targeting single genes that accelerates the evolutionary process by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and the intensity of these pressures must start low and slowly escalate so as not to cause extinction of the population. Simultaneous combination selection pressures of any intensity confound the evolutionary process.
Very good. Shall we consider this more evidence in favour of evolution, and ignore Klienmans pokemon beliefs of evolution?
Shalamar, you evolutionists spend too much time watching the transformers. When you evolutionists finally understand how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, the empirical data will also make sense to you. Here’s another example of how combination selection pressures affect a population.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/34/5410 (http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/34/5410)
Purpose: This phase I study examined whether a heat shock protein (Hsp) 90 inhibitor tanespimycin (17-AAG; KOS-953) could be administered safely in combination with trastuzumab at a dose that inhibits Hsp90 function in vivo in lymphocytes.

Patients and Methods: Patients with an advanced solid tumor progressing during standard therapy were eligible. Patients were treated with weekly trastuzumab followed by intravenous tanespimycin, assessed in escalating dose levels.

Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled onto four tanespimycin dose levels: 225 (n = 4), 300 (n = 3), 375 (n = 8), and 450 mg/m2 (n = 10). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed at the third and fourth cohort (1 patient each): more than 2-week delay for grade 4 fatigue/grade 2 nausea and anorexia (375 mg/m2); more than 2-week delay for thrombocytopenia (450 mg/m2). Drug-related grade 3 toxicity included emesis, increased ALT, hypersensitivity reactions (two patients each), and drug-induced thrombocytopenia (n = 1). Common mild to moderate toxicities included fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, emesis, headache, rash/pruritus, increased AST/ALT, and anorexia. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated no difference in tanespimycin kinetics with or without trastuzumab. Pharmacodynamic testing showed reactive induction of Hsp70 (a marker of Hsp90 inhibition) in lymphocytes at all dose levels. Antitumor activity was noted (partial response, n = 1; minor response, n = 4; stable disease 4 months, n = 4). Tumor regressions were seen only in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Conclusion: Tanespimycin plus trastuzumab is well tolerated and has antitumor activity in patients with HER-2+ breast cancer whose tumors have progressed during treatment with trastuzumab. These data suggest that Hsp90 function can be inhibited in vivo to a degree sufficient to cause inhibition of tumor growth.
I don’t have to magic away the irrational and illogical theory of evolution silly pumpkin, I just simply post the mathematical and empirical facts of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and watch your theory go up in smoke.

[joobz]

Joobz, the only things you have are a mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution and a bizarre concept of chemicals cooperating for abiogenesis.Why are you so modest. I'm simply using your theory. Are you going to now claim your theory is innacurate and mathematically illogical?

I don’t have to wish away weather but I am amused that you think that the weather makes reptiles grow feathers and wings, cats turn into fish and dogs turn into wookies.

Well, how can you say that nature is a constant environment then? If you don't wish weather away, your theory proves evolution is possible.

Thank goodness for that. OTherwise, we may have more doctors using creationism as a basis for treatment theory. Just imagine the number of deaths that would cause. :eek:



That is multiple strong selection pressures profoundly slow evolution but you are starting to learn.
You forgot the word "constant".


I don’t have to magic away the irrational and illogical theory of evolution silly pumpkin, I just simply post the mathematical and empirical facts of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and watch your theory go up in smoke.What's illogical is thinking weather doesn't exist. You should look outside once and awhile, you'll see that nature is constantly changing.

[kjkent1]

Not quite right Darth, it is sequential single selection pressures targeting single genes that accelerates the evolutionary process by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and the intensity of these pressures must start low and slowly escalate so as not to cause extinction of the population. Simultaneous combination selection pressures of any intensity confound the evolutionary process.This comment is so blitheringly stupid, I can't help but respond again.

When the wolves attack the sheep herd and kill two in a thousand during a one month period, is that a strong selection pressure, or is it variable, or weak? And, when one of the herd dies because it eats a poison mushroom is that a single pressure, because it happens between wolf attacks? Is it multiple pressures when it happens while the wolves attack, even though both pressures aren't occuring to the same sheep at the same time?

Trying to extrapolate controlled HIV studies to encompass natural evolutionary scenarios is just plain moronic.

[not_so_new]

Hey folks.

First post here, nice forum.

So, after reading 100 or some odd pages of this thread and a few others.....

I don't know how it works here but rule number 1 of any web forum I have ever participated in / on is DO NOT feed the trolls.

:D

This "kleinman" is amazingly out of touch (and out of his depth) but unfortunately I think you folks are giving him an out by bombarding him with questions. If I were one of his creationist slobber monkey stooges or, more importantly an undereducated fence sitter, I would see this thread and say "wow kleinman is kicking the crap out of them. See he is answering and refuting everything they throw at him."

In reality he hasn't answered a single question with credible evidence. He is stuck in the forum equivalent of the Fox News "No Spin Zone" creating straw-men out of the hay bails you folks are providing him with.

If it were me, I would stop asking all but ONE question from the guy. Any-'o question will do, he can't answer any of them with a scientifically verifiable response.

Someone ask a question, ask for evidence and sit back. Everyone else should wait for a response or ask the same question. Doing anything else is just troll feeding and when you feed a little troll you only make it grow larger (tolls get delusions of grandeur don't ya know..)

Just my two cents.

Back to your regularly scheduled freakshow... already in progress.

*grabs bag of popcorn*

:)

[Shalamar]

Shalamar, you evolutionists spend too much time watching the transformers. When you evolutionists finally understand how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, the empirical data will also make sense to you. Here’s another example of how combination selection pressures affect a population.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Ahh.. Please show me the math that you claim to have. I would like to see it.



I don’t have to magic away the irrational and illogical theory of evolution silly pumpkin, I just simply post the mathematical and empirical facts of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and watch your theory go up in smoke.

But your irrational beliefs, and your twisted perception of evolution cause you to discount science. And no theory has 'gone up in smoke'. If you have 'proof', show YOUR work, submit YOUR evidence on how YOU (magically) think it really works.

By the way, you're still wrong, as many many many others have pointed out.

[Kotatsu]

See legal beagle, you do know how to speculate. What happens when a small Great Dane and a large Chihuahua meet and love rings true?

A qualified guess would be that if the Great Dane is the male, and the Chihuahua is the female, the latter sort of breaks...

Of course, that would depend largely on how you define "large" and "small". If you define the terms so that the two individuals are of the same size, the Chihuahua would naturally not have this problem, notwithstanding any other problems they might have.

Oops, I forgot: you don't define terms, do you? You just use ridicule and what passes as wit in your asylum instead.

[Kotatsu]

This "kleinman" is amazingly out of touch (and out of his depth) but unfortunately I think you folks are giving him an out by bombarding him with questions. If I were one of his creationist slobber monkey stooges or, more importantly an undereducated fence sitter, I would see this thread and say "wow kleinman is kicking the crap out of them. See he is answering and refuting everything they throw at him."

I imagine any creationist either blind or as incurably stupid as Kleinman might imagine that, yes. But even the more clever of that ilk would slowly come to realise that very few insults are actually refutations.

If it were me, I would stop asking all but ONE question from the guy. Any-'o question will do, he can't answer any of them with a scientifically verifiable response.

We have tried that. But as Kleinman doesn't understand anything of what we ask him, this doesn't help. Joobz is doing his weather thing, for instance, ad I have done my nested hierarchy thing; several others have done the same. It doesn't work, because Kleinmen either just uses his normal cut and paste nonsense and holds a smug parade in his own honour, or refuses to answer the question. The idea is very good, but it would, in the particular case, be applied to the wrong kind of person.

[Nogbad]

I don’t expect to change the minds of any evolutionist dogmatist but you don’t get a free pass on your silly evolutionist speculations and get to call it science. You evolutionists have your own irrational and illogical belief system and mathematical science shows this to be the case.

If you were to prune your posts of the snide comments they would be much slimmer and therefore rather more readable.That you do not suggests I think that the troll analysis is in part at least correct. Although intrigued by the length of the debate on this topic I can't say I feel passionately enough for or against evolution to spend hours constructing a model to prove or disprove it. It is interesting but not desperately important.

If you have a working paper publish it and let it be reviewed in the peer journals. They will perhaps see the wisdom therein where we cannot (and clearly still cannot). Your position is clear in that you do not think pressures can ever favour mutation. If you are driven enough to work on this to the extent of a published piece of work then good for you. As I said, if your maths and assumptions are correct then your name will go into the biology text books.



http://www.hifiwigwam.com/images/emoticons/popcorn.gif

[Belz...]

So, now even the fiend god doesn’t believe that reptiles evolve?

Kleinman, why do you think that playing dumb is going to make your argument stronger ?

I said that A reptile does not evolve into A bird. YOU'RE the one who's claiming this. NO ONE ELSE said that.

Wait a minute; you just claimed that reptiles don’t evolve into birds. Now you are claiming that dogs evolve into birds? Of course there are bird dogs.

Answer the question, Kleinman: How do you explain the various breeds of dogs if they haven't evolved by mutation (changes in their DNA) and selection (by us) ?

Can’t you evolutionists ever make up your minds?

It's funny. You're so bad at understanding anything that you're convinced you've caught me in my confusion.

[Belz...]

What you do is take a wolf or coyote out of the weather and they evolve into dogs.

Evolve ? How ? I thought you said evolution was profoundly slow.

Clearly weather does occur

So you admit there is a variable environment for selection pressures to take effect in ?

Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process

And yet you claim dogs evolve...

Tell us joobz; does weather evolve reptiles into birds, or dogs into Wookies?

Nothing "evolves" something else, Kleinman. Gosh, will you ever learn ?

You can do that right after you tell them that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously to form life.

Spontaneously ? Is there ANYTHING you DO understand ?

:dl:

Kleinman, you're the only one playing this silly game of yours. NO ONE who is reading this thread agrees with you. The laugh's on you.

[Belz...]

Once upon a time in a land long ago there was a puddle. Now this was no ordinary puddle. This was the puddle of life. In this puddle was carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and cholesterol. Everything needed in this alphabet soup of life was in this puddle. Now all these chemicals were cooperating. The sun was driving these chemicals in a cooperative frenzy. And the sun beat down and the sun beat down. Day after day, month after month, year after year, centuries passed into millennia, millions then billions of years passed until suddenly there was a self replicator. This little self replicator replicated and replicated. But sometimes this little self replicator made a boo boo. Some of these boo boos were good boo boos and some of these boo boos were not so good boo boos. The good boo boos made this little self replicator a better little self replicator and the bad boo boos, well so much for the less fit. Then one day these little self replicators got together to make groupie self replicators. Some of these self replicators made cell walls and others made organelles. Then the weather came along and made these little self replicators evolve. These little self replicators organized themselves and made all kinds of cells. When it rained these little self replicators grew fins and scales. When it got windy, these little self replicators grew feathers and wings. There was no limit to what the weather would do with these little self replicators. These self replicators figured out that if some of them made proteins and others made DNA that they could work together to make multi-cellular creatures. Some of these creatures lived in the sea and some of these creatures lived on the land. These little self replicators figured out how to make insulin genes and hemoglobin genes and Krebs cycles and coagulation cascades and all kinds of things. They even figured out how to make flagella so that they could get around. Then one day, these little self replicators figured out how to make a brain. And that brain in an evolutionist head figured out how these little self replicators did all this stuff; only the evolutionist brain knew this. And that evolutionist brain knew how reptiles turned into birds and cats turn into fish and dogs turn into wookies. All these things happened by boo boos and well, better luck next time.

You're losing it, Klein.

And all these little replicators live by survival of the fittest ever after.

Survival of the fittest ? It that ANOTHER of your strawmen, Klein ?

Do you mean all zero of your citations which show that combination selection pressures accelerate evolution?

No need, we have YOUR citations to show that.

[Belz...]

the only things you have are a mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution and a bizarre concept of chemicals cooperating for abiogenesis.

Bizarre is not a word that's used to demonstrate or invalidate a theory. It's a subjective opinion.

That is multiple strong selection pressures profoundly slow evolution but you are starting to learn.

You mean, multiple strong directional constant selection pressures, right ?

[Nogbad]

I am, nevertheless, majorly impressed he has the time to write all this stuff. I haven't dug through all the posts so what is Kleinman's explanation for universe, life and everything - he sidestepped the young earth creationist question (rather artfully I thought) so I am assuming he doesn't hold to a Wizard said Alakazam 6,000 years ago and it all poofed out of nothing pre-packaged and ready made.

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/images/emoticons/popcorn.gif

[Kotatsu]

I am, nevertheless, majorly impressed he has the time to write all this stuff.

Copy and paste takes seconds.

[Nogbad]

Copy and paste takes seconds.

Fair point well presented.

[Kotatsu]

Fair point well presented.

One hypothesis is that Kleinman is a droid. Someone, somewhere, once discovered a program which would cause keys on a keyboard to be pressed randomly, and started that up on a droid in front of a computer. He or she (1) has now largely forgotten about this, and it is unlikely that it will ever be turned off. However, the program has serious flaws --- it learns from its mistakes, and it craves company --- and when the original researcher discovers his or her droid again --- if that ever happens --- the data collected could be most useful.

Originally, it just wrote random strings of letters on message boards, forums and newsgroups, but over and over again, it was banned. Until little by little, by trial and error, it learned that certain sequences of letters were less likely to result in a banning. Over a long time, it discovered more and more of these sequences, and incorporated them into its memory. As more and more of these sequences were discovered, the droid was enabled to interact more and more, because it was exposed to its environment longer before it was banned.

In an interesting analogy to the process of biological evolution, the interaction with the environment and the need for the continuance of this interaction, drove these sequences to become longer and longer, and more and more sophisticated. Punctuation was sniffed at, some assembling of larger compound sequences was discovered, but a basic set of acceptable sentences were eventually established, from which the droid does not dare to stray too far (2). At some point, the droid realised that minor variations to these sequences were acceptable, whereas too large ones would result in a lessened quotient of interaction. At another point, it learned to co-opt sequences it came across, and incorporate these --- or parts of these --- in its own sequences.

Today, we see the end result. The largest body of text produced by the droid is copies of the same text, which, it has learned, will result in further interaction by what the droid doubtlessly perceives as other droids. Small variations occur occasionally, and by lateral transfer from other perceived droids, the vocabulary and grammar is undergoing changes, but these changes have to be related to the original vocabulary for the droid to understand them as meaningful.

Here is an example: somewhere along the line, the droid has picked up the phrase "change reptiles into birds", and understood that this is a meaningful phrase; this phrase is coherent and will allow interaction to continue. I would wager that it picked up this phrase rather recently, because as you may notice, it is still trying to figure out in which contexts this phrase is meaningful. It does that by placing it in a variety of circumstances and see where it gets the most responses: that's where this phrase has most meaning to the droid.

You will also notice that slight variations sometimes occur, like substituting "change into birds" with "grow feathers and wings". I believe this is because the droid operates in some kind of text-image interface. It uses the text when interacting with its environment, but the droid itself --- perhaps by a google image search of acceptable and coherent sequences? --- translate these letter sequences into images (which is all it can perceive), and sometimes gets confused as to what the image represents. One hypothesis could be that it has acquired multiple copies of the images, and perceive these to be interchangeable, even though they code for different letter sequences.

Naturally, there is no thought process behind this mechanism, as should be apparent by now. The algorithm is still more or less wandering aimlessly across the keyboard, but is more likely to produce letters in certain combinations. By slow change and careful selection of what sequences it will use, the droid has now reached a stage where most of these combinations are perceived by us humans as real words, and, sometimes, these words have been arranged into full sentences. Only because the original programming was very skillfull do we so seldom see entirely ungrammatical sentences, or ones which do not consist of real words. However, even the most cursory survey would note that these sentences do not really form any coherent larger structures; no real arguments, no meaningful debate.

One data point against this hypothesis is that, for some reason, the droid goes away over the weekends. This could be because the power is turned off in the lab where the computer is when the lab workers go home over the weekend, though.

However, the droid is very predictable, as would be expected by a droid.

ETA:
It just struck me that, in another amazing parallel to biological evolution, there is a competing "theory" which states that there must be an intelligent cause behind Kleinman's posts. This school of thought, held only by a minority, has the same serious flaw as that which attempts to present itself as a valid alternative to biological evolution, though: there is no evidence of the existence of this intelligence!

---
(1) And this person is most likely laughing insanely.
(2) It's more or less become locked in a local maximum, but the algorithm for searching outside the local maximum is too paranoid or too subdued by the need for interaction to actually achieve anything.

[Mister Earl]

Oh, so you are not an evolutionist? You see, even a lawyer can understand that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Next case.

Please prove, mathematically, that evolution is impossible. You indicate in the quoted above that this is possible. I'm calling your bluff.
Please tell us what leads you to believe that lawyers are in any way considered as experts in the field of evolution.
Please provide the appropriate documentation to support your answers, with links and citations as needed. Thank you!

[joobz]

Please prove, mathematically, that evolution is impossible. You indicate in the quoted above that this is possible. I'm calling your bluff.
Please tell us what leads you to believe that lawyers are in any way considered as experts in the field of evolution.
Please provide the appropriate documentation to support your answers, with links and citations as needed. Thank you!
At this point, Kleinman will resort to saying that it isn't his math but the math of Dr. Schneider from his Peer review paper. He will then go on to explain how ev and all evidence he presents shows how multiple selection pressures slows evolution. In kleinman's mind, slow=stop.


What he will fail to present is that his theory requires that all of the multiple selection condititions be strong and constant for his theory to work. There are countless examples (e.g., sequential conditions, periodic pressures) that show when the selection conditions are variable, the evolutionary process is greatly accelerated.

Since we all know that nature is a variable environment (Just look at weather), it is obvious that evolution is both possible and real.

Kleinman would like us to believe that there is no weather, but he has failed to present any evidence for such a claim.

[Shalamar]

Klienman has gone stark, raving mad. He's holding onto his little 'proof' that evolution is impossible, even though his proofs actually support the Theory of Evolution.

Now he thinks that reptiles instantly change into birds, and that dogs can become wookies, and single celled organisms can grow wings and feathers.

Its like he's saying that 2+2=4, and thus, addition is impossible. When we tell him that 3+1 also equals 4, and in fact, 2+2+2=6, he tosses a laughing dog at us, thinks we're trying to say that 2+2+2=Q.

He hasn't proven that evolution is impossible, because, well, none of it is his work, and he doesn't understand the citations he reads. He's just huddling in a corner, laughing to himself as he chants 'Its not true. Its not true.. Its not true...'

Have that math for us yet, Klienman?

[kleinman]

Not quite right Darth, it is sequential single selection pressures targeting single genes that accelerates the evolutionary process by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and the intensity of these pressures must start low and slowly escalate so as not to cause extinction of the population. Simultaneous combination selection pressures of any intensity confound the evolutionary process.This comment is so blitheringly stupid, I can't help but respond again.
I don’t expect a legal beagle who spends all his time in 10^500 alternative universes to understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to work but that’s how the sorting process works. Now legal beagle, here is something you might understand. The irrational and illogical interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process that evolutionists assert has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. This is going to be a bigger law suit than the tobacco law suit.
Just my two cents.
Two cents doesn’t get you much these days.
I don’t expect to change the minds of any evolutionist dogmatist but you don’t get a free pass on your silly evolutionist speculations and get to call it science. You evolutionists have your own irrational and illogical belief system and mathematical science shows this to be the case.If you were to prune your posts of the snide comments they would be much slimmer and therefore rather more readable.That you do not suggests I think that the troll analysis is in part at least correct. Although intrigued by the length of the debate on this topic I can't say I feel passionately enough for or against evolution to spend hours constructing a model to prove or disprove it. It is interesting but not desperately important.
If you evolutionists could post a single citation which would support your mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, this thread would end. Instead you whine about snide comments and ignore the mathematical data from ev and the hundreds of real examples cited which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
If you have a working paper publish it and let it be reviewed in the peer journals. They will perhaps see the wisdom therein where we cannot (and clearly still cannot). Your position is clear in that you do not think pressures can ever favour mutation. If you are driven enough to work on this to the extent of a published piece of work then good for you. As I said, if your maths and assumptions are correct then your name will go into the biology text books.
It amazes me how you evolutionists devalue the James Randi Educational Forum. Do you think that mathematically incompetent evolutionists would give a fair reading to these facts? Anyway, there is a greater readership to this forum than to most scientific journals. Oh, by the way, it is Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model that I am using (by his personal invitation) and I am discussing this issue here by the invitation of Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, moderator on this forum and Dr Schneider’s co-worker and author of the online ev computer model.
the only things you have are a mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution and a bizarre concept of chemicals cooperating for abiogenesis.Bizarre is not a word that's used to demonstrate or invalidate a theory. It's a subjective opinion.
Even joobz admits that his concept of abiogenesis is simply speculation but for evolutionist speculation qualifies as scientific proof and we now have mathematical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works thanks to Dr Schneider’s ev computer model and what his model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This mathematical finding is substantiated by hundreds of real measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates the same finding.
That is multiple strong selection pressures profoundly slow evolution but you are starting to learn.You mean, multiple strong directional constant selection pressures, right ?
Wrong Belz, if you turn off selection in ev, the binding sites lose any information gained and any order to the genomes is lost as the population is subjected to random mutations without selection.
I am, nevertheless, majorly impressed he has the time to write all this stuff. I haven't dug through all the posts so what is Kleinman's explanation for universe, life and everything - he sidestepped the young earth creationist question (rather artfully I thought) so I am assuming he doesn't hold to a Wizard said Alakazam 6,000 years ago and it all poofed out of nothing pre-packaged and ready made.
Oh, I always make time in my schedule to annoy evolutionists who have successfully institutionalized the irrational and illogical.

I will tell you now that the evolutionist nonsense that life “poofed” out the primordial soup and that wings and feathers “poofed” out of reptiles by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically and scientifically irrational and illogical. In fact, the evolutionist interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is completely backwards from the mathematical and empirical evidence.
I am, nevertheless, majorly impressed he has the time to write all this stuff.Copy and paste takes seconds.
That’s correct, it’s easy to find the empirical evidence how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. It takes much more time to be a paid and active mythmaker at the University of Gotnomath, Department of Systematics, Biodiversity and Amathematics.
Oh, so you are not an evolutionist? You see, even a lawyer can understand that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Next case. Please prove, mathematically, that evolution is impossible. You indicate in the quoted above that this is possible. I'm calling your bluff.
Please tell us what leads you to believe that lawyers are in any way considered as experts in the field of evolution.
Please provide the appropriate documentation to support your answers, with links and citations as needed. Thank you!
The mathematical basis of my argument is based on the results from Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider is head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. If you want to read some of Dr Schneider’s writings on this topic, refer to these links.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794)
This link is Dr Schneider’s publication on ev.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
This link gives you access to Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s online version of ev and many links to background information on the development of ev.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html (http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html)
This link gives access to numerous discussion about the validity of ev and Dr Schneider’s responses to these criticisms.

I have and will continue to post real examples of what Dr Schneider’s computer model shows which is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. See below for another real example of what Dr Schneider’s mathematical model shows.

You will have to direct your questions about lawyers’ knowledge of evolution to kjkent1. You will find him in one of 10^500 alternative universes.

Here is another example of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, that is mutation and selection only works quickly when you have a single selection pressure targeting a single gene. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow this process.
http://www.hepatitisbannual.org/article.asp?issn=0972-9747;year=2004;volume=1;issue=1;spage=153;epage=19 8;aulast=Khanna (http://www.hepatitisbannual.org/article.asp?issn=0972-9747;year=2004;volume=1;issue=1;spage=153;epage=19 8;aulast=Khanna)
Lamivudine Prophylaxis

Several studies have demonstrated that lamivudine monotherapy can decrease the rate of recurrent HBV infection after transplantation, but the efficacy diminishes over time due to the selection of drug-resistant mutants.[108] In the North American multicenter study, the overall 1- and 3-year post-transplantation recurrence rates were 32 and 41%, respectively.[108] However, patients with active HBV replication prior to treatment had a higher recurrence rate at 3 years than nonreplicators (60 versus 0%). These data confirm the strong association between recurrent hepatitis B after transplantation and the presence of detectable HBV replication before transplantation.[118]

HBIG Plus Lamivudine Prophylaxis

As the rate of breakthrough infection with lamivudine alone is high, most transplant centers use both high-dose HBIG and lamivudine prophylaxis.[119] In a retrospective analysis of 59 patients treated with high-dose HBIG plus lamivudine, none of the patients experienced HBV recurrence with a mean post-transplantation follow-up of 15 months.[119] In an attempt to reduce the costs, several investigators have also reported the use of lower doses of HBIG administered intramuscularly in combination with lamivudine.[120] In all of these studies, recurrence rates less than 10% have been reported.

[Shalamar]

Please post the math you claim to have.

[Nogbad]

I will tell you now that the evolutionist nonsense that life “poofed” out the primordial soup and that wings and feathers “poofed” out of reptiles by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically and scientifically irrational and illogical. In fact, the evolutionist interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is completely backwards from the mathematical and empirical evidence.

That is a poof in a gradual step by step, millions of years sort of way rather than the magical boom there it is sort of way then? :D

You still have not stated what your position is I see - but no matter, it is not a relevant issue here. I am unconvinced by what you say as it seems flawed in its logic regarding variation in pressures over time but as I am not a mathematician to trade I will confer the benefit of the doubt and will look out for your name and argument as it gains credence in the academic world on this matter. If it does not then I will assume the argument fell by the wayside.

I think you should publish and be damned ... or something like that ;)

[kleinman]

Please post the math you claim to have.
If you want to read some of Dr Schneider’s writings on this topic, refer to these links.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794)
This link is Dr Schneider’s publication on ev.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
This link gives you access to Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s online version of ev and many links to background information on the development of ev.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html (http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html)
This link gives access to numerous discussion about the validity of ev and Dr Schneider’s responses to these criticisms.

Here is some of the data from Dr Schneider’s computer simulation which show that combination selection pressure profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection.
This data was generated based on a G=16,384, all other parameters were left at the base line values Dr Schneider used in his published case. The generations required to satisfy all three selection conditions simultaneously was 6,894,433 generations. Now if you take this case and remove any two of the three selection, you get the following data.

missed site | spurious binding within gene | spurious binding outside gene
1 | 223 | 223
In order to satisfy all three selection conditions simultaneously it takes almost 7 million generations while satisfying any single selection condition takes at most 223 generations.

This difference in the number of generations in order to satisfy all three selection condition verses any single selection condition becomes far more pronounced as you use longer genome lengths in Dr Schneider’s model. This is the mathematical fact of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process that Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model so clearly demonstrates.

[kleinman]

I will tell you now that the evolutionist nonsense that life “poofed” out the primordial soup and that wings and feathers “poofed” out of reptiles by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically and scientifically irrational and illogical. In fact, the evolutionist interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is completely backwards from the mathematical and empirical evidence.That is a poof in a gradual step by step, millions of years sort of way rather than the magical boom there it is sort of way then?
This is the typical evolutionist mantra, it all took millions (usually you claim billions) of years. So you claim that abiogenesis came about a gradual step by step process over millions of years. Do you care to describe this gradual step by step process or are your simple minded speculations all you need to call your idiotic theory true?

Then once you describe how abiogenesis occurred by a gradual step by step process, then you can describe how evolution occurred gradually by a step by step process when the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene. The theory of evolution is only reasonable if you are totally incompetent in the mathematics of mutation and selection which is what is required to be qualified as an evolutionist.

[kjkent1]

If you evolutionists could post a single citation which would support your mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, this thread would end. Instead you whine about snide comments and ignore the mathematical data from ev and the hundreds of real examples cited which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Well, Kleinman, joobz posted just such a citatation a few days ago (and, if memory serves, I posted the same cite several weeks ago):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711

And, yet the thread continues. So, either you're not paying attention, or you're a liar.

I'm confident that you'll have no trouble wriggling out of your above-referenced promise to end this thread. But, at least your response will clearly demonstrate your predisposition to deceive.

[Nogbad]

This is the typical evolutionist mantra, it all took millions (usually you claim billions) of years. So you claim that abiogenesis came about a gradual step by step process over millions of years. Do you care to describe this gradual step by step process or are your simple minded speculations all you need to call your idiotic theory true?

Then once you describe how abiogenesis occurred by a gradual step by step process, then you can describe how evolution occurred gradually by a step by step process when the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene. The theory of evolution is only reasonable if you are totally incompetent in the mathematics of mutation and selection which is what is required to be qualified as an evolutionist.

As far as I can see the only skill you possess is pomposity - but in this you excel so it is not all bad.

I will not hold my breath to see if your work appears in peer journals.

[kleinman]

If you evolutionists could post a single citation which would support your mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, this thread would end. Instead you whine about snide comments and ignore the mathematical data from ev and the hundreds of real examples cited which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Well, Kleinman, joobz posted just such a citatation a few days ago (and, if memory serves, I posted the same cite several weeks ago):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/34/13711)

And, yet the thread continues. So, either you're just not paying attention, or you're a liar.
Now, I have explained joobz citation multiple times and what this citation shows is that sequential application of single selection pressures is the way to accelerate evolution. Now if you think this article says something different, give us your legal interpretation.
Please tell us what leads you to believe that lawyers are in any way considered as experts in the field of evolution.
Hey kjkent1, Mister Earl wants to know what qualifies you in this discussion. Why don’t you tell us your qualifications?
This is the typical evolutionist mantra, it all took millions (usually you claim billions) of years. So you claim that abiogenesis came about a gradual step by step process over millions of years. Do you care to describe this gradual step by step process or are your simple minded speculations all you need to call your idiotic theory true?

Then once you describe how abiogenesis occurred by a gradual step by step process, then you can describe how evolution occurred gradually by a step by step process when the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene. The theory of evolution is only reasonable if you are totally incompetent in the mathematics of mutation and selection which is what is required to be qualified as an evolutionist.As far as I can see the only skill you possess is pomposity - but in this you excel so it is not all bad.
What a surprise, another evolutionist whose argument for his theory does not go beyond the mantra “gradual step by step, millions of years”. When are you mathematically incompetent evolutionists going learn how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works?

Let’s see what a peer journal has to say about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and what combination selection pressures do to this process.
http://www.insp.mx/biblio/alerta/al1105/16.pdf (http://www.insp.mx/biblio/alerta/al1105/16.pdf)
Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A Phase II trial using a triplet combination
Swan-Swan Leong, Joseph Wee, Miah Hiang Tay, Chee Keong Toh, Say Beng Tan, Choon Hua Thng, Kian Fong Foo, Wan Teck Lim, Terence Tan, Eng Huat Tan
The results from a Phase II trial exploring the activity of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer have shown promising efficacy.
and
An open-label pilot study of pentostatin, mitoxantrone, and rituximab in patients with previously untreated, Stage III or IV, low-grade non-
Hodgkin lymphoma Nicholas Di Bella, Craig Reynolds, David Faragher, Joseph Muscato, Kristi A. Boehm, Lina Asmar
In this first reported use of pentostatin, rituximab, and mitoxantrone as a combined regimen for the treatment of patients with previously untreated, low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the efficacy produced by the combination (83%) was better than each of the drugs as single agents, and the toxicities were moderate but manageable.
Tumor necrosis factor enhances SN38-mediated apoptosis in mesothelioma cells: The role of nuclear factor-B pathway activation Patrizia Russo, Alessia Catassi, Davide Malacarne, Stefano Margaritora, Alfredo Cesario, Luigi Festi, Antonino Mulé, Luigi Ferri, Pierluigi Granone
A therapeutic strategy that relied on the down-regulation of BCL-XL inhibition of nuclear factor B (NF-B) with a combination of SN38 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) was studied in human mesothelioma cell lines (MSTO-221H, IST-MES1, IST-MES2, MPP89, H28, H513, H2052, and H290). Cell proliferation was inhibited strongly by the combination. Because of NF-B inhibition by the combination of SN38 and TNF, the expression of BCL-XL was down-regulated (protein and mRNA), cytochrome c was released into the cytoplasm, caspase 3 was activated, and, consequently, apoptosis was triggered.
and
The role of clofarabine in hematologic and solid malignancies - Development of a next-generation nucleoside analog Stefan Faderl, Varsha Gandhi, Michael J. Keating, Sima Jeha, William Plunkett, Hagop M. Kantarjian
Clofarabine is a next-generation nucleoside analog with activity in adult and pediatric leukemias. The authors report that development continues in lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumors. New combination regimens to enhance its activity are being designed.

[joobz]

Now, I have explained joobz citation multiple times and what this citation shows is that sequential application of single selection pressures is the way to accelerate evolution. Now if you think this article says something different, give us your legal interpretation.
You are only partly right, which is much better than ID, which is wholly wrong.

The citation clearly shows that variations in the number and maginitude of pressures can accelerate the rate of evolution. For evolution to be impossible, you must prove that nature is invariant.


Any luck wishing weather away? I have millions of examples of weather. You have failed to present any proof that weather doesn't exist.

[rocketdodger]

Have I missed anything of note in the last two weeks?

Any new components of the Kleinman theory that I need to debunk?

[Belz...]

If you evolutionists could post a single citation which would support your mathematically illogical and irrational theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, this thread would end.

Kleinman, read carefully: THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU KEEP DOING IT, YOURSELF.

Wrong Belz, if you turn off selection in ev [...]

I'm talking about reality, not a simulation that you admitted was 'contrived'.

[Belz...]

Have I missed anything of note in the last two weeks?

Any new components of the Kleinman theory that I need to debunk?

Nope, unless you want Kleinman to again 'quote' you saying you didn't remember the exact parameters in ev to accelerate evolution, as though that meant something...

[kleinman]

Now, I have explained joobz citation multiple times and what this citation shows is that sequential application of single selection pressures is the way to accelerate evolution. Now if you think this article says something different, give us your legal interpretation.The citation clearly shows that variations in the number and maginitude of pressures can accelerate the rate of evolution. For evolution to be impossible, you must prove that nature is invariant.
Is that what the citation clearly shows, Wookie Weatherman? Let see again, what this citation shows.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/34/13711 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/34/13711)
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue34/images/medium/zpq0310771490005.gif
Fig. 5. A schematic view of fitness landscapes and evolution under fixed goal and MVG. (a) A typical trajectory under fixed goal evolution. The population tends to spend long periods on local maxima or plateaus. (b) A typical trajectory under MVG. Dashed arrows represent goal switches. An effectively continuous positive gradient on the alternating fitness landscapes leads to an area where global maxima exist in close proximity for both goals.
The top image shows the trajectory that the population takes on the fitness landscape to get to the global optimum for goal 1. The second and third images show the trajectory the population takes when the goals are switched back and forth from goals 1 and 2. The bottom image shows the trajectory the population takes to achieve both goals sequentially. Now if goals 1 and 2 are applied simultaneously, you have two different selection conditions pushing the population on two different trajectories. Selection condition 1 is trying to push the population to the global optimum 1 and selection condition 2 is trying to push the population to global optimum 2. A step that would be advantageous for one condition is disadvantageous for the other condition which confounds both selection conditions in their search for their new optimums. This is why combined selection pressures confound the evolutionary process. This is the same reason ev becomes very slow converging for longer genomes.

All these authors have shown is that you can take single selection pressures sequentially and evolve to these conditions much more rapidly than evolving to the conditions simultaneously.

Now joobz, why don’t you tell us what the weather conditions must be to evolve a Wookie?