Annoying creationists

[Nogbad]

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?

You did that just to make me smile non? :D

Self effacing pomposity is (almost) bearable. Good luck with your quest to educate we poor barbarians.

[kleinman]

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...
Now Belz, that is very unkind of you to remind rocketdodger of his premature senility.
Wrong Belz, if you turn off selection in ev [...]I'm talking about reality, not a simulation that you admitted was 'contrived'.
Check out this citation beggeter of beggaminases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15845348 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15845348)
Drug-resistant mutant forms of an organism are likely to be less fit than their wild-type strains in the absence of selection. Experimental work on prokaryotic organisms suggests that this is the case, but that compensatory mutations may occur which restore the fitness of mutants to that of sensitive forms. Here, we review experimental and field studies on this subject in malaria. In the rodent model Plasmodium chabaudi, a pyrimethamine-resistant mutant has been found to grow more slowly in mice than its drug-sensitive progenitor; however, following passage in the absence of the drug it grew faster, suggesting the occurrence of compensatory mutations. Similar findings were made with a chloroquine-resistant mutant. Field studies on Plasmodium falciparum have provided circumstantial evidence of a loss of fitness of chloroquine-resistant mutants, which appear to become less frequent in the parasite population following withdrawal of the drug. However, the occurrence of frequent recombination in the life-cycle of this parasite means that in natural conditions, a gene conferring resistance, once it has arisen, can then spread into a diversity of genetically distinct backgrounds which will influence its fitness and capacity to survive in the parasite population.

[not_so_new]

Is that what the citation clearly shows, Wookie Weatherman? Let see again, what this citation shows.


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?

Okay, first... before anyone else answers this, do we agree kleinman that IF (and I am not saying they can or can't) someone refutes your argument will you concede this point?

Because I am willing to take the high road here and follow the rules of science. IF I or someone else better versed in the topic at hand can not explain where your logic is faulty then I am (and I assume "we" because the people debating you are all interested in the advancement of science) willing to concede the point that your statement above is grounds for more investigation of evolution.

If we (as in the theory of evolution) can not prove this argument to be false we will all shut up and move on to other points of contention.

BUT if we do in fact prove it to be false you will concede this point, admit it as such (a point that you conceded) and not bring it up again? I am not saying you can't raise other points for discussion. I am saying that THIS point, should it be refuted or upheld can be put to bed.

Deal?

[rocketdodger]

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...

No that quote was me talking about my own simulation.

[rocketdodger]

BUT if we do in fact prove it to be false you will concede this point, admit it as such (a point that you conceded) and not bring it up again? I am not saying you can't raise other points for discussion. I am saying that THIS point, should it be refuted or upheld can be put to bed.

Deal?

This is how I thought when I was new to this thread as well. Trust me, he doesn't operate like this.

Everyone here has made a solid argument against different parts of his theory, and he completely ignores everything that shows him to be wrong even in the slightest.

You can try to have a discussion with him, but don't say I didn't warn you!

[kjkent1]

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 didn't put any constraint on your requirements for terminating the thread. You merely stated that as soon as a citation was posted demonstrating how evolution proceeds, in contrast to your own position, that you would stop posting. Your failing to honor your commitment proves that you are either deceitful or a liar -- neither is a particularly admirable trait.

Regardless, here's another citation for your rebuttal:


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

This cite clearly shows how recombination and mutation thwarts mutli-drug therapies, in contrast to your assertions that this can only lead to a profound slowing of evolutionary change.

In as much as you've already moved the goalpost so as to enable you to maintain your deceit, my posting anything else is really just a waste of effort. But, it's amusing to watch you slither around, so go for it, little man!

[kleinman]

Because I am willing to take the high road here and follow the rules of science. IF I or someone else better versed in the topic at hand can not explain where your logic is faulty then I am (and I assume "we" because the people debating you are all interested in the advancement of science) willing to concede the point that your statement above is grounds for more investigation of evolution.
Here is how not so new takes the high road in his first post on this thread and forum:
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."
and
Back to your regularly scheduled freakshow... already in progress.
Not so new, if you have something to say, say it. So far you have said nothing so new, you are just another mathematically incompetent evolutionist.
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 didn't put any constraint on your requirements for terminating the thread. You merely stated that as soon as a citation was posted demonstrating how evolution proceeds, in contrast to your own position, that you would stop posting. Your failing to honor your commitment proves that you are either deceitful or a liar -- neither is a particularly admirable trait.
Hey kjkent1, you are the legal beagle. Are you going to answer Mister Earl’s question?
Please tell us what leads you to believe that lawyers are in any way considered as experts in the field of evolution.

[kjkent1]

Hey kjkent1, you are the legal beagle. Are you going to answer Mister Earl’s question? Sure. I'm not an expert on evolution. I don't need to be. I only need to be able to find the holes in the arguments of Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D, and use them to impeach his credibility.

This is trivially easy, as demonstrated by Dr. Kleinman's failure to refute my last post.

[not_so_new]

This is how I thought when I was new to this thread as well. Trust me, he doesn't operate like this.

Everyone here has made a solid argument against different parts of his theory, and he completely ignores everything that shows him to be wrong even in the slightest.

You can try to have a discussion with him, but don't say I didn't warn you!

I agree with you. After watching this thread... hrummm.. "evolve" (get it?) I already know what his tactic will be here but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he does not reply to my post or concede the point if it is refuted then I feel safe in saying that he should just be ignored.

Let's face it, this thread is not to convince kleinman of anything, he is too deeply mired in his own delusion.

I think this thread is for the "fence sitters" that I spoke of in my first post, potentially 1000's of people who stumble onto it after a Google search etc.

As of now the whole point of this thread is to protect others from falling into this same delusion. The best way to do that IMHO is to establish a clear set of rules and when kleinman breaks these rules he can safely be ignored.

Hopefully the fence sitters will see that as the wrap up of this thread not the ongoing "debate" (which is really nonexistent). This thread it is never going to die if everyone keeps sparring with him I am afraid because he will never get the point. Marginalize his voice because it is not based on logic and move on is my way of dealing with this.

Oh and kleinman, if you DO happen to read this. I would never marginalize a logical argument backed with evidence. More importantly I would not marginalize an individual that was willing to LISTEN to others and recognize his or her own mistakes in an effort to become a better, more informed member of the human race.

Do the above and I will be happy to weigh your words as I would any other critical thinking, until then in my eyes you are already marginalized.

[kleinman]

Hey kjkent1, you are the legal beagle. Are you going to answer Mister Earl’s question?Sure. I'm not an expert on evolution. I don't need to be. I only need to be able to find the holes in the arguments of Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D, and use them to impeach his credibility.

This is trivially easy, as demonstrated by Dr. Kleinman's failure to refute my last post.
Your last post concerns recombination and HIV. We all know that HIV does recombination and that despite this; combination therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. See how trivially easy it is to refute the arguments of a legal beagle who knows nothing about the mathematics or empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You keep looking for that legal loop hole legal beagle for your dead theory of evolution.

[kjkent1]

Your last post concerns recombination and HIV. We all know that HIV does recombination and that despite this; combination therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. See how trivially easy it is to refute the arguments of a legal beagle who knows nothing about the mathematics or empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You keep looking for that legal loop hole legal beagle for your dead theory of evolution.Work on your reading comprehension, Alan.

The citation shows that recombination AND mutation avoids multidrug therapy. To wit: "The ability to accelerate the accumulation of favorable combinations of mutations renders recombination a potent force underlying the emergence of forms of HIV that escape multi-drug therapy and specific host immune responses."

Now, put up or shut up, Alan.

[kleinman]

Your last post concerns recombination and HIV. We all know that HIV does recombination and that despite this; combination therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. See how trivially easy it is to refute the arguments of a legal beagle who knows nothing about the mathematics or empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You keep looking for that legal loop hole legal beagle for your dead theory of evolution.Work on your reading comprehension, Alan.

The citation shows that recombination AND mutation avoids multidrug therapy. To wit: "The ability to accelerate the accumulation of favorable combinations of mutations renders recombination a potent force underlying the emergence of forms of HIV that escape multi-drug therapy and specific host immune responses."
Well then legal beagle, why don’t you rush out and tell the National Institute of Health infectious disease experts and tell them that HAART does not work because of recombination. You might as well tell Malaria experts as well since the Malaria parasite does sexual recombination yet combination therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this parasite.

If you study Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection you might learn something about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You would find out that the number of selection conditions dominates this process and recombination does not overcome this dominant parameter, otherwise HAART therapy would not work. Nice try legal beagle.

[joobz]

Is that what the citation clearly shows, Wookie Weatherman? Oh, thank you kleinman! You just said something nearly as stupid as when you said lead to gold and that natural selection is a restatement of the first law of thermo.



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.Does that last image show what occurs under constant simulatneous pressures? Are you sure it's showing "slow evolution"?

Quick question, which of the images in the three demosntrates "Slowest" evolution? Please, please please answer this. I want to see if you say the same stupid thing again. Please, please please repeat the stupid you said.

Wow, I never realized how terribly dumb your understanding of the fitness landscape was. No wonder why you are convinced there is no weather. You can't tell the difference between remaining constant and changes.

[not_so_new]

Here is how not so new takes the high road in his first post on this thread and forum:

I said "I am willing to take the high road" I said nothing about already taking the high road or that I would continue to take the high road if you don't agree to my points "Dr. Alan Kleinman."




Not so new, if you have something to say, say it. So far you have said nothing so new, you are just another mathematically incompetent evolutionist.

In the line right above your quote of my post, that you judiciously chose to omit from your ever so eloquent reply, I said….

"before anyone else answers this, do we agree kleinman that IF (and I am not saying they can or can't) someone refutes your argument will you concede this point?"

I am not going to respond to your points until you agree to the ground rules. I will play fair if you do. If not then WHY would / should I post anything?

So the question is already out there for you to respond to and until I get an answer to that question I don't see a point in replying to your taunts.

If we (as in the theory of evolution) can not prove this argument to be false we will all shut up and move on to other points of contention.

BUT if we do in fact prove it to be false you will concede this point, admit it as such (a point that you conceded) and not bring it up again?

Do you agree to these ground rules?

A simple "yes" or "no" will surfice….. I am waiting….

tick




tick




tick

[joobz]

I said "I am willing to take the high road" I said nothing about already taking the high road or that I would continue to take the high road if you don't agree to my points "Dr. Alan Kleinman."




In the line right above your quote of my post, that you judiciously chose to omit from your ever so eloquent reply, I said….

"before anyone else answers this, do we agree kleinman that IF (and I am not saying they can or can't) someone refutes your argument will you concede this point?"

I am not going to respond to your points until you agree to the ground rules. I will play fair if you do. If not then WHY would / should I post anything?

So the question is already out there for you to respond to and until I get an answer to that question I don't see a point in replying to your taunts.

If we (as in the theory of evolution) can not prove this argument to be false we will all shut up and move on to other points of contention.

BUT if we do in fact prove it to be false you will concede this point, admit it as such (a point that you conceded) and not bring it up again?

Do you agree to these ground rules?

A simple "yes" or "no" will surfice….. I am waiting….

tick




tick




tick
You'll wait forever. Kleinman is fun to mess with but you'd be foolish to think him honest.

Really, I keep up simply for the moments when he provides pure comedy gold.
His attempts at pretending an understanding of thermodynamics was amusing.
Next, his attempts at probability theory were even more amusing.
Most recently, he's tried to attack evolutionist morality, godwining himself.
He's also shown a complete inability to read/interpret graphs. post to him for the amusement, but don't expect anything substantial from him.

[kleinman]

Is that what the citation clearly shows, Wookie Weatherman?Oh, thank you kleinman! You just said something nearly as stupid as when you said lead to gold and that natural selection is a restatement of the first law of thermo.
How would you know anything about the first law of thermodynamics? You think that chemicals cooperate as long as there is enough energy. Now that’s not quite as ridiculous as you thinking the weather makes feathers and wings grow on reptiles. So tell us, what kind of weather do you need to evolve a wookie from a dog? Come on joobz, you can tell us unless you are stuck in your usual fog.
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.Does that last image show what occurs under constant simulatneous pressures? Are you sure it's showing "slow evolution"?
No silly, the last image shows what happens when you have sequential selection pressures. Now watch out, I think we are going to have a wookie storm.
Quick question, which of the images in the three demosntrates "Slowest" evolution? Please, please please answer this. I want to see if you say the same stupid thing again. Please, please please repeat the stupid you said.
I’m happy to explain your citation to you. None of the images demonstrates the “slowest evolution”, that would occur when the population tries to attain goal 1 and 2 simultaneously. Oh, oh, it’s starting to snow wookies.
Wow, I never realized how terribly dumb your understanding of the fitness landscape was. No wonder why you are convinced there is no weather. You can't tell the difference between remaining constant and changes.
How would you know what a fitness landscape is, you’ve been blown away in a wookie windstorm. I hope the weather is cooperating because who knows what might evolve.

[kjkent1]

Well then legal beagle, why don’t you rush out and tell the National Institute of Health infectious disease experts and tell them that HAART does not work because of recombination. You might as well tell Malaria experts as well since the Malaria parasite does sexual recombination yet combination therapy profoundly slows the evolution of this parasite.

If you study Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection you might learn something about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You would find out that the number of selection conditions dominates this process and recombination does not overcome this dominant parameter, otherwise HAART therapy would not work. Nice try legal beagle.Well, gee, Alan. I think that the National Institute of Health probably already knows about my cited reference. After all, the link to my post is from WWW.NIH.GOV (http://www.NIH.GOV).

Duh...

Moreover, Dr. Schneider's ev model DOESN'T DO RECOMBINATION, so that effect cannot be predicted. Whereas this new model that I cite does, and in fact is shown to accurately predict the outcome of empirical HIV tests IN ADVANCE.

The bottom line is that you're wrong. Your citations prove that lots of different poisons will lower the viral load in a host and thereby slow the evolutionary process by limiting the amount of possible mutations.

But, should a mutation appear which permits immuno-prophylaxis escape, that new virus will have leapt forward to exactly the place where it would have been were you only applying poisons sequentially, and the same evolution which you attempted to prevent will have occurred despite your efforts to stop it.

This cite totally destroys your theory, sport. You better get on your knees and face Mecca, because that is all you have left.

[joobz]

How would you know anything about the first law of thermodynamics? You think that chemicals cooperate as long as there is enough energy. Now that’s not quite as ridiculous as you thinking the weather makes feathers and wings grow on reptiles. So tell us, what kind of weather do you need to evolve a wookie from a dog? Come on joobz, you can tell us unless you are stuck in your usual fog.

No silly, the last image shows what happens when you have sequential selection pressures. Now watch out, I think we are going to have a wookie storm.

I’m happy to explain your citation to you. None of the images demonstrates the “slowest evolution”, that would occur when the population tries to attain goal 1 and 2 simultaneously. Oh, oh, it’s starting to snow wookies.

How would you know what a fitness landscape is, you’ve been blown away in a wookie windstorm. I hope the weather is cooperating because who knows what might evolve.
So your goal is the pressure now? And a pressure has only one goal??

I think you should alert the AMA! Tell them that creationism will save lives like it has in Africa. While your on the phone, remind them that natural selection is really a restatment of the first law of thermo. They'll need that information as well.

[kleinman]

I said "I am willing to take the high road" I said nothing about already taking the high road or that I would continue to take the high road if you don't agree to my points "Dr. Alan Kleinman."
If you have some wisdom about the theory of evolution, that would be something so new. You take whatever road you want in this discussion. So far, the only thing you have babbled is how smart you are about the theory of evolution. So show us.

[joobz]

If you have some wisdom about the theory of evolution, that would be something so new. You take whatever road you want in this discussion. So far, the only thing you have babbled is how smart you are about the theory of evolution. So show us.

Hey Not_so_new, I suggest getting an avatar. When Kleinman is feeling frisky, he'll start to make bizarre comments about them. Thier not as funny as him explaining science, but it's still funny.

[kleinman]

If you have some wisdom about the theory of evolution, that would be something so new. You take whatever road you want in this discussion. So far, the only thing you have babbled is how smart you are about the theory of evolution. So show us.Hey Not_so_new, I suggest getting an avatar. When Kleinman is feeling frisky, he'll start to make bizarre comments about them. Thier not as funny as him explaining science, but it's still funny.
I particularly liked your “can’t brain” avatar joobz, you described yourself so accurately with that one.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Shalamar]

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.

So YOU have no math. You've been lying.

Please post the math you claim to have.

[Shalamar]

Technically, klienman isn't 'wrong'. It is possible that multiple strong CONSTANT pressures may slow down evolution.

Where he IS wrong, is that he claims that statement above disproves evolution imperically, and mathmatically. Which is wrong. He can not prove that ALL creatures are under constant strong pressures at all times. Life is variable.

He's also been lying a lot recently, putting words into peoples mouths.

[kleinman]

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
This link is Dr Schneider’s publication on 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
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.quote="Shalamar"]So YOU have no math. You've been lying.

Please post the math you claim to have.[/quote]
Shalamar, you may be a layman but do you also have to be an ignoramus?
Technically, klienman isn't 'wrong'. It is possible that multiple strong CONSTANT pressures may slow down evolution.
Technically, mathematically, empirically, multiple strong selection pressures do profoundly slow evolution. The way you speed up the evolutionary process is to use sequential single selection pressures targeted at single gene and have the intensity of the pressure reduced initially so as not to cause extinction of the population but to select out the less fit. Then slowly increase the intensity of the selection pressure and hope that the population can find a trajectory on the fitness landscape that would take it to a new local optimum. Then when the population reaches that new local optimum, introduce the next single selection pressure and repeat the process. That’s how to produce MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, resistant strains of HIV… That’s because evolutionists have done such an incompetent description of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is an idiotic theory with an idiots description of the fundamental process of your theory.
Where he IS wrong, is that he claims that statement above disproves evolution imperically, and mathmatically. Which is wrong. He can not prove that ALL creatures are under constant strong pressures at all times. Life is variable.
Wow, life is variable and it took billions of years to evolve. What idiotic mush you evolutionists like to call science.
He's also been lying a lot recently, putting words into peoples mouths.
Shalamar, not only are you completely ignorant of the mathematics of mutation and selection, you are a whining crybaby. Read Dr Schneider’s writings and educate yourself to the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Hey Darth, maybe joobz will tell you what the weather has to be in order to evolve a wookie.

[Belz...]

No that quote was me talking about my own simulation.

Really ? I could've sworn. Why, Kleinman misrepresents everything so thoroughly and so repeatedly he even managed to confuse me!!

[Shalamar]

Shalamar, you may be a layman but do you also have to be an ignoramus?

Technically, mathematically, empirically, multiple strong selection pressures do profoundly slow evolution. The way you speed up the evolutionary process is to use sequential single selection pressures targeted at single gene and have the intensity of the pressure reduced initially so as not to cause extinction of the population but to select out the less fit. Then slowly increase the intensity of the selection pressure and hope that the population can find a trajectory on the fitness landscape that would take it to a new local optimum. Then when the population reaches that new local optimum, introduce the next single selection pressure and repeat the process. That’s how to produce MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, resistant strains of HIV… That’s because evolutionists have done such an incompetent description of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The theory of evolution is an idiotic theory with an idiots description of the fundamental process of your theory.

Wow, life is variable and it took billions of years to evolve. What idiotic mush you evolutionists like to call science.

Shalamar, not only are you completely ignorant of the mathematics of mutation and selection, you are a whining crybaby. Read Dr Schneider’s writings and educate yourself to the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Hey Darth, maybe joobz will tell you what the weather has to be in order to evolve a wookie.

Ok. That does it.

Now you're calling me NAMES? WHERE have I insulted you? Fine. You are a lying and ignorant piece of a human being. And yes. If I have to, I WILL back this up based on multiple posts, of yours on this board. I've tried to be nice, but I've never called you names.

You LIE. Repeatedly. NO-ONE here has EVER claimed that dogs will evolve to Wookies. THAT WAS YOU. Wookies are FICTIONAL. I suggest you pick up on some reading comprehension, and actually learn some science.

I WANT AN APOLOGY. NOW.

[Belz...]

Check out this citation beggeter of beggaminases

That's quite funny, coming from the guy who's been unable to tell me what "beggaminases" means for the last four months.

I particularly liked your “can’t brain” avatar joobz, you described yourself so accurately with that one.

Yes, Kleinman, we know that the only thing that keeps you going is your delusion that using other people's avatars, perceived errors or names against them continuously is a sign of wit.

[Belz...]

Technically, mathematically, empirically, multiple strong selection pressures do profoundly slow evolution.

Not according to the citations you keep posting, anyway...

That’s because evolutionists have done such an incompetent description of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Funny. How can YOU describe it better, since you don't understand the fundamentals of evolution ?

Feel free to ignore this question, as usual.

The theory of evolution is an idiotic theory with an idiots description of the fundamental process of your theory.

Yes, indeed. It's got an idiot's description, alright.

Wow, life is variable and it took billions of years to evolve.

See ? You're doing it again! It didn't "take" billions of years to evolve. You STILL think that evolution has a goal. It doesn't. It just keeps going. It doesn't "take" anything.

Shalamar, not only are you completely ignorant of the mathematics of mutation and selection, you are a whining crybaby.

Pointing out that you are a liar is whining ? You've even got your English definitions wrong, now.

He's also been lying a lot recently, putting words into peoples mouths.

"Recently" ?

[Belz...]

I WANT AN APOLOGY. NOW.

Okay, that's whining, however.

[kleinman]

Check out this citation beggeter of beggaminasesThat's quite funny, coming from the guy who's been unable to tell me what "beggaminases" means for the last four months.
Why Belz, beggaminases is the new cornerstone for the theory of evolution now that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process has been mathematically and empirically shattered as the basis for your irrational and illogical theory of evolution.
I particularly liked your “can’t brain” avatar joobz, you described yourself so accurately with that one.Yes, Kleinman, we know that the only thing that keeps you going is your delusion that using other people's avatars, perceived errors or names against them continuously is a sign of wit.
Belz, your errors are not perceived, they are on a beggaminasian scale.

[Shalamar]

Okay, that's whining, however.

Perhaps. But he's started to attack the people, rather than the argument, and I'm growing really tired of it, and I will call him out on it. I was damned upset at his 'christmas' post.

And now he's spreading vast lies, and is attacking people, personally. I'm going to see if he;ll be the better man (Christian) and apologize for his behavior.

[kleinman]

Okay, that's whining, however.Perhaps. But he's started to attack the people, rather than the argument, and I'm growing really tired of it, and I will call him out on it. I was damned upset at his 'christmas' post.
Shalamar, did I annoy you when you were trying to have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day?
And now he's spreading vast lies, and is attacking people, personally. I'm going to see if he;ll be the better man (Christian) and apologize for his behavior.
Hey Shalamar, you are the one with the Death Star. Are you going to blow up a whole planet? I really like it when you evolutionists quote the Bible. Then you prove you know as much about the Bible as you do about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Hey Shalamar, what’s your favorite verse in the Bible?

[Shalamar]

Shalamar, did I annoy you when you were trying to have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day?

Hey Shalamar, you are the one with the Death Star. Are you going to blow up a whole planet? I really like it when you evolutionists quote the Bible. Then you prove you know as much about the Bible as you do about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Hey Shalamar, what’s your favorite verse in the Bible?

Vader never had the Death Star. He was just on board at the time.

How about 'I find your Lack of Faith disturbing'.

Have that Math? Have an apology for your insults towards me yet?

[articulett]

Perhaps. But he's started to attack the people, rather than the argument, and I'm growing really tired of it, and I will call him out on it. I was damned upset at his 'christmas' post.

And now he's spreading vast lies, and is attacking people, personally. I'm going to see if he;ll be the better man (Christian) and apologize for his behavior.

This is not really new behavior for Kleinman. And I think you may be expecting miracles if you expect an apology.

[Shalamar]

This is not really new behavior for Kleinman. And I think you may be expecting miracles if you expect an apology.

Yes. And I let him get to me. which is what he wants.

I however, will apologize to everyone here for my crass outburst. I shouldn't let it get to me, really.

I am sorry.

[kleinman]

Shalamar, did I annoy you when you were trying to have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day?

Hey Shalamar, you are the one with the Death Star. Are you going to blow up a whole planet? I really like it when you evolutionists quote the Bible. Then you prove you know as much about the Bible as you do about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Hey Shalamar, what’s your favorite verse in the Bible?Vader never had the Death Star. He was just on board at the time.
Then you should know all about Wookies. Tell joobz what the weather had to be in order to evolve a Wookie.
How about 'I find your Lack of Faith disturbing'.
Really? Tell us more.
Have that Math? Have an apology for your insults towards me yet?
All you evolutionists think it’s an insult when you post the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Hey, stop being a lazy evolutionist, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his computer model and learn a little about the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Perhaps. But he's started to attack the people, rather than the argument, and I'm growing really tired of it, and I will call him out on it. I was damned upset at his 'christmas' post.

And now he's spreading vast lies, and is attacking people, personally. I'm going to see if he;ll be the better man (Christian) and apologize for his behavior.This is not really new behavior for Kleinman. And I think you may be expecting miracles if you expect an apology.
If you really think miracles can happen, then you can believe in the theory of evolution because the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process didn’t do it.

[Shalamar]

Then you should know all about Wookies. Tell
joobz what the weather had to be in order to evolve a Wookie.

*sigh* YOU brought up Wookies.

And here is a hint.

Wookies are fictional.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
fic·tion /ˈfɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L fictiōn- (s. of fictiō) a shaping, hence a feigning, fiction, equiv. to fict(us) molded (ptp. of fingere) + -iōn- -ion]

—Related forms
fic·tion·al, adjective
fic·tion·al·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 3. fable, fantasy. Fiction, fabrication, figment suggest a story that is without basis in reality. Fiction suggests a story invented and fashioned either to entertain or to deceive: clever fiction; pure fiction. Fabrication applies particularly to a false but carefully invented statement or series of statements, in which some truth is sometimes interwoven, the whole usually intended to deceive: fabrications to lure speculators. Figment applies to a tale, idea, or statement often made up to explain, justify, or glorify oneself: His rich uncle was a figment of his imagination.

All you evolutionists think it’s an insult when you post the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Hey, stop being a lazy evolutionist, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his computer model and learn a little about the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you really think miracles can happen, then you can believe in the theory of evolution because the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process didn’t do it.

I want to see your math. and an apology.

[kleinman]

The theory of evolution is fictional.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
fic·tion /ˈfɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L fictiōn- (s. of fictiō) a shaping, hence a feigning, fiction, equiv. to fict(us) molded (ptp. of fingere) + -iōn- -ion]

—Related forms
fic·tion·al, adjective
fic·tion·al·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 3. fable, fantasy. Fiction, fabrication, figment suggest a story that is without basis in reality. Fiction suggests a story invented and fashioned either to entertain or to deceive: clever fiction; pure fiction. Fabrication applies particularly to a false but carefully invented statement or series of statements, in which some truth is sometimes interwoven, the whole usually intended to deceive: fabrications to lure speculators. Figment applies to a tale, idea, or statement often made up to explain, justify, or glorify oneself: His rich uncle was a figment of his imagination.

The theory of evolution is a mathematically and empirical irrational and illogical fiction. This is what the theory of evolution has in common with Wookies. Here are some more examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf (http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf)
Treatment of Newly Diagnosed MM
The use of oral melphalan and prednisone (MP) produces objective responses in 50–60% of patients with newly diagnosed MM. MP has been compared to several different combination chemotherapy approaches;2 large meta-analysis of trials enrolling
over 10,000 patients have demonstrated that MP showed efficacy and survival equivalent to combination chemotherapy in newly diagnosed, non-transplant MM patients.6,7 Excitingly, Thal has been used in combination with MP (MPT) and compared with MP alone in newly diagnosed MM patients over the age of 65 years with impressive results favouring the MPT combination.8
and
Similarly, bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has been used in the upfront setting either alone or in combination with Dex.15,16 In a study by Jagannath
et al.16 bortezomib, as a single agent or in combination with Dex, was examined as first-line treatment in 32 consecutive patients with untreated symptomatic MM. An overall response rate of 88% was noted. Dex was added in 22 patients, leading to 15 improved responses with the combination. Bortezomib has also been combined with Thal/Dex and early results demonstrate very high response rates with this combination. Combinations with doxorubicin and Dex have also demonstrated response rate of 95% and patients
were successfully mobilised and have been transplanted following this combination.17
and
Drugs like Thal, lenalidomide and bortezomib have provided alternatives to traditional cytotoxic agents and provided options which can be used both
sequentially and in combination. Through their direct anti-tumour, anti-angiogenic and
immunomodulatory potential, they act directly on biological processes associated with the development of drug resistance and disease progression.The favourable toxicity profile of novel agents allows for use in maintenance strategies. Combinations not only with Dex, but also with conventional chemotherapy, appear to improve patient outcome. Furthermore, combination with other novel agents, even in patients resistant to component agents alone, improve responses and show great promise. Newer agents like histone deacetylase inhibitors, heat shock protein inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, cyclin D inhibitors, pAKT inhibitors, oral proteasome inhibitors, among others, are now undergoing preclinical and clinical evaluation.The challenge now is to identify the most efficacious combinations with the least toxicity so that our patients can enjoy prolonged remissions and excellent quality of life. These are therefore exciting times in MM research and patient care, and the hope is that these novel options will soon translate into a cure for MM.
and
Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (MAb) targeted against the CD20 antigen expressed on normal and malignant B-cells, has been studied alone and in combination in CLL. As a single agent at conventional doses in previously treated patients, rituximab has had only a modest 15–25% partial remission (PR) rate.23 Dose intensive regimens designed to overcome the circulating CD20 antigen ‘sink’ have shown increased OR rates.24 The most impressive results with this antibody are seen when it is used in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in the FCR regimen. In a single arm study evaluating frontline treatment in 224 patients with advanced or progressive CLL, FCR achieved a 70% CR rate, 10% nodular PR (NPR) rate
and 15% PR rate, for an OR rate of 95%.Two-thirds of all responders also had eradication of MRD.25 A retrospective look at three successive groups of patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens showed a statistically significant improvement in median survival with FCR (>42 months).26 These encouraging results have helped establish FCR as a strong front-line option in the current treatment of CLL.
and
The GCIG trial was too designed to determine whether platinum-based combination should be used at first relapse in patient previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.27 This randomized trial compared the combination of carboplatin and gemcitabine versus single-agent carboplatin in 356 patients with a treatment-free interval of more than six months. The combination regimen produced a
significantly longer progression-free survival compared to the single-agent carboplatin control arm (8.6 months versus 5.8 months) with an HR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.50–0.90 months) (p=0.003). The trial was not powered for overall survival. Alopecia and neurotoxicity rates were low in both arms, but haematologic toxicities were significantly more common with combination therapy.

Based on the results of these randomized trials, there is enough evidence to conclude that platinum-based combination chemotherapy is superior to single agent carboplatin in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. However, there is still a need for carboplatin-based combinations, which may offer the best outcome, while minimizing toxicity and preserving quality–of–life.
and
Combination chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Recently, several new cytotoxic agents have demonstrated activity in a phase III setting in the disease and include the taxanes, irinotecan, oxaliplatin and capecitabine, thereby increasing the potential treatment options for the disease. The use of oral cytotoxic agents may have potential advantages from a patient convenience and preference perspective with the avoidance of central venous access lines and the associated potential line-related complications therein.
This is nonfiction unlike the theory of evolution.

[articulett]

Yes. And I let him get to me. which is what he wants.

I however, will apologize to everyone here for my crass outburst. I shouldn't let it get to me, really.

I am sorry.

No worries... --Kleinman has that effect on people. Creationists aren't really educable... their salvation depends on them convincing themselves that "goddidit".

Engage them for entertainment purposes only... and be glad that you aren't what they are. Kleinman wins "god" points in his head if he can keep himself deluded that evolution cannot be true.

[Shalamar]

The theory of evolution is fictional.

Actually, The Theory of Evolution is Hard Science.

You lie again. And again, and again...

There is a great deal of evidence in favor of evolution. More than just Mutation and Selection, which is a small subset of the Science.

Well, we know you discount The ToE. The ToE is a major branch of Biology. You must discount all of biology then.

Hmm.. With no mutation or selection, and with your belief of creationism, then you believe that all creatures within a given species are genetically identical to each other, with no variation to each other! And no species is similar in ANY WAY to any other species. Amazing! Your lack of knowledge knows no bounds, does it?

Still waiting for that apology.

[kjkent1]

Here are some more examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf (http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf)

and

and

and

and

and

This is nonfiction unlike the theory of evolution.Note for anyone joining the discussion late. All of Dr. Kleinman's referenced citations demonstrate that by killing a large number of viral/bacterial/cancerous/parasitic material, this reduces the opportunity for mutation to occur in the remaining population. The effect is to temporarily slow the effect of evolutionary change. However, as soon as a mutation finally appears which provides resistance against the therapy, the target population obtains that resistance and the result is an immediatel leap to the same evolutionary point that would have been arrived at, had the various therapies been sequentially applied.

Were this not the case, every single disease known would be instantly cured by doing no more than to apply multiple therapies simultaneously.

Moreove, Dr. Kleinman's attempt to equate the behavior of these multi-therapy experiments to the behavior of natural evolutionary events is specious. In nature, the sort of heavy selective pressure that Kleinman contends is routine, is actually quite rare. This is obvious, because were it not the case, then just like with the disease pathogens, every life form would be "cured," -- i.e., rendered extinct.

Yet, the planet teams with life and disease, and every time we stop one, another arrives to replace it. Thus, Dr. Kleinman's conclusions, drawn from his posted experiments are crap.

Anyone who doubts this need only provide Dr. Kleinman with a peer-reviewed study that contradicts his position, and then watch while he dismisses the study as absurd.

There is only one truth for Alan Kleinman, M.D. -- the Kleinman truth. Which is, of course, a delusional fantasy of epic proportions.

[kleinman]

Yes. And I let him get to me. which is what he wants.

I however, will apologize to everyone here for my crass outburst. I shouldn't let it get to me, really.

I am sorry.No worries... --Kleinman has that effect on people. Creationists aren't really educable... their salvation depends on them convincing themselves that "goddidit".

Engage them for entertainment purposes only... and be glad that you aren't, what they are. Kleinman wins "god" points in his head if he can keep himself deluded that evolution cannot be true.
Articulett, if you hadn’t graduated from Mathishard University perhaps you would have some idea how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So, let’s hear your mantra. Perhaps you want to join joobz and claim that the weatherdidit. It is nice to see that poor Shalamar has brought out the mothering instincts in you.

[joobz]

Articulett, if you hadn’t graduated from Mathishard University perhaps you would have some idea how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So, let’s hear your mantra. Perhaps you want to join joobz and claim that the weatherdidit. It is nice to see that poor Shalamar has brought out the mothering instincts in you.
It's not my claim that the weather did it. I am simply using your own theory of multiple constant selection pressures. As you so clearly have shown, when you have these multiple strong constant pressures, the rate of evolutionary emergence of adaption is greatly reduced. The moment you have variable pressures, the rate of emergence accelerates tremendously. This has been shown in the countless examples which you have presented. I thank you for all that information.

Now weather is merely one example of the variable environment that is nature. I see no reason to present the countless other examples of natural variation.

Your only hope to wish evolution away is to prove weather doesn't exist. Why do you start working on that math?

[joobz]

I particularly liked your “can’t brain” avatar joobz, you described yourself so accurately with that one.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif (http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif)

Your right, I definitely "can't brain" statements like
Probability can be greater than 1
Natural selection is a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics
Evolution is mathematically impossible
"microevolution" is possible, but not macroevolution
animals can only evolve within their "kind"
slow=stop
wookies are real
a fish turns into a bird

But then, I can't brain timecube either.

[Kotatsu]

Hey Not_so_new, I suggest getting an avatar. When Kleinman is feeling frisky, he'll start to make bizarre comments about them. Thier not as funny as him explaining science, but it's still funny.

That's not necessarily true. For all the time I've been in this thread, the closest to a nickname I've got has been being accused of supporting eugenics, some strange renaming of my university, and being called a woman. I've even begged him to give me a nickname, but he's never done so.

I may be on Radrook's ignore list, but I'll never really be one of you until I have been properly insulted by Kleinman. Not that he cares, the ungrateful little man.

ETA: Look, even Shalamar has an avatar-based nickname, now, and he/she's not been in the thread long at all!!!!! It's so unfair (1)!!!!!

---
(1) At least I can attempt to get a "crybaby"....

[ZERO#2]

This is a very long thread and I have only read the last two pages so forgive me if these comments have been mentioned before.

Kleinman,
In the unlikely event you disprove the ToE, that has no bearing on the validity of creation.
Evolution may have holes but they are nothing compared to the yawning chasms in creation.
Show your proofs of creation.

Regarding nicknames, some may be amused to know Kleinman means "small man" in the Dutch language.

[Belz...]

That's quite funny, coming from the guy who's been unable to tell me what "beggaminases" means for the last four months.


Why Belz, beggaminases is the new cornerstone for the theory of evolution now that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process has been mathematically and empirically shattered as the basis for your irrational and illogical theory of evolution.

Belz, your errors are not perceived, they are on a beggaminasian scale.

You still don't get it, do you ?

Shalamar, did I annoy you when you were trying to have a Happy Survival of the Fittest Day?

Survival of the fittest ? What's that ?

Then you should know all about Wookies. Tell joobz what the weather had to be in order to evolve a Wookie.

Kleinman, do you realise that you are being incredubliy childish, here ? If you don't have anything more to say, why don't you just go away ?

Are you an attention seeker ? Or is it because you want the last word ?

All you evolutionists think it’s an insult when you post the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

I was aware that "Shalamar, you may be a layman but do you also have to be an ignoramus?" was evidence.

The theory of evolution is a mathematically and empirical irrational and illogical fiction.

And that's exactly why every biologist on the planet agrees with it. Oh, wait...

[Belz...]

Articulett, if you hadn’t graduated from Mathishard University

Math ? Where ?

[kleinman]

Here are some more examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf (http://www.btgplc.com/PubContent/Docs/Publications/TB.BTG%20Oncology%202006.pdf)

and

and

and

and

and

This is nonfiction unlike the theory of evolution.Note for anyone joining the discussion late. All of Dr. Kleinman's referenced citations demonstrate that by killing a large number of viral/bacterial/cancerous/parasitic material, this reduces the opportunity for mutation to occur in the remaining population. The effect is to temporarily slow the effect of evolutionary change. However, as soon as a mutation finally appears which provides resistance against the therapy, the target population obtains that resistance and the result is an immediatel leap to the same evolutionary point that would have been arrived at, had the various therapies been sequentially applied.
Note for anyone joining the discussion late. Kjkent1 is a greedy lawyer who mistook the wailing and whining of evolutionists on this thread as the siren on an ambulance and saw this as an opportunity to make a quick buck.
I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.
What legal beagle does understand is that selection pressures do exactly as he describes above. Selection pressures impair populations from reproducing either by killing members of the population or preventing members from passing on their genetic information to the next generation. This is the fundamental basis for the mutation and selection process and is the core of the theory of evolution. What legal beagle does not understand is that if populations are forced to attain multiple mutations simultaneously is that they can not make that “immediate leap to the same evolutionary point that would have been arrived at, had the various therapies been sequentially applied”. It is mathematically and empirically much, much more difficult for populations to evolve to simultaneous selection pressures. See the citation below from an interview with David Ho, the originator of combination therapy for HIV.
Articulett, if you hadn’t graduated from Mathishard University perhaps you would have some idea how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So, let’s hear your mantra. Perhaps you want to join joobz and claim that the weatherdidit. It is nice to see that poor Shalamar has brought out the mothering instincts in you.It's not my claim that the weather did it. I am simply using your own theory of multiple constant selection pressures. As you so clearly have shown, when you have these multiple strong constant pressures, the rate of evolutionary emergence of adaption is greatly reduced. The moment you have variable pressures, the rate of emergence accelerates tremendously. This has been shown in the countless examples which you have presented. I thank you for all that information.
Oh really, you don’t claim that the weatherdidit. They what about your citation:
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.

If you had any understanding of your own citation, you would realize that the above model is the mathematical recipe for MRSA, multi-drug resistant Malaria, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, multi-drug resistant HIV… Instead, you are caught in an evolutionist fog bank.
Kleinman,
In the unlikely event you disprove the ToE, that has no bearing on the validity of creation.
Evolution may have holes but they are nothing compared to the yawning chasms in creation.
Show your proofs of creation.
I’ve used a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection to show that the theory of evolution is mathematical impossible and have posted hundreds of citations which substantiates this mathematical finding.

There are plenty of people out there who argue the validity of creation. No need for me to do this here. I’m simply showing you evolutionists how mathematically irrational and illogical your theory is.

The theory of evolution is one giant hole that evolutionists attempt to fill with irrational and illogical speculations.
Regarding nicknames, some may be amused to know Kleinman means "small man" in the Dutch language.
It also means “humble man”.
Articulett, if you hadn’t graduated from Mathishard UniversityMath ? Where ?
You are correct for a change Belz, articulett has not presented any mathematical basis for her argument while I am using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection as the basis for my argument. You have to forgive articulett though, she is busy mothering Shalamar because he got annoyed on Happy Survival of the Fittest Day.

So how do we finish the first post of the day? Why not give some more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I particularly like the second citation below, the interview with David Ho (the originator of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV), because he rightly describes what happens when you have combination selection pressures on the evolutionary process.
http://www.future-drugs.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737140.6.7.1065 (http://www.future-drugs.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737140.6.7.1065)
With the growing knowledge of key cellular pathways in tumor induction and evolution, targeted therapies make up an increasing proportion of new drugs entering clinical testing. In the treatment of breast cancer, humanized antibodies have become a major option. The humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin®; Genentech, Inc., CA, USA) for HER2-overexpressing, metastatic breast cancer, represents a successful agent associated with impressive survival benefits when combined with chemotherapy. Based on impressive results, trastuzumab will become a standard in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. The role of trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting is promising, but must be further evaluated in large prospective, randomized trials. However, there is still a large proportion of patients overexpressing HER2 that do not respond to trastuzumab. Regarding this patient cohort, the optimal combination of trastuzumab with other agents needs further evaluation. In breast cancer lacking HER2 amplification, the role of the new antibody pertuzumab remains to be defined. The role of antibodies interfering with angiogenesis, tumor stroma or glycoproteins is of a preliminary nature and warrants further investigation. Here, an overview of humanized antibodies in human breast cancer is provided, with emphasis on the recent advances and future prospects in treating malignant breast cancer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/ho.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/ho.html)
In 1994, Dr. David Ho discovered that what was then thought of as a latency phase -- when a person was infected with HIV but not experiencing any symptoms -- was in fact a period of continuous onslaught, in which the virus and the immune system are engaged in a pitched battle. Once he was able to measure the amount of virus in the blood, he learned that in fact billions of HIV particles were being produced every day. This breakthrough allowed Ho and his collaborators to come up with the idea for combination therapy -- treating a person with several drugs at once to suppress the virus down to undetectable levels. Patients near death rebounded dramatically after beginning what was called "triple cocktail" therapy, and Ho was named Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1996 for his work. In this wide-ranging interview, Ho recounts his breakthrough discoveries and his battles against the virus over the years. He also talks about the implications of combination therapy on the future of the epidemic and the importance of prevention efforts. "We have to bear in mind that during the years where this concerted treatment effort took place, approximately 2 million were treated. But during those years, another 15 million or so got newly infected." Currently Ho is executive director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, where he is working on potential vaccine approaches, which he also discusses here. This transcript is drawn from four interviews conducted in New York and China in April and June 2005, and March 2006.
and
The consequence of that obviously is central to thinking about how HIV destroys the immune system, but also it has great ramifications for therapy, because HIV is an error-prone virus. As it replicates it makes mistakes. Now, that may not be all bad, because mistakes allow HIV to generate new variants, some of which will allow it to survive in the presence of drugs, survive in the presence of immune attack, so that's actually an advantage to HIV. When we know how much virus replication is going on and we know the error rate with which the virus makes mistakes, then we could begin to calculate what HIV would do if we applied drug pressure, and from those type of calculations came to the conclusion that it's inevitable for HIV to develop drug resistance if you give it one drug at a time. However, if you start to combine the drugs and try to force the virus into a corner using multiple drugs, it is exceedingly difficult or statistically improbable for HIV to become resistant to all the drugs simultaneously. That for us formed the foundation of thinking about combination therapy.
The question remains, will you evolutionists finally understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works or will you be a bunch of Wookie Weathermen?

Do not hotlink images and do not use personal attacks to argue your point. If you cannot do so, you will face further sanctions.

[Shalamar]

YOU keep saying 'you' have proved that evolution is mathmatically impossible.

Yet, you show no math. Ev er.

And you STILL lie.

There is no 'Happy survival of the fittest day'. Thats a lie. And you continue to personally attack people, because they trust the science, while you believe that all science is wrong, and evil.

I'm still waiting for an apology for that personal attack on my person. Of course, since you aren't a christian, you won't. You don't believe in such nonsense.

[Belz...]

You are correct for a change Belz, articulett has not presented any mathematical basis for her argument while I am using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection as the basis for my argument.

YOU have no math, Klein. YOU. You can't possibly have missed that Shalamar's been asking you for this.

[Shalamar]

YOU have no math, Klein. YOU. You can't possibly have missed that Shalamar's been asking you for this.

He can't provide what he doesn't have. Its his clouded, and limited belief system that forces him to discount science. He uses other peoples work, fails to understand it, and proclaims that he has disproved evolution. When all he's doing is making people go 'Yeah? And? Thats within Evolutionary theory'.

he has a model, that models a limited view of mutation and selection for study purposes. It isn't teh end all and be all of evolution. His using the model to 'disprove' ToE, is like if someone but together a scale model of a car, is flabbergasted when it doesn't actually work, or run, and declares that he's found proof that all cars are fake!

[kleinman]

YOU keep saying 'you' have proved that evolution is mathmatically impossible.

Yet, you show no math. Ev er.
Shalamar, if you ever bother to click on those links I have provided, you will eventually learn something about the mathematics of evolution. However, as long as you evade these sites and refuse to evaluate Dr Schneider’s mathematics, you will have to live with an evacuated mind. Once you do evaluate Dr Schneider’s mathematics, you will watch the theory of evolution evaporate before your very eyes. You can evade this mathematics but eventually you will only be able to evoke a memory of your evanescent theory. Now many evolutionists are evacuating from Dr Schneider’s work but that is because of they do not give even handed evaluation of his work. Unfortunately for you evolutionists, Dr Schneider’s ev mathematical model and the empirical evidence eviscerates the theory of evolution.
There is no 'Happy survival of the fittest day'. Thats a lie. And you continue to personally attack people, because they trust the science, while you believe that all science is wrong, and evil.
Oh, I don’t think all science is wrong (in fact I have spent almost 40 years training and working as a scientist and I have numerous degrees and licenses to prove it), however I do think the theory of evolution is evil.
he has a model, that models a limited view of mutation and selection for study purposes. It isn't teh end all and be all of evolution. His using the model to 'disprove' ToE, is like if someone but together a scale model of a car, is flabbergasted when it doesn't actually work, or run, and declares that he's found proof that all cars are fake!
Wait a minute Shalamar; I thought you said I don’t have any mathematics. Now you are saying that I have a limited model. It’s actually Dr Schneider’s model and let’s hear what he has to say about his model.
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html)
The following are Dr Schneider’s responses to a critique of his paper Evolution of biological information by Dr Stephen E Jones.
"Schneider's paper is misleadingly titled: "Evolution of biological information". But it is just a *computer* simulation. No actual *biological* materials (e.g. genomes of nucleic acids, proteins, etc) were used, nor does Schneider propose that his simulation be tested with *real* genomes or proteins Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986
It only becomes *real* biological information and random mutation and natural selection, when the simulation is tested in the *real* world, using *real* DNA, proteins, with *real* mutations and a *real* environment does the selecting. It is significant that Schneider does not propose this, presumably because he knows it wouldn't work.You are very bad at reading my mind, I have considered doing this experiment. Given the right conditions, it WILL WORK. Do you have th gumption to do the experiment yourself? That's the way real science works! FURTHERMORE, if you read the literature, you will recognize that related experiments have been repeatedly done for 20 years. Look up SELEX.
In the rest of the paper he uses the single word "selection". I take this as a tacit admission that his model is not a simulation of *real* biological natural selection. No. A rose is a rose by any other name. Selection is selection whether it be natural (generally meaning the environment of earth), breeding (by humans usually, though perhaps some ants select their fungi), SELEX or in a computer simulation. Of COURSE it is a simulation of natural selection! The paper would not be relevant to biology and would not have been published in a major scientific journal if it were not!
Schneider lets slip that there is another unrealistic element in his (and indeed all) computer simulations in that it (they) "does not correlate with time": So? Run the program slower if you want. Make one generation per 20 minutes to match rapid bacterial growth. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FINIAL RESULT!
Well, when Schneider's simulation is actually tested with *real* "life" (e.g. a bacterium), and under *real* mutation and natural selection it gains information, then, and only then, would "creationists" be favourably impressed. But if they are like me, they would already be impressed (but unfavourably) that Schneider does not mention in his paper that his simulation should now be so tested in the *real* "biological" world. 1. The simulation was of phenomena in the "real" world.
2. Dr. Jones is invited yet again to do an experiment.
The following is a response Dr Schneider made to a statement made by David Berlinski.
Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful. The ev program disproves this statement since it uses classical Darwinian principles and was successful.
Shalamar, Dr Schneider’s computer simulation does simulate the real world, that is why I can find hundreds of real examples of what Dr Schneider’s simulation shows, which is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

[Shalamar]

But you still have no math, you admit that evolution is evil, and you claim to be a scientist.

You have no evidence, you have a model which shows that constant strong selection pressures slow down evolution. Others have shown that variable selection pressures speed up evolution. You ignore those.

If you were an actual scientist (of which I seriously doubt) you would understand that science is amoral. It is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. Evolution shows how life changed over time to be how we see it today.

You claim to have proof that evolution is mathmatically impossible. Yet you show no work that you've done yourself. Please, show me YOUR math, and admit you have been lying.

And where is that apology for that personal attack on my person? I hold that you, yourself, are evil, since you show no compassion, nor caring towards you fellow being. You aren't interested in debate, you are only interested in attacking.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by Dr Schneider
The ev program disproves this statement since it uses classical Darwinian principles and was successful.

OK, in summary, the chap who made the model and did all the maths is comfortable that it proves Darwinian principles.

So why are there 189 pages that continually refer to and link to Dr Schneider's work and no one else's? Is is just plain common sense that continual links to a body of work that the author believes is in line with Darwinian principles (although proving these principles does not seem to be the primary aim of his work) is only going to confirm the view that he is right and an alternative stance is wrong. Nothing contrary has been presented other than a mantra that if you make conditions difficult then the going gets tough. A point no one disputes.

Strangely I recall a very similar approach on another board with a dug in poster using almost identical posting techniques to Dr Kleinman. That chap had a bee in his bonnet about speed cameras but he did the same thing, long posts in threads that became bogged down in page after page of repetition, multiple quotes, nicknames for the "usual suspects" and a superbly rude attitude to the intelligence of all who dared disagreed with him. You have never been based in Nottingham, England have you Dr K?

For those who frequent UK boards never say BJMann three times - there will only be tears.

[Shalamar]

I also doubt the claim that the ev simulates the real world. That, however, I will leave up to the experts who understand it better than I. MY understanding is that no computer or program can completely simulate the real world, which is what is needed to fully, and completely model evolution. Far far too many variables.

You can model certain aspects, but, of course, I may be wrong.

[Mr. Scott]

the theory of evolution is evil.

I'm sure he believes he is arguing here with the devil. Literally. Perhaps we can lobby to get this thread moved to the religion and philosophy section.

We've seen that if any evidence surfaces that conflicts with his interpretation of the christian bible, he dismisses it as "misinterpreted" and will not discuss it any further. That's not science. That's as far from science as you can get. We'd be still in the dark ages if science was conducted that way. That also was the strategy the creationist losers used in Dover. It's a fatally flawed legal strategy.

Judging from his recent comments in this thread, he also apparently hates lawyers, which is understandable because he is currently defending himself in a malpractice suit.

Here, he is also a certified troll, who's only interest is to leave a record of his fight with the devil on Google. We should treat him as a troll and use the best established strategies for dealing with trolls. Most important is to not allow him to take control of the conversation and to ignore his insults and provocations.

He is not interested in a scientific discussion of evolution.

He only wants to score points for his god. The subtext of this thread is 100% religion and 0% science.

The probability Kleinman will forever be deluded about evolution is, to use his math*, greater than one.

*Yes, he really did once say something could have a probability of >1.

[Mister Earl]

Hrm. New to this specific topic, and after reading a considerable number of the posts, here, I just gotta say that kleinman is one of the most arrogant, snide people I've ever read the postings of. "You don't share my beliefs, which I don't dare question, so it's OK if I demonize and slander you." Hold him to his words, Shalamar. And kleinman? Give the man his apology. You let your emotions get the better of you, and you personally attacked someone who spent time he could've spent better elsewhere just to show you his point of view.

If you *are* a scientist, then your attitude and conduct are completely unbecoming of one. If Shalamar is wrong, then post the math you both say you have.

[kleinman]

But you still have no math, you admit that evolution is evil, and you claim to be a scientist.
No, yes, yes
You have no evidence, you have a model which shows that constant strong selection pressures slow down evolution. Others have shown that variable selection pressures speed up evolution. You ignore those.
I certainly don’t ignore how variable selection pressures accelerate evolution in fact on numerous occasions I have shown using both mathematically and empirically how this is done.

I have shown this mathematically with joobz’s own citation http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/34/13711 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/34/13711) Varying environments can speed up evolution and empirically with numerous examples. Shalamar, you can only sort mutations quickly when you have a single selection pressure targeting a single gene. Once you introduce multiple selection pressures targeting multiple genes the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process breaks down. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life. This leaves evolutionists like the Wookie Weatherman claiming that variations in weather somehow target only a single gene at a time with variable timing to explain how reptiles evolved into birds. This is an irrational and illogical concept.
If you were an actual scientist (of which I seriously doubt) you would understand that science is amoral. It is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. Evolution shows how life changed over time to be how we see it today.
It is the irrational and illogical interpretation of the data that evolutionists do that injects morality into this debate. Millions of people die from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection and evolutionists ignore or refuse to acknowledge how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. They do this because their irrational and illogical theory is more important to them than the lives of these people. Oh, I assure you that I am a scientist, among my numerous degrees are a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I am also a physician. I have state licenses in both professions, I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses in Mechanical Engineering and I am a practicing physician at this time. I have written and worked on complex computer simulations including simulations of biological systems.

The failure of evolutionists to properly elucidate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

And stop being a whining crybaby. It is naïve laypeople like you who contribute to this evolutionist nonsense that hurts people.
OK, in summary, the chap who made the model and did all the maths is comfortable that it proves Darwinian principles.
Well that chap happens to be the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute in a former British colony and his results were published in the Oxford University Press Journal, Nucleic Acids Research. I happen to agree with Dr Schneider that he did his math correctly. What Dr Schneider failed to do is a thorough analysis of his model. If he had, he would have seen that the dominant parameter in the model is the number of selection conditions. This mathematical behavior is reflected in reality. Combination selection conditions profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. Well that is unless you happen to be a Wookie Weatherman.

[Mr. Scott]

I also doubt the claim that the ev simulates the real world. That, however, I will leave up to the experts who understand it better than I. MY understanding is that no computer or program can completely simulate the real world, which is what is needed to fully, and completely model evolution. Far far too many variables.

You can model certain aspects, but, of course, I may be wrong.

Kleinman has put inputs to Ev that resulted in outputs he believed agreed with his interpretation of the christian bible, so he declared those inputs "realistic" and declared Ev to be an accurate simulation (in stark disagreement BTW with mainline creationists). Any simulation which does not agree with his faith he declares to be innacurate, and it's summarily dismissed. He has no interest in understanding the details of what may be wrong with a simulation with results he doesn't like. He says it's "not his job" to figure out how any part of the mountain of evidence for evolution is "misinterpreted."

Have you ever seen a better example of Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)?

[Shalamar]

Kleinman, I wish to see all your math, that you claim to have, and have yet to post.

If you claim to be a scientist, and physician (Again, I doubt) Show your credentials.

[Shalamar]

No, yes, yes

I certainly don’t ignore how variable selection pressures accelerate evolution in fact on numerous occasions I have shown using both mathematically and empirically how this is done.

I have shown this mathematically with joobz’s own citation

Lies. You have never shown any math.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/34/13711[/URL] Varying environments can speed up evolution and empirically with numerous examples. Shalamar, you can only sort mutations quickly when you have a single selection pressure targeting a single gene. Once you introduce multiple selection pressures targeting multiple genes the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process breaks down. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life. This leaves evolutionists like the Wookie Weatherman claiming that variations in weather somehow target only a single gene at a time with variable timing to explain how reptiles evolved into birds. This is an irrational and illogical concept.


Lies. And you have a failure to understand basic science.



It is the irrational and illogical interpretation of the data that evolutionists do that injects morality into this debate. Millions of people die from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection and evolutionists ignore or refuse to acknowledge how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. They do this because their irrational and illogical theory is more important to them than the lives of these people. Oh, I assure you that I am a scientist, among my numerous degrees are a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I am also a physician. I have state licenses in both professions, I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses in Mechanical Engineering and I am a practicing physician at this time. I have written and worked on complex computer simulations including simulations of biological systems.

Lies. If you have these credentials, post them.


The failure of evolutionists to properly elucidate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has and will continue to cause the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

More lies.



And stop being a whining crybaby. It is naïve laypeople like you who contribute to this evolutionist nonsense that hurts people.

Personal attack upon my person noted.

Though I'm not surprised anymore, since you are unable to actually talk about the science.



Well that chap happens to be the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute in a former British colony and his results were published in the Oxford University Press Journal, Nucleic Acids Research. I happen to agree with Dr Schneider that he did his math correctly. What Dr Schneider failed to do is a thorough analysis of his model. If he had, he would have seen that the dominant parameter in the model is the number of selection conditions. This mathematical behavior is reflected in reality. Combination selection conditions profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. Well that is unless you happen to be a Wookie Weatherman.

Your limited understanding of the model show that CONSTANT STRONG pressures slow evolution. This has never been disputed. Pressures, however, are variable in duration, and strength, and such can accelerate evolution. As has been cited, and ignored by you, multiple times.


Wheres is that apology? I bet you call your 'patients' crybabies too, hmm? Faith healing isn't my cup of tea. I'll visit a real doctor, who understands biology, and doesn't use the bible to practice medicine.

[Mister Earl]

Also, kleinman, I'd like to point out that the paper you've referenced is NOT a good means to measure biological evolution. The paper talks in great detail the methods used for mutating NAND gates, multi-variable-goals, and the like, but there's one point I'd like you to bring to your attention.

The evolution system they're using doesn't factor in survivability, nor population. I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that if a population is both limitless and affected by multiple strong stressors, then the results would match what is in this paper. But unlike this exercise, real world evolution doesn't have access to unlimited populations. Failed genomes die out. No such provision was made for factoring in this possibility in this test.

#EDIT: Sorry if this was already pointed out. 190 pages is a little long to retain.

[Mister Earl]

Just as an aside, for those of you interested in evolution and nerdy enough like me, there's a neat simulator at the following link:

http://www.frams.alife.pl/

Downloaded it last night. Pretty fun. Even as I type this at my workplace, my computer at home is going through thousands of generations. Trying to evolve a tree ;)

[Mr. Scott]

I bet you call your 'patients' crybabies too, hmm?

He does! It's buried somewhere in this thread, but he did call a child he was stitching up a "whining crybaby" (like us evolutionists).

Indeed, there is a study (Jean Decety, University of Chicago) that shows medical doctors have impaired capability of empathy.

[Mister Earl]

Also from the study cited earlier:

The simulations did not include sexual selection (40), developmental programs (41), exploratory behavior (1, 4), evolutionary capacitance (42), or learning (43). For example, organisms seem to have mechanisms for facilitated phenotypic variation (1) that may further speed evolution. The impact of these effects on evolution under varying environments can in principle be studied by extending the present approach. For a detailed description of the algorithm, models, goals, and MVG schedules, see SI Appendix, section 1.

Found that while reading up on the parameters used for this experiment.

[kleinman]

the theory of evolution is evil.I'm sure he believes he is arguing here with the devil. Literally. Perhaps we can lobby to get this thread moved to the religion and philosophy section.
Certainly the evolutionists’ misinterpretation of mutation and selection contributes to the premature death of millions of people of people with diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. I agree that the theory of evolution should be discussed in the religion and philosophy section but the mathematics of mutation and selection belongs right here in the science and mathematics forum.

Hey Mr Scott, when are you going to tell us what lies your atheists parents told you?
Hrm. New to this specific topic, and after reading a considerable number of the posts, here, I just gotta say that kleinman is one of the most arrogant, snide people I've ever read the postings of. "You don't share my beliefs, which I don't dare question, so it's OK if I demonize and slander you." Hold him to his words, Shalamar. And kleinman? Give the man his apology. You let your emotions get the better of you, and you personally attacked someone who spent time he could've spent better elsewhere just to show you his point of view.

If you *are* a scientist, then your attitude and conduct are completely unbecoming of one. If Shalamar is wrong, then post the math you both say you have.
Mister Earl, I take it that this is all you have to contribute to the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process (which is nothing). It is you evolutionists who owe an apology to the millions of people hurt and killed by your asinine misinterpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Kleinman, I wish to see all your math, that you claim to have, and have yet to post.

If you claim to be a scientist, and physician (Again, I doubt) Show your credentials.
Here’s the math.

Shalamar = naïve, lazy layman who is an evolutionist groupie

You want to see my credentials? Use google and you can find them, naïve lazy layman.

I don’t need to see your credentials; I believe you are a naïve lazy layman.

Naïve lazy layman, now that you understand that combined strong selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, what do you think will happen if you have combined weak selection pressures?
Also, kleinman, I'd like to point out that the paper you've referenced is NOT a good means to measure biological evolution. The paper talks in great detail the methods used for mutating NAND gates, multi-variable-goals, and the like, but there's one point I'd like you to bring to your attention.

The evolution system they're using doesn't factor in survivability, nor population. I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that if a population is both limitless and affected by multiple strong stressors, then the results would match what is in this paper. But unlike this exercise, real world evolution doesn't have access to unlimited populations. Failed genomes die out. No such provision was made for factoring in this possibility in this test.
If you don’t like that simulation (which does properly model important principles of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process) then I suggest you look at Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model which does include the affects of population, mutation rates, genome size etc. You can access the model at:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
This model will teach you about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Mister Earl, you are aware that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm and that the more complex the sorting conditions the much, much more difficult it is to do the sort.

[Mister Earl]

Sure, it's great for simulating mutations. I love the method they used. But you can't take that simulation and lump it in with biological mutation. As I previously noted, the author of that paper stated himself, and I'm quoting again for you:

The simulations did not include sexual selection (40), developmental programs (41), exploratory behavior (1, 4), evolutionary capacitance (42), or learning (43). For example, organisms seem to have mechanisms for facilitated phenotypic variation (1) that may further speed evolution. The impact of these effects on evolution under varying environments can in principle be studied by extending the present approach. For a detailed description of the algorithm, models, goals, and MVG schedules, see SI Appendix, section 1.

They also did not simulate a limited population. If you believe I am wrong here, by all means point me out to where I am wrong. If I am, I will take the new information and learn from it. I'll also ignore your previous insult towards me, since I believe that is more directed in anger towards the general users in the thread, and not at me specifically. However, it is in no way constructive to the discussion at hand.

[Mister Earl]

Quick update: The last link you referenced is a different one. I have no idea why, but it was in an alternate color consistant with what Firefox uses to show you've already seen that link. I haven't, and am reading it now.

#EDIT AGAIN: Nice! That paper also furnishes a DNA mutation java application. Bookmarked. Gonna have fun with this one tonight! Still reading the paper, I'll give you my thoughts on it when I am done reading it.

[Mister Earl]

kleinman, I'm skimming over the paper you referenced, and it seems to just detail the history and use of his biological DNA mutation simulator. Is there something specific here you want to me examine?

[kleinman]

The simulations did not include sexual selection (40), developmental programs (41), exploratory behavior (1, 4), evolutionary capacitance (42), or learning (43). For example, organisms seem to have mechanisms for facilitated phenotypic variation (1) that may further speed evolution. The impact of these effects on evolution under varying environments can in principle be studied by extending the present approach. For a detailed description of the algorithm, models, goals, and MVG schedules, see SI Appendix, section 1.Found that while reading up on the parameters used for this experiment.
Mister Earl, you are way behind on the learning curve. If you had read this thread, these same types of arguments have been leveled at ev. However, once you study the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you will learn that the dominant parameter is the number of selection condition. These sorting algorithms (both mathematical and empirical) only are able to sort mutations quickly with single selection conditions targeted at single genes. As soon as you have multiple simultaneous selection pressures targeting different genes, the sorting process is profoundly slowed.

Empirical examples such as HIV which does recombination, insertions and deletions, has very high mutation rates, large populations with rapid reproduction times still is profoundly slowed with combination selection pressures. Malaria which does sexual recombination and has huge populations still can not evolve easily to two drug therapy. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is just that, a sorting algorithm. Sorting algorithms are dominated by the number of sorting conditions imposed. Mutation and selection can not sort for large numbers of sorting conditions simultaneously. This is why combination therapy is used for the treatment of HIV, TB, HBV, HCV, cancer and numerous other conditions subject to mutation and selection. The use of monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB and gonorrhea and numerous other life forms subjected to this type of treatment. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

[ZERO#2]

There are plenty of people out there who argue the validity of creation. No need for me to do this here. I’m simply showing you evolutionists how mathematically irrational and illogical your theory is.



There are plenty of people out there who argue the validity of UFO's and psychic ability. It doesn't make them right.
What are your proofs of creation?

[kleinman]

kleinman, I'm skimming over the paper you referenced, and it seems to just detail the history and use of his biological DNA mutation simulator. Is there something specific here you want to me examine?
I assume you are talking about Dr Schneider’s ev model. As a starting point in a parametric study of ev, I suggest begin by investigating how genome length affect the generations. Increase the genome length by factors of two and see what happens to the number of generations to achieve a “perfect creature”. A “perfect creature” is one which satisfies all three selection conditions in the model.

What I did when I did my parametric study was to set up a spreadsheet to keep track of all the cases and parameters used to generate the data.

[Nogbad]

Dr Kleinman I am confused by your claim that drug companies are failing millions because of some adherence to Darwinian principles in theoretical biology rather than turn a coin. That seems profoundly anti-capitalist of them. Can you be more specific about what procedures and medications are being overlooked?

[Belz...]

however I do think the theory of evolution is evil.

How can an inanimate thing be evil ?

Certainly the evolutionists’ misinterpretation of mutation and selection contributes to the premature death of millions of people of people with diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection.

So evolution ISN'T evil ??

[kleinman]

There are plenty of people out there who argue the validity of creation. No need for me to do this here. I’m simply showing you evolutionists how mathematically irrational and illogical your theory is.There are plenty of people out there who argue the validity of UFO's and psychic ability. It doesn't make them right.
What are your proofs of creation?
The topic of this thread is the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. When you evolutionists acknowledge what this mathematical and empirical evidence shows then I’ll talk about the evidence for creation. Until then, I am not interested in being side-tracked. By the way, there are plenty of people who argue the validity of evolutionism, it doesn’t make them right.

[Mister Earl]

You still point to that study, kleinman, and says that disproves evolution. You say the math there disproves it. Can you point me to what page and what paragraph specifically disproves evolution? I'm not seeing it.

However, once you study the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you will learn that the dominant parameter is the number of selection condition. These sorting algorithms (both mathematical and empirical) only are able to sort mutations quickly with single selection conditions targeted at single genes. As soon as you have multiple simultaneous selection pressures targeting different genes, the sorting process is profoundly slowed.

The paper itself admits that all conditions faced by biological critters in evolution weren't used in the simulation. This isn't important?

Mutation and selection can not sort for large numbers of sorting conditions simultaneously.
Where is this stated in the paper?

This is why combination therapy is used for the treatment of HIV, TB, HBV, HCV, cancer and numerous other conditions subject to mutation and selection. The use of monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB and gonorrhea and numerous other life forms subjected to this type of treatment.
That's evolution for you. Kill off the weak, and the strong breed and raise strong critters.

This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

I don't see a mathematical proof anywhere in that paper stating this. Is this your own interpretation? If not, what page can I find that proof on?

[kleinman]

Dr Kleinman I am confused by your claim that drug companies are failing millions because of some adherence to Darwinian principles in theoretical biology rather than turn a coin. That seems profoundly anti-capitalist of them. Can you be more specific about what procedures and medications are being overlooked?
It is not the drug companies which are failing millions; it is the illogical and irrational evolutionist view of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works which is failing millions. Drug companies and medical researchers confronted with the deadly consequences of diseases subject to the principles on mutation and selection are forced into investigating and using combination therapies to stop the evolutionary process. If evolutionists had properly elucidated how mutation and selection actually works, this would have been done 50 years ago. Instead, evolutionists have successfully stifled the understanding of this process. Evolutionist have interfered with the advancement of science.

[Shalamar]

Shalamar = naïve, lazy layman who is an evolutionist groupie

Ahh.. More personal attacks. I must be really bothering him.

I need that to be my forum title. :P

For the record, there is no math. Apperently, you can only see the math if you're a creationist, and not a vile, evil evolutionist. I've looked, and there's no math that Klienman claims to have.

I'm also not a groupie, alas. I just follow the science, and I've yet to find anything that counters the Theory of Evolution.

For the record, Klienman actually is not interested in his own claims. He's interested in a pre-conceived result. That result is the disproof of evolution, which means he will ignore anything that goes against his hypothesis.

[Nogbad]

It is not the drug companies which are failing millions; it is the illogical and irrational evolutionist view of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works which is failing millions. Drug companies and medical researchers confronted with the deadly consequences of diseases subject to the principles on mutation and selection are forced into investigating and using combination therapies to stop the evolutionary process. If evolutionists had properly elucidated how mutation and selection actually works, this would have been done 50 years ago. Instead, evolutionists have successfully stifled the understanding of this process. Evolutionist have interfered with the advancement of science.

Call me picky but I thought combination therapy was used to good effect on TB more than 50 years ago. I recall no-one objecting because it ran counter to the notion of evolution. Indeed I cannot see why three hammers to the head at the same time rather one would run counter to evolution. The purpose of the medication is to ensure the virus is not fit enough to survive.

[Mr. Scott]

The topic of this thread is the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics.

This is another lie. The topic of this thread (check the title) is "annoying creationists" which means, people who are creationist and are annoying. He did not start the thread, so he has no right to police the topic. Don't let Kleinman take control of the conversation.

[kleinman]

You still point to that study, kleinman, and says that disproves evolution. You say the math there disproves it. Can you point me to what page and what paragraph specifically disproves evolution? I'm not seeing it.
Sure, I’ll help you with this Mister Earl. Let’s start with what Dr Schneider wrote in his publication.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794)
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution. Another use of the program may include understanding the sources and effects of skewed genomic composition (4,7,30,31). However, this could be caused by mutation rates, and/or it could be the result of some kind(s) of evolutionary pressure that we don’t understand, so how one implements the skew may well affect or bias the results.
Not only did Dr Schneider publish how to use ev to study how evolution works, Dr Schneider personally invited me to do this with his model in extensive discussions I had with him several years ago.

I did what Dr Schneider invited me to do; I did a systematic study of his computer model. The way you study a complex computer simulation like this is to do a parametric study. This is done by systematically varying the parameters in the model and tests how it affects the results. The results are posted earlier and throughout this thread. By far, the most dominant parameter in this sorting algorithm is the number of selection conditions.
However, once you study the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you will learn that the dominant parameter is the number of selection condition. These sorting algorithms (both mathematical and empirical) only are able to sort mutations quickly with single selection conditions targeted at single genes. As soon as you have multiple simultaneous selection pressures targeting different genes, the sorting process is profoundly slowed.The paper itself admits that all conditions faced by biological critters in evolution weren't used in the simulation. This isn't important?
It is only of very minor importance. Dr Schneider modeled all the essential variables to get a reasonable simulation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The gaps in the model are filled by empirical evidence. HIV, Malaria and other microbes to recombination and other mechanisms of genome alteration but that does not change the basic fact that combination selection conditions profoundly impair these populations to evolve to these simultaneous selection conditions. These other factors are dominated by the number of selection conditions imposed on the population. This is the empirical fact of life of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can only sort quickly for a single selection condition targeted at a single gene. As soon as you introduce more selection conditions targeted at other genes, the evolutionary process is confounded.
Mutation and selection can not sort for large numbers of sorting conditions simultaneously.Where is this stated in the paper?
It is not in his paper since Dr Schneider presented only a single case from his model with an unrealistically small genome. Dr Schneider knows that his model would take huge numbers of generations to evolve his selection conditions on any realistic length genome. This he has posted on his web site. I have posted this quote earlier, if you want I’ll post it again.
This is why combination therapy is used for the treatment of HIV, TB, HBV, HCV, cancer and numerous other conditions subject to mutation and selection. The use of monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB and gonorrhea and numerous other life forms subjected to this type of treatment.That's evolution for you. Kill off the weak, and the strong breed and raise strong critters.
First of all, there are no therapies which kill viruses (other than immunization), you can only impair the reproduction of the virus. You are correct though otherwise and when you apply mathematical precision to this process, it shows how profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is for all but a single selection condition targeting a single gene. As soon as you complicate the sorting process with additional selection conditions, the process is quickly drawn to a standstill.
This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.I don't see a mathematical proof anywhere in that paper stating this. Is this your own interpretation? If not, what page can I find that proof on?
Oh, it’s there, do the studies that Dr Schneider suggested in his paper and you will see how all these parameters affect the evolutionary process.
It is not the drug companies which are failing millions; it is the illogical and irrational evolutionist view of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works which is failing millions. Drug companies and medical researchers confronted with the deadly consequences of diseases subject to the principles on mutation and selection are forced into investigating and using combination therapies to stop the evolutionary process. If evolutionists had properly elucidated how mutation and selection actually works, this would have been done 50 years ago. Instead, evolutionists have successfully stifled the understanding of this process. Evolutionist have interfered with the advancement of science.Call me picky but I thought combination therapy was used to good effect on TB more than 50 years ago. I recall no-one objecting because it ran counter to the notion of evolution. Indeed I cannot see why three hammers to the head at the same time rather one would run counter to evolution. The purpose of the medication is to ensure the virus is not fit enough to survive.
Of course there was understanding about this process 50 years ago. I posted a Nobel laureate speech which addressed this issue 50 years ago. It should have been clear 50 years ago that targeted monotherapy should never be used on a rapidly reproducing population. Instead it takes 5 years of monotherapy on HIV to relearn the lesson and they make the man who relearns this Time Magazine Man of the Year. How many more times do we have to relearn this lesson? If evolutionists have their way, this will go on forever.

[kjkent1]

What legal beagle does understand is that selection pressures do exactly as he describes above. Selection pressures impair populations from reproducing either by killing members of the population or preventing members from passing on their genetic information to the next generation. This is the fundamental basis for the mutation and selection process and is the core of the theory of evolution. What legal beagle does not understand is that if populations are forced to attain multiple mutations simultaneously is that they can not make that “immediate leap to the same evolutionary point that would have been arrived at, had the various therapies been sequentially applied”. It is mathematically and empirically much, much more difficult for populations to evolve to simultaneous selection pressures. See the citation below from an interview with David Ho, the originator of combination therapy for HIV.What the kleinman does not understand is that in nature, the variability of selective pressures in the environment routinely provides evolutionary opportunities, which are not present in the controlled experiments which kleinman routinely cites.

Were this not true, every disease would be cured and every creature rendered extinct.

Try to imagine a world where every organism is constantly bombarded by multiple high-levels of toxicity. Does this scenario appear anywhere in nature? Even in volcanic heat vents, bacteria have managed to find a niche and survive. Could this occur if the vents were always spewing out hot lava and methane? Doubtful. But, the vents are intermittent, sometimes quiet for decades -- even centuries. They may continue to leak toxic gases, but not always melted stone.

Kleinman's theory is based on a ridiculous premise of that all nature is entirely composed of environments which are absolutely fixed and subject to extreme selective pressures from multiple sources. He cites short-term experiments with heavy and constant multiple selective pressures and makes the ridiculous claim that this somehow mirrors the natural world.

Fortunately, the real world is not so unforgiving. Predictably, in the environments that are more forgiving there is more variety of life. And where the environments are incredibly harsh, there is less. Death Valley has less life than the Amazon Basin. Makes perfect sense.

Now were the REVERSE true, then kleinman might be on to something which would falsify evolution. But, as it is, the only thing that kleinman is falsifying is his diploma credentials.

[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?

[Mister Earl]

Oh, it’s there, do the studies that Dr Schneider suggested in his paper and you will see how all these parameters affect the evolutionary process.

I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids. I skewed the fitness requirement to give higher values for organism height. After I would up with those simulated organisms, I changed the fitness requirements towards mobility and lifespan. I gave them the ability to consume each other, and to generate slightly mutated offspring if a specific organism had eaten enough competitors. It'll be an interesting result when I get home, I fully expect to see fully ambulatory, cannibalistic, digital Ents. Anyway, I am familiar with the parameters set, I've tinkered with these programs myself, but not in any professional capacity. Call it a passing interest.

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

I note he states that the program is capable of a large number of additional parameters, but I'm not seeing where these were used during the study listed on that page. Under methodology he pretty much makes it clear he didn't use a great majority of parameters that would be important to have when simulating biological evolution. You note that you studied the program as well.

I did what Dr Schneider invited me to do; I did a systematic study of his computer model. The way you study a complex computer simulation like this is to do a parametric study. This is done by systematically varying the parameters in the model and tests how it affects the results. The results are posted earlier and throughout this thread. By far, the most dominant parameter in this sorting algorithm is the number of selection conditions.

When you did this study, did you keep your notes? Which parameters were used, and what results did you get? Do you have a data dump handy? Did you keep any records? If I wanted to replicate your tests, could I go off of your notes and get an identical result? Could I get a copy of this program somewhere? (I'll check the site when I get home from work, trying to wrap things up currently.)

It is not in his paper since Dr Schneider presented only a single case from his model with an unrealistically small genome. Dr Schneider knows that his model would take huge numbers of generations to evolve his selection conditions on any realistic length genome. This he has posted on his web site. I have posted this quote earlier, if you want I’ll post it again.

I agree with you here. If you want a more detailed model, you want an accurate representation as possible. You'd want to include every parameter you could, with a large gene pool and population (unless you wanted to test the lack of either as a stressor, of course)

First of all, there are no therapies which kill viruses (other than immunization), you can only impair the reproduction of the virus. You are correct though otherwise and when you apply mathematical precision to this process, it shows how profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is for all but a single selection condition targeting a single gene. As soon as you complicate the sorting process with additional selection conditions, the process is quickly drawn to a standstill.

You don't think that combination therapy could lead to a strain of viruses that are resistant to all of the drugs used? If I could dig up documentation showing this has occured in the past, would you take this as an indication that evolution might possibly exist? I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'll look if you like, for your benefit and mine.

Of course there was understanding about this process 50 years ago. I posted a Nobel laureate speech which addressed this issue 50 years ago. It should have been clear 50 years ago that targeted monotherapy should never be used on a rapidly reproducing population. Instead it takes 5 years of monotherapy on HIV to relearn the lesson and they make the man who relearns this Time Magazine Man of the Year. How many more times do we have to relearn this lesson? If evolutionists have their way, this will go on forever.

Do you have any documentation or references stating, specifically, that the reason "Monotherapy" is used is due to the proscribing doctor believing in evolution? Do you have any documented studies showing a mono/combo therapy and evolution/creation correlation? I don't see how you're linking them together, here.

[Nogbad]

Do you have any documentation or references stating, specifically, that the reason "Monotherapy" is used is due to the proscribing doctor believing in evolution? Do you have any documented studies showing a mono/combo therapy and evolution/creation correlation? I don't see how you're linking them together, here.

I was a bit baffled by that too. I thought the primary consideration was to not over-use various medications because they are not exactly without their downside either. With regards HIV I thought the main problem was finding a medication that actually pinned the little blighter down for more than 5 minutes not some esoteric concern with evolutionary theory.

[kleinman]

What legal beagle does understand is that selection pressures do exactly as he describes above. Selection pressures impair populations from reproducing either by killing members of the population or preventing members from passing on their genetic information to the next generation. This is the fundamental basis for the mutation and selection process and is the core of the theory of evolution. What legal beagle does not understand is that if populations are forced to attain multiple mutations simultaneously is that they can not make that “immediate leap to the same evolutionary point that would have been arrived at, had the various therapies been sequentially applied”. It is mathematically and empirically much, much more difficult for populations to evolve to simultaneous selection pressures. See the citation below from an interview with David Ho, the originator of combination therapy for HIV.What the kleinman does not understand is that in nature, the variability of selective pressures in the environment routinely provides evolutionary opportunities, which are not present in the controlled experiments which kleinman routinely cites.
Now don’t hold back legal beagle, tell us what all these evolutionary opportunities are.
Oh, it’s there, do the studies that Dr Schneider suggested in his paper and you will see how all these parameters affect the evolutionary process.I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids. I skewed the fitness requirement to give higher values for organism height. After I would up with those simulated organisms, I changed the fitness requirements towards mobility and lifespan. I gave them the ability to consume each other, and to generate slightly mutated offspring if a specific organism had eaten enough competitors. It'll be an interesting result when I get home, I fully expect to see fully ambulatory, cannibalistic, digital Ents. Anyway, I am familiar with the parameters set, I've tinkered with these programs myself, but not in any professional capacity. Call it a passing interest.
What you will find is that these sorting algorithms only work quickly with trivial sorting conditions. When you start looking at real populations, they can also only sort on very simple sorting conditions.
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution. Another use of the program may include understanding the sources and effects of skewed genomic composition (4,7,30,31). However, this could be caused by mutation rates, and/or it could be the result of some kind(s) of evolutionary pressure that we don’t understand, so how one implements the skew may well affect or bias the results.I note he states that the program is capable of a large number of additional parameters, but I'm not seeing where these were used during the study listed on that page. Under methodology he pretty much makes it clear he didn't use a great majority of parameters that would be important to have when simulating biological evolution. You note that you studied the program as well.
This is where Dr Schneider blundered in his analysis. He used only a single trivial case to describe his complex model. When you do a thorough analysis of his model it shows something completely different than the conclusions that Dr Schneider drew using his single case from his model.
I did what Dr Schneider invited me to do; I did a systematic study of his computer model. The way you study a complex computer simulation like this is to do a parametric study. This is done by systematically varying the parameters in the model and tests how it affects the results. The results are posted earlier and throughout this thread. By far, the most dominant parameter in this sorting algorithm is the number of selection conditions.When you did this study, did you keep your notes? Which parameters were used, and what results did you get? Do you have a data dump handy? Did you keep any records? If I wanted to replicate your tests, could I go off of your notes and get an identical result? Could I get a copy of this program somewhere? (I'll check the site when I get home from work, trying to wrap things up currently.)
I started this study over 1 ½ years ago when I was discussing this model with Dr Schneider and Paul Anagnostopoulos (a moderator on this forum and co-worker with Dr Schneider). I studied the model for about two months while discussing these issues privately with Dr Schneider and Paul. I decided I wanted to discuss what his model was showing publicly but Dr Schneider decided not to, however Paul was willing to discuss the model of the Evolutionisdead forum. Paul then invited me to discuss the model on this forum and I took up his offer. The online version of ev was written by Paul and you can find it through the following link.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
About a quarter of the way down the page there is a hot region you can click on to start the program that looks like this.
Click Here to Start the Evj Model (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evjava/index.html)

I have kept extensive notes and most of my data has been posted here or on the Evolutionisdead Forum. (Unfortunately the thread has been dropped from the forum but I have copies of most of the information posted.) Early on this discussion I contacted the editors of Nucleic Acid Research and wanted to write a letter to the editor describing what I had found but they said they do not take letters to the editor.
It is not in his paper since Dr Schneider presented only a single case from his model with an unrealistically small genome. Dr Schneider knows that his model would take huge numbers of generations to evolve his selection conditions on any realistic length genome. This he has posted on his web site. I have posted this quote earlier, if you want I’ll post it again.I agree with you here. If you want a more detailed model, you want an accurate representation as possible. You'd want to include every parameter you could, with a large gene pool and population (unless you wanted to test the lack of either as a stressor, of course)
Dr Schneider had almost all the features in his model that are seen in the online version. In fact Dr Schneider has done studies with his model but has not published the results. I believe he hasn’t published the results because he didn’t understand why his model requires huge numbers of generations to evolve when you use anything other than a trivially small genome length. The answer to this is quite simple. His three selection conditions give far to complex a fitness landscape for anything other than a trivially small genome. If you set two of the three selection conditions to zero, you can quickly evolve the remaining selection condition. 4^G is a huge search space for anything other than a restricted sorting condition that only targets a small part of that 4^G search space. As soon as you expand your sorting conditions to multiple parts of the genome, the sorting algorithm is stalled for large genomes.
First of all, there are no therapies which kill viruses (other than immunization), you can only impair the reproduction of the virus. You are correct though otherwise and when you apply mathematical precision to this process, it shows how profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is for all but a single selection condition targeting a single gene. As soon as you complicate the sorting process with additional selection conditions, the process is quickly drawn to a standstill.You don't think that combination therapy could lead to a strain of viruses that are resistant to all of the drugs used? If I could dig up documentation showing this has occured in the past, would you take this as an indication that evolution might possibly exist? I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'll look if you like, for your benefit and mine.
Certainly you can have viruses resistant to all drugs used. The way to do this is to use sequential monotherapy. That is in fact what was done for the first five years of treatment of HIV. That introduced a huge number of resistant strains of viruses into the gene pool. This makes it much more difficult to find effective three drug combinations for treating HIV. We’ve done the same thing treating many bacterial infections with monotherapy. We now have MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB and gonorrhea and so on. The way the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, this approach to treating infections is the ideal way to accelerate the evolutionary process. Use single (drugs) selection pressures, then when the microbes adapt to that drug use the next drug. Combination therapy confounds this process.
Of course there was understanding about this process 50 years ago. I posted a Nobel laureate speech which addressed this issue 50 years ago. It should have been clear 50 years ago that targeted monotherapy should never be used on a rapidly reproducing population. Instead it takes 5 years of monotherapy on HIV to relearn the lesson and they make the man who relearns this Time Magazine Man of the Year. How many more times do we have to relearn this lesson? If evolutionists have their way, this will go on forever.Do you have any documentation or references stating, specifically, that the reason "Monotherapy" is used is due to the proscribing doctor believing in evolution? Do you have any documented studies showing a mono/combo therapy and evolution/creation correlation? I don't see how you're linking them together, here.
When I was in medical training we were specifically told not to use combination therapy to treat infections unless you could not identify the causative agent and you wanted to broaden the spectrum of treatment. This was not done because it was specifically an evolutionist viewpoint but because it could kill normal body flora, it cost more, increased risks of adverse reactions and so on. However, the unintended consequence of decades of sequential monotherapy is strains of microbes resistant to many antimicrobials. These are real examples of how evolution by mutation and selection works and illustrates what Dr Schneider’s ev model shows. I have had evolutionists argue on this thread that emergence of resistance is not evolution by mutation and selection. Once you realize that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm strongly dependent on the complexity of the sorting conditions, it become clear why this happens. Evolution by mutation and selection only occurs quickly when you have single selection conditions targeting a single gene. As soon as you target more than a single gene, it is much, much more difficult for a population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations to these multiple selection conditions. Unless you want to argue that the transformation of a reptile population to a bird population occurred one gene at a time sequentially, evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit.

No Thursday afternoon post would be complete with more empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So here is a couple more.
http://breastcancer.evidencewatch.com/ (http://breastcancer.evidencewatch.com/)
Several critical trials, including FASG (French Adjuvant Study Group) 05 and NCIC (National Cancer Institute of Canada) MA.5 demonstrated the that optimal dosing of epirubicin in combination chemotherapy regimens achieves superior long-term 10-year survival in node-positive breast cancer patients at high relapse risk, and that for node-negative patients ECMF (optimal-dose epirubicin at 100 mg/m2 followed by CMF), compared to the classical CMF regimen, produced significantly better RFS (relapse free survival) and OS (overall survival), irrespective of nodal status. These positive findings in node-negative disease had been also earlier found by the Danish Breast Cancer Group (Moridsen et al. (1999 ASCO Annual Meeting): Adjuvant anthracycline in breast cancer. Improved outcome in premenopausal patients following substitution of methotrexate in the CMF combination with epirubicin) who compared CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil) to CMF, finding that 93% of the node-negative patients who received CEF (with 60 mg/m2 epirubicin) had 6 year survival compared with 83% of those who received CMF. (See also the review of S Gluck, Oncologist (2005): Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer: Optimal Use of Epirubicin) which noted that extended follow-up has confirmed that higher-dose combination chemotherapy regimens containing epirubicin improve therapeutic efficacy for both node-positive and node-negative early breast cancer patients).

http://www2.umdnj.edu/pharmweb/Annual%20Report/Annual%20Report05.pdf (http://www2.umdnj.edu/pharmweb/Annual%20Report/Annual%20Report05.pdf)
Clinical development of anticancer treatments usually requires the combination of more than one drug for improved efficacy (either additive or synergistic), with each agent having different target.
Now you all have a good weekend and watch out for those annoying creationists, they post mathematical and empirical data of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[Mr. Scott]

I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids.

That reminds me of this wonderful computer simulation of evolution I found on YouTube, which evolves a clock from random clock parts:

mcAq9bmCeR0

[joobz]

I assume you are talking about Dr Schneider’s ev model. As a starting point in a parametric study of ev, I suggest begin by investigating how genome length affect the generations. Increase the genome length by factors of two and see what happens to the number of generations to achieve a “perfect creature”. A “perfect creature” is one which satisfies all three selection conditions in the model.

What I did when I did my parametric study was to set up a spreadsheet to keep track of all the cases and parameters used to generate the data.
I see you are still have trouble understanding the nature of multiple selection pressures and what it means in terms of supporting the theory of evolution. That's ok, you think the theory evil and so are therefore are obviously confused as to what evil/good means. Afterall, your faith supports slavery and therefore doesn't allow a person to accurately interpret morality. This isn't your fault. You're simply a product of dumb evil lies. The dumbest one is that evolution has an morality. It's no more evil than the theory of gravity.

Now, if you would look at the concept of multiple selection pressures without the evil blinders of your faith, you would see that variable evironments help accelerate the evolutionary process. Since nature is variable (as proofed by the existence of weather), we know evolution is possible. Your theory helps support this point, Thank you!


As such, we know that anyone who would use creationist ideas to support medical advances would be endangering multitudes of people and therefore be commiting true evil.

So, Have you, Dr. Kleinman, ever used your creationist theories to determine the course of action for treatment of patients?

[Shalamar]

Kleinman seems enamored of ev. Can ev be run to have random, and variable selection pressures?

And no, He still doesn't have any math. He simply fails to understand, which is why he is continuing with the personal attacks.

[kjkent1]

Kleinman seems enamored of ev. Can ev be run to have random, and variable selection pressures?

And no, He still doesn't have any math. He simply fails to understand, which is why he is continuing with the personal attacks.Kleinman isn't enamored by ev. Kleinman attempted to challenge ev's author, Dr. Thomas Schneider, on the same issues that Kleinman argues here. Schneider publicly rebuked Kleinman by posting the reasons why Kleinman's argument fails on Schneider's blog site at the NIH, and Kleinman has been using this "Annoying Creationist" forum to try to discredit Schneider, ever since -- principally because Paul Agnostolopolous, who wrote the java version of Schneider's ev program has remained in this dialog as Schneider's surrogate (only God knows why Paul does so, but, I give him credit for being so charitable).

Thus, this entire thread is all about kleinman getting his ego bruised.

As for whether ev can be run with variable selective pressures: no. More to the point is the question of whether or not the three ev mistake weight variables which kleinman contends represent selection pressures, actually serve this function.

One previous poster, a physicist going by the alias "sol invictus" suggested that the mistake weights are not selective pressures at all, and therefore that kleinman's entire premise is completely crackpot.

In my humble opinion, the mistake weights cannot really be selective pressures, because the selection algorithm doesn't select on them individually -- it adds them up and then selects on their aggregate total value.

But, kleinman thinks that he's found the holy grail of creationism in ev, and that because experiments with heavy selective pressures tends to slow resistance formation in target pathogens, that this somehow means that evolution itself is impossible in nature.

Kleinman believes every "kind" (biblical creature) is created by divine will and evolution at the level of speciation is impossible, because ev genomes evolve to produce zero mistakes, as defined by the algorithm, very slowly, and he thinks that his referenced experiments back up that position.

In other words, the fossil, geologic and radiometric records are all wrong, ancient retroviral insertions do not provide an audit trail of evolutionary change, the fusion of the great ape 2p and 2q chromosomes into the 2nd human chromosome is a fraud, etc...

The weirdest part of this entire exercise is that kleinman really is a dual doctorate academic, licensed as both a mechanical engineer and a medical physician, who should have learned something about critical thinking during his lifetime.

I suppose that given 6 billion people on Earth, there must be at least one person with the intelligence to accumulate and understand all of the relevant evidence and yet still draw all the wrong conclusions. And, that person inhabits this forum on randi.org.

And now you know...the rest of the story.

[Shalamar]

Ok. That makes a lot of sense. It is.. bizzare that he fights against the author of the program, while trying to say that the program disproves evolution.

[Belz...]

The topic of this thread is the mathematics of mutation and selection and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics.

Translation: "I don't have any"

It is not the drug companies which are failing millions; it is the illogical and irrational evolutionist view of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works which is failing millions.

If you are correct and the "citations" you provide show what you say they show, then we are already using what you claim works... how is that failing millions ?

Let me repeat what Kent said:

What the kleinman does not understand is that in nature, the variability of selective pressures in the environment routinely provides evolutionary opportunities, which are not present in the controlled experiments which kleinman routinely cites.

[Belz...]

What you will find is that these sorting algorithms only work quickly with trivial sorting conditions. When you start looking at real populations, they can also only sort on very simple sorting conditions.

In NATURE, Kleinman. In NATURE.

And more from Kent:

In my humble opinion, the mistake weights cannot really be selective pressures, because the selection algorithm doesn't select on them individually -- it adds them up and then selects on their aggregate total value.

[Mister Earl]

Once you realize that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm strongly dependent on the complexity of the sorting conditions, it become clear why this happens. Evolution by mutation and selection only occurs quickly when you have single selection conditions targeting a single gene. As soon as you target more than a single gene, it is much, much more difficult for a population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations to these multiple selection conditions.

Makes sense to me, Kleinman. Wouldn't the result, over a longer span of time of course, wind up with diverging but similar species? Also, it your last notes you talk in great detail about how evolution works and doesn't work. I thought initially that you were saying evolution didn't exist. What is your stance, here, exactly!

[rocketdodger]

What you will find is that these sorting algorithms only work quickly with trivial sorting conditions. When you start looking at real populations, they can also only sort on very simple sorting conditions.


Once you realize that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm strongly dependent on the complexity of the sorting conditions, it become clear why this happens. Evolution by mutation and selection only occurs quickly when you have single selection conditions targeting a single gene. As soon as you target more than a single gene, it is much, much more difficult for a population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations to these multiple selection conditions.

The usual lies from Kleinman.


For anyone new to this thread, you should know that both Dr. Adequate and I have independently written programs that rigorously prove, mathematically, that this claim of Kleinman's about sorting algorithms is FALSE.

We have also shown him, mathematically, why ev cannot be used to generate the conclusions he has arrived at regarding sorting algorithms.

Finally, we have asked him to show, mathematically, why his claim is true. He has been unable to even begin anything resembling a mathematical argument nor post a link to one that someone else thought up.

Hence, anything Kleinman says about sorting algorithms can be safely ignored.

I also strongly advise anyone reading Kleinman's posts to find the source of the quotations he uses of others on this thread, rather than taking his posts at face value, as he is known for misinformation.

[Belz...]

No, no, no, Dodger!! Those weren't REAL scottsmen sorting algirithms.

[kjkent1]

This was just posted in another thread. It should cause considerable discomfort for the kleinman and his theory of impossible evolution and abiogenesis (of course, he'll never admit it):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080102142555.htm

Searching PubMed using the keywords: "Lambowitz fungus RNA" generates several hits on this subject. Apparently the author has been working in this line of evolutionary research for quite a while.

[kleinman]

Did the light come on for any of you evolutionists on how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works this past weekend? Let’s find out.

I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids.That reminds me of this wonderful computer simulation of evolution I found on YouTube, which evolves a clock from random clock parts:
You evolutionists love to make the irrational and illogical extrapolation of these simple sorting problems to the massive and complex sorting required to transform reptiles into birds. Not only are the sorting conditions for these massive and complex transformation non-existent, even if they did exist, you do not have enough generations to accomplish such massive transformations. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works for tiny numbers of selection conditions targeted to small portion of the genome. That’s what your simulations above are describing.
Kleinman seems enamored of ev. Can ev be run to have random, and variable selection pressures?

And no, He still doesn't have any math. He simply fails to understand, which is why he is continuing with the personal attacks.Kleinman isn't enamored by ev. Kleinman attempted to challenge ev's author, Dr. Thomas Schneider, on the same issues that Kleinman argues here. Schneider publicly rebuked Kleinman by posting the reasons why Kleinman's argument fails on Schneider's blog site at the NIH, and Kleinman has been using this "Annoying Creationist" forum to try to discredit Schneider, ever since -- principally because Paul Agnostolopolous, who wrote the java version of Schneider's ev program has remained in this dialog as Schneider's surrogate (only God knows why Paul does so, but, I give him credit for being so charitable).
Didn’t you know that Dr Schneider has challenged creationists to debate the validity of ev?
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/williams/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/williams/)
Here's a challenge for the creationists: Stop complaining and do a scientific test of your own ideas. Rewrite Ev so that the total number of mistakes of all organisms is computed. Divide the number of mistakes of each organism by this total to get relative mistake scores. Then alter the sorting algorithm to sort probabilistically based on these relative mistake scores. One way to implement this would be to sum the mistakes of two organisms that are being compared and divide each organism's mistakes by that pair wise total. Then pick a random number between 0 and 1 and compare it to that total. Use this to determine whether or not the organisms switch places in the sort. (Note you will have to deal with the special case of zero.) In other words, make the selective process be probabilistic so that there is nothing at all like truncation.

What do you predict will happen?
Will the evolution still occur?
Will Rsequence still approach Rfrequency?
This gauntlet was thrown on the ground on 2005 May 15.

Notice that, since creatioinists stop complaining when defeated, the most extremely difficult part of the challenge above is "do a scientific test of your own ideas"!
and
2006 Nov 28: Solution to the Challenge.
No creationist responded to this by doing the hard work. However a few moments of thought shows that the programming is not necessary. When one adds the mistakes of two organisms and divides by the total the sorting order is preserved. Therefore the results will be the same: Rsequence will still evolve to match Rfrequency.
Dr Schneider, I have taken up the gauntlet and have shown that your computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I will now show you where your error in understanding the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs. This error is demonstrated on your following page.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html)
The multiplication rule. It is well known from elementary probability theory that if two events are independent, then we may multiply the probabilities of each event to determine the probability of having both events occur. Suppose that there are two events A and B, with the probability of occurrence for A being PA and the probability of occurrence for B being PB. Further assume that the events neither influence each other nor do they both have a common source of influence. Then the probability that both events occur is PA x PB. That is, when the events A and B are independent, the probability that event A AND event B both occur is found by multiplying the probabilities of the individual events.

Example: A single die is a cube having 6 numbered faces, numbered by dots. The probability of getting a single dot from an unbiased die is 1 out of 6 or 1/6. The probability of getting two dice each to have one dot (snake eyes) is 1/6 multiplied by 1/6 or 1/36 = 0.028. Consider now a case where the two dice are glued together so that on one side there is a snake eyes. We toss the two and only read them if they don't end up on the end as a stack one on top of the other. Since there are 4 sides, the probability of 'snake eyes' is 1/4 = 0.25. The non-independence dramatically increased the probability of the event nine fold.
So far so good Dr Schneider.
The multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution. A common error in the non-scientific literature and poorly written papers is to assume that probabilities multiply for computing components of living things such as proteins. A typical argument notes that proteins are about 300 amino acids long and that there are 20 different kinds of amino acids. If such a string were to be generated using independent selection of the amino acids, then the probability of generating any particular string is 20-300, a very small number indeed. While this may be true for random strings, it does not directly apply to proteins found in living organisms. Why? Because individual mutations accumulate one-at-a-time and there is amplification (replication) between steps. That is, if one starts with a given amino acid string, the mutations in the genome (from which the string is derived) are sequential. A mutation occurs, perhaps changing the amino acid string. If the change is bad, which is true for the majority of changes, the organism dies and its genes are gone. (In diploids, recessive defects will be removed more slowly since they are only exposed when an organism becomes homozygous for the mutation.) If a rare lucky change occurs that has some advantage (or at best is neutral or only slightly deleterious) then the organism may survive to produce offspring. The possibility of appearance and acceptance (by natural selection processes) of mutations in the offspring therefore depends strongly on whether the previous generation survived and on the number of progeny. Genetic algorithm experiments, such as the Ev evolution program demonstrate clearly that the probability of generating what would be an extremely rare genetic string if the steps were independent, can be high. So the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain.
I added the highlighting. Here is where you go wrong Dr Schneider. The amplification which you talk about only occurs when you have single selection conditions targeting a small area of the genome. When you have multiple selection conditions, this amplification effect is defeated. This is demonstrated by your own ev simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. Ev does not demonstrate that the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Dr Schneider, you have erred in your interpretation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. Your failure to correct this error is contributing to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. This includes people suffering from cancer, a disease which the governmental organization you work for, The National Cancer Institute is dedicated to find cures. You are using tax payer dollars to improperly teach how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. You are working against the cure for cancer by your erroneous teaching and interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Kjkent1, haven’t you noticed that Dr Schneider has stopped discussing his model publicly, something which he had done previously for years. I don’t discredit Dr Schneider's computer simulation, I agree with his mathematics. However, I discredit his illogical interpretation of a single case from his model. Dr Schneider has two options, he can publicly admit what his mathematical model shows or he can remain silent. He has chosen the latter option despite the fact that he has publicly challenged creationists to debate his model.
Once you realize that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm strongly dependent on the complexity of the sorting conditions, it become clear why this happens. Evolution by mutation and selection only occurs quickly when you have single selection conditions targeting a single gene. As soon as you target more than a single gene, it is much, much more difficult for a population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations to these multiple selection conditions.Makes sense to me, Kleinman. Wouldn't the result, over a longer span of time of course, wind up with diverging but similar species? Also, it your last notes you talk in great detail about how evolution works and doesn't work. I thought initially that you were saying evolution didn't exist. What is your stance, here, exactly!
This should make sense to you since the mathematical and empirical data show exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

I’m not sure what you mean by “diverging but similar species”. What selection does is reduce variation. Selection pressures eliminate pheno-deviants which do not have the properties to survive. Only in environments with reduced selection pressures can you get increasing diversity in the population.

I have never said that evolution does not occur. What I have said is the ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible and the empirical evidence substantiates this mathematical finding. The concept of common descent is mathematically and empirically impossible. Common descent is the core belief of the theory of evolution and this belief is mathematically and empirically wrong, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists allege. In fact evolutionist teaching of this belief interferes with understanding of how this process actually works.
Once you realize that mutation and selection is simply a sorting algorithm strongly dependent on the complexity of the sorting conditions, it become clear why this happens. Evolution by mutation and selection only occurs quickly when you have single selection conditions targeting a single gene. As soon as you target more than a single gene, it is much, much more difficult for a population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations to these multiple selection conditions.For anyone new to this thread, you should know that both Dr. Adequate and I have independently written programs that rigorously prove, mathematically, that this claim of Kleinman's about sorting algorithms is FALSE.
I like to post the rigorous proofs of these evolutionist mythematicians. Here is rocketdodger’s rigourous proof.
I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/frown.gif
And Adequate made his rigorous with the following.
The red line shows generations to achieve fixation of n alleles acted on by n selection pressures, the n+1th selection pressure being introduced only after the nth allele is fixed.

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

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

Note how with simultaneous selection pressures the rate of evolution (fixations/generation) increases with the number of selection pressures.
And then Adequate goes on to say this:
More optimisation takes more time. This is what my model shows. This is what ev shows. This is what reality shows. This is freakin' obvious.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Could you give us a real example of your silly gif which shows that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution?
And Adequate responded:
So far as I know, no-one has done the experiment.
and
and too bad you don’t have any empirical examples of your silly graph ...As I have explained to you, I produced the model because I've not heard of this precise experiment being done.
The claim that the greater the number of selection pressures, the faster the evolutionary sorting process proceeds demonstrates the complete mathematical incompetence of the evolutionist mythematicians. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply does not work that way. How many more millions of people need to die prematurely from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection before you evolutionists will learn this lesson?
This was just posted in another thread. It should cause considerable discomfort for the kleinman and his theory of impossible evolution and abiogenesis (of course, he'll never admit it):
This doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all. Let’s see what your citation has to say:
"It's thought that RNA, or a molecule like it, may have been among the first molecules of life, both carrying genetic code that can be transmitted from generation to generation and folding into structures so these molecules could work inside cells," said Purdue structural biologist Barbara Golden. "At some point, RNA evolved and became capable of making proteins. At that point, proteins started taking over roles that RNA played previously - acting as catalysts and building structures in cells."
and
By studying the three-dimensional version of the fungus protein bound to an RNA molecule, scientists from Purdue University and the University of Texas at Austin have been able to visualize how life progressed from an early self-replicating molecule that also performed chemical reactions to one in which proteins assumed some of the work.

"Now we can see how RNA progressed to share functions with proteins," said Alan Lambowitz, director of the University of Texas Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology. "This was a critical missing step."
Dr Lambowitz forgot more than one critical step. For example how do you form ribose nonenzymatically in the primordial soup? And even if you could form ribose non-enzymatically, how do you form RNA bases in the primordial soup when ribose is an unstable molecule which quickly breaks down. It is these types of gross speculations which form the basis of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. I wonder if Dr Lambowitz understands the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? I doubt it.

Now kjkent1, you’ve claimed that there all kinds of “evolutionary opportunities” in the natural world. Tell us what the selection pressure is that formed this fungal protein discussed in your citation. I’ll help you with your explanation, it was a mushroom cloudy day that evolved this fungal protein, that is how the Wookie Weatherman explains evolution.

So now that we have had another tour of evolutionist mythematics, speculations and plain old irrational and illogical thinking, let’s give some more examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.connect.org/press/nl2005-09-06.htm (http://www.connect.org/press/nl2005-09-06.htm)
The researchers also found that the chemotherapy agent campthothecin (CPT), a clinically important anticancer agent, reduced the activity of the Chk1 protein.
"These findings lend strong support to the idea that inactivation of Chk1 contributes to the antitumor activity of CPT by allowing cells bearing damaged DNA to progress through the cell cycle, leading to an unsuccessful and often lethal attempt to undergo cell division," Abraham says. "Combination therapy, which pairs a chemotherapy agent with an inhibitor of Chk1, may therefore be an effective strategy to increase the efficacy of certain anticancer drugs, and may well overcome clinical resistance to these drugs."
http://www.uku.fi/vaitokset/2007/isbn978-951-27-0612-9.pdf (http://www.uku.fi/vaitokset/2007/isbn978-951-27-0612-9.pdf)
The concept of using single agent therapy has been noted as being unsuccessful in achieving a complete cure and thus combination therapy with the existing conventional modalities probably offers the greatest potential.
http://sist-aab.cirad.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=237 (http://sist-aab.cirad.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=237)
A combination of two drugs shows promise in treating a rare and therapy-resistant type of melanoma that originates in the eye and spreads to other organs, according to a new study led by Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers.
and
ICAAC: Dapivirine safe and tolerable as potential vaginal microbicide; displays potential in combination with other agents
and
A combination of drugs widely used to treat infections caused by HIV appears to stop brain damage caused by the virus as well, according to a study published in the Oct. 9, 2007, issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology
and
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.
and
Oncolytics Biotech to begin a clinical trial using intravenous administration of Reolysin in combination with cyclophosphamide, a chemotherapeutic agent as well as immune modulator, in patients with advanced cancers.
and
A small clinical trial in Uganda, conducted within a long-established Medecins Sans Frontieres treatment program for African sleeping sickness, has found that a new combination treatment using the drugs nifurtimox and eflornithine holds promise and deserv
and
Adding a single dose of two common anti-HIV drugs can prevent HIV-positive pregnant women from developing resistance to an entire class of drugs, potentially improving future treatment options. Providing tenofovir and emtricitabine with nevirapine during
and
Pairing a new thalidomide derivative with a steroid slows progress of multiple myeloma, an incurable bone marrow cancer, and prolongs the lives of patients who have relapsed from previous treatment, researchers report in the Nov. 22 New England Journal of
and
Relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients who had a complete response to combination therapy that included the drug oblimersen survived significantly longer than patients treated with chemotherapy alone, a team led by researchers at the Univers
and
Results from two investigational Phase I trials of ZOLINZA (vorinostat) in combination with bortezomib provide preliminary anti-tumor activity in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.
and
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
and
As reported recently in the journal Hepatology, WIN-R, a multicenter study of over 5,000 patients with hepatitis C virus showed treatment with weight-based REBETOL® (ribavirin, USP) in combination with pegylated interferon alfa-2b achieved significantly h
The more complex the sorting conditions the much, much more slowly the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds. The theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically and empirically impossible. That is what Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation or random point mutations and natural selection shows and that is what the empirical data shows.

[Belz...]

Yes, Klein. Destroying a life tends to prevent it from passing on its genes.

[kleinman]

Yes, Klein. Destroying a life tends to prevent it from passing on its genes.
That’s how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. Perhaps you could tell us about selection pressures that don’t work this way?

[joobz]

You evolutionists love to make the irrational and illogical extrapolation of these simple sorting problems to the massive and complex sorting required to transform reptiles into birds. Not only are the sorting conditions for these massive and complex transformation non-existent, even if they did exist, you do not have enough generations to accomplish such massive transformations. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works for tiny numbers of selection conditions targeted to small portion of the genome. That’s what your simulations above are describing

Didn’t you know that Dr Schneider has challenged creationists to debate the validity of ev?
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/williams/ (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/williams/)

and

Dr Schneider, I have taken up the gauntlet and have shown that your computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I will now show you where your error in understanding the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs. This error is demonstrated on your following page.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html)

So far so good Dr Schneider.

I added the highlighting. Here is where you go wrong Dr Schneider. The amplification which you talk about only occurs when you have single selection conditions targeting a small area of the genome. When you have multiple selection conditions, this amplification effect is defeated. This is demonstrated by your own ev simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. Ev does not demonstrate that the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Dr Schneider, you have erred in your interpretation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. Your failure to correct this error is contributing to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. This includes people suffering from cancer, a disease which the governmental organization you work for, The National Cancer Institute is dedicated to find cures. You are using tax payer dollars to improperly teach how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. You are working against the cure for cancer by your erroneous teaching and interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Kjkent1, haven’t you noticed that Dr Schneider has stopped discussing his model publicly, something which he had done previously for years. I don’t discredit Dr Schneider's computer simulation, I agree with his mathematics. However, I discredit his illogical interpretation of a single case from his model. Dr Schneider has two options, he can publicly admit what his mathematical model shows or he can remain silent. He has chosen the latter option despite the fact that he has publicly challenged creationists to debate his model.

This should make sense to you since the mathematical and empirical data show exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

I’m not sure what you mean by “diverging but similar species”. What selection does is reduce variation. Selection pressures eliminate pheno-deviants which do not have the properties to survive. Only in environments with reduced selection pressures can you get increasing diversity in the population.

I have never said that evolution does not occur. What I have said is the ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible and the empirical evidence substantiates this mathematical finding. The concept of common descent is mathematically and empirically impossible. Common descent is the core belief of the theory of evolution and this belief is mathematically and empirically wrong, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists allege. In fact evolutionist teaching of this belief interferes with understanding of how this process actually works..

It is obvious that you are still confused as to what your theory means.. As you so clearly have shown, when you have these multiple strong constant pressures, the rate of evolutionary emergence of adaption is greatly reduced. The moment you have variable pressures, the rate of emergence accelerates tremendously. This has been shown in the countless examples which you have presented. I thank you for all that information.

Now weather is merely one example of the variable environment that is nature. I see no reason to present the countless other examples of natural variation.

Your only hope to wish evolution away is to prove weather doesn't exist. Why do you start working on that math?


So Kleinman, Please tell us, Is weather real?

[rocketdodger]

I like to post the rigorous proofs of these evolutionist mythematicians. Here is rocketdodger’s rigourous proof.

See, this is the typical Kleinman lies and misinformation that I am talking about.

Every single time I bring up the program I wrote, Kleinman repeats ONLY this quote, which I made immediately after I wrote the first iteration of the simulation (which is an obsolete iteration anyway, begging the question as to why Kleinman thinks that quote is applicable at all):

I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was :(

What Kleinman does NOT quote is all the other statements I have made regarding my simulation, which include not only parameters used in a "parametric" study but also arguments showing why every concern Kleinman had with the simulation code was a non-issue. Among others, see:

The pressures are completely random, and each of them targets a single mutation. You can even

...snip...

Needless to say, even less than 200% is not "profoundly" slowed, and is certainly not what you describe here...

OK I updated my simulation program and made it more realistic and quite a bit faster. The source code is at www.jedi-arts.com/code/jev.cpp

...snip...

There is nothing else to say now. I did all the work of showing you, very clearly, that sorting/optimization problems are NOT always confounded by multiple sorting conditions. Particularly, when sorting happens in parallel, as it does in mutation and selection.

...snip...

Here it is, in short:

...snip...

They are randomly generated at initialization

...snip...

No Kleinman, I already did a parametric study of my program, which you would know if you read my earlier posts in full.

...snip...

I improved my program and now it generates results on par with what Dr. Adequate got.

...snip...

Merely a casual perusal of this thread should show any outside parties that Kleinman, regardless of the validity of his theory, is a lying, misinforming, childish scumbag. One simply can't accept anything he states without checking the sources due to his habitual lying and misquoting -- a very pathetic state of affairs to be in for someone desperately trying to get a message to people, as he seems to be.

[Shalamar]

Hmm.. I wonder what klienman says about all the other aspects of Evolutionary Theory, since he has no math (That he says he has).

If he really had the proof, as he claims, He would be able to submit his body of work, with all the evidence, and math to a respected peer reviewed journal. Alas, peer reviewed journals don't accept lies, misinformation, and outright attacks on people who poke holes in his hypothesis (Lets not call his errors a theory).

I now predict he will call us names, make personal attacks, and then spread more lies about how he has mathematical proof, without actually giving out any of his math.

[kleinman]

I like to post the rigorous proofs of these evolutionist mythematicians. Here is rocketdodger’s rigourous proof.See, this is the typical Kleinman lies and misinformation that I am talking about.
Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory.
Hmm.. I wonder what klienman says about all the other aspects of Evolutionary Theory, since he has no math (That he says he has).
Shalamar, I don’t have to say anything else about the irrational and illogical aspects of Evolutionary Theory since mutation and selection is the core principle of the theory and it doesn’t work in the way evolutionists allege.

[rocketdodger]

[SIZE=3]Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory.SIZE]

First, the fact that you are a lying scumbag has nothing to do with our data -- it has only to do with the recurrent misrepresenting and misquoting done by you.

Second, we have never claimed the above -- yet another misrepresentational lie put forth by you in order to fool people. We claimed only that in our programs, the average rate of sorting[/i] increases as the number of sorting conditions increases. Your inability to understand even your own previous arguments illustrates just how utterly incompetent you are.

It is quite simple, Kleinman. You made the claim that [b]all sorting/optimization problems are confounded by additional sorting/optimization problems. This claim is simply wrong -- we have produced two counterexamples, the source code of which are freely available to anyone who wishes to look, that clearly illustrates the fact that there are sorting/optimization problems that are not confounded by additional conditions.

[kleinman]

Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory. It is quite simple, Kleinman. You made the claim that all sorting/optimization problems are confounded by additional sorting/optimization problems. This claim is simply wrong -- we have produced two counterexamples, the source code of which are freely available to anyone who wishes to look, that clearly illustrates the fact that there are sorting/optimization problems that are not confounded by additional conditions.
So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting. While you are demonstrating your incompetence in mathematical sorting problems, I’ll continue to post real empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works; it is not the way you mathematically incompetent evolutionists allege.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf)
All the new approaches to cancer therapy are linked by the scientific finding that cancer is a disease resulting from the accumulation of genetic modifications within a cell. In delineating these new therapeutic strategies, the basic premise is to determine as many properties of cancer cells as possible and outline an effective biomedical action against them. It is very difficult to distinguish consistently between the different therapeutic approaches because they do not appear as clear cut methods, but rather as basic strategies or concepts that often follow the same paths and use the same tools. Almost all approaches focus on several different targets in the patient's body. Altering cancer cells (inside or outside the body, connected with delivery via gene therapy) and/or cancer-specific targets in combination with the activation or support of the patient's own immune system seems to yield a promising treatment. Nevertheless, it is still not fully understood which components of the immune system are best addressed by vaccine or antibody approaches.
Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

[Belz...]

Back to stupid insults, LIEman ?

[joobz]

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting. While you are demonstrating your incompetence in mathematical sorting problems, I’ll continue to post real empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works; it is not the way you mathematically incompetent evolutionists allege.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf)

Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

Thank you for that article. It further supports the point that resistence emergence is suppressed only when the multiple selection pressures are constant and strong.

Thus it is becoming evident that immunotherapy is potentially synergistic with other cancer
treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This potential for synergy
should allow cancer vaccines to become part of the standard treatment regimen for many
common tumours within the near future (Svane/Straten, expert opinion).

You know why vaccines are so good in this regard? Yes, you are right, because they stimulate the immunosystem to generate a constant selection pressure. Unlike oral meds, which can be irregular due to patient compliance.

Now, if only we had proof that nature was a variable environment?

[rocketdodger]

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.

I can't post that data, because no such data exists. I guess its a good thing, then, that this is not our claim, you scumbag liar, and that is why you can't quote us as saying so.

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting. Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you conveniently ignore any posts showing you to be wrong.

In fact, you replied to a post containing data with a request for the very data the post contained, you stupid illiterate fool:

What Kleinman does NOT quote is all the other statements I have made regarding my simulation, which include not only parameters used in a "parametric" study but also arguments showing why every concern Kleinman had with the simulation code was a non-issue. Among others, see:

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.




Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.

Why should I tell them that, when I don't believe it myself? Yet another lie.


Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

You keep asserting that Adequate and I are incompetent in mathematics, yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up such a claim. Are you ready to show why our programs are incorrect in some way, Kleinman? Are you ready to show why any of our other arguments are incorrect? Are you ready to provide any of your own arguments?

[Shalamar]

Back to stupid insults, LIEman ?

Wow! My predician came true! Maybe I should get the Million from the jref challenge! :p

However, since Klienman STILL has NO math to show us, he continues to lie that he has mathematical proof against evolution, even as he continues to show more and more evidence in favour of the mutation and selection pressures.

Keep up the good work. Your understanding may be backward, and flawed Mr. Klienman, but your continued evidence for evolution is pretty good.

[kjkent1]

Dr Lambowitz forgot more than one critical step. For example how do you form ribose nonenzymatically in the primordial soup? And even if you could form ribose non-enzymatically, how do you form RNA bases in the primordial soup when ribose is an unstable molecule which quickly breaks down. It is these types of gross speculations which form the basis of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. I wonder if Dr Lambowitz understands the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? I doubt it.

Now kjkent1, you’ve claimed that there all kinds of “evolutionary opportunities” in the natural world. Tell us what the selection pressure is that formed this fungal protein discussed in your citation. I’ll help you with your explanation, it was a mushroom cloudy day that evolved this fungal protein, that is how the Wookie Weatherman explains evolution.Stupid request. No one can identify the specific selective pressures which were in play at the moment of some past evolutionary event, anymore than they could identify in advance which cloud will be the next to produce rain in a storm.

Evolutionary change starts with a random mutation, which is inherently unpredictable, regardless of any selective pressure. Selection merely retains mutations that produce a benefit or are neutral. So, what you demand is impossible by any reasonable standard, because the first half of the evolutionary process is a crapshoot.

I know that as a mechanical engineer, the notion of unpredictability is anathema. But, Bohr and Einstein already had this debate 90 years ago, and Einstein lost.

So, it's time you get over this defeat for determinism, because stocastics is reality in this universe, whether you like it or not.

[kleinman]

Now, if only we had proof that nature was a variable environment?
Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.
So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.I can't post that data, because no such data exists.
Of course you can’t rocket with failure of ignition. You forgot what the parameters for your model are.
I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/frown.gif
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Your incompetence in the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is hilarious.
Dr Lambowitz forgot more than one critical step. For example how do you form ribose nonenzymatically in the primordial soup? And even if you could form ribose non-enzymatically, how do you form RNA bases in the primordial soup when ribose is an unstable molecule which quickly breaks down. It is these types of gross speculations which form the basis of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. I wonder if Dr Lambowitz understands the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? I doubt it.

Now kjkent1, you’ve claimed that there all kinds of “evolutionary opportunities” in the natural world. Tell us what the selection pressure is that formed this fungal protein discussed in your citation. I’ll help you with your explanation, it was a mushroom cloudy day that evolved this fungal protein, that is how the Wookie Weatherman explains evolution.Stupid request. No one can identify the specific selective pressures which were in play at the moment of some past evolutionary event, anymore than they could identify in advance which cloud will be the next to produce rain in a storm.
Ah yes, evolutionist ignorance, the ultimate proof that the theory of evolution is true.
Evolutionary change starts with a random mutation, which is inherently unpredictable, regardless of any selective pressure. Selection merely retains mutations that produce a benefit or are neutral. So, what you demand is impossible by any reasonable standard, because the first half of the evolutionary process is a crapshoot.
Come on now kjkent1, you evolutionists are good story tellers, make up something. You evolutionists will believe it. And by the way, the entire evolutionary process does not even qualify as a crapshoot, the entire story is mathematically impossible.
I know that as a mechanical engineer, the notion of unpredictability is anathema. But, Bohr and Einstein already had this debate 90 years ago, and Einstein lost.
I have no problem with Dr Schneider using a random number generator in his model. It does a good simulation of what happens in reality.
So, it's time you get over this defeat for determinism, because stocastics is reality in this universe, whether you like it or not.
Dr Schneider did a good job modeling the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process and it shows why the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process is mathematically impossible. Sorting by multiple selection conditions stochastically is profoundly slow. This is why combination therapy for treating diseases subject to this type of mechanism is far more effective than monotherapy. Here’s another citation which discusses how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A535592 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A535592)
Combination therapy. Another method that has already been successfully employed - although again, bacteria have found ways around it. There are a class of molecules known that prevent the action of ß-lactamase enzymes. If such a drug (clavulanic acid is a well known example of this type of drug - a ß-lactamase inhibitor) is used in combination with a penicillin then the ß-lactamase inhibitor stops the ß-lactamase enzyme from destroying the penicillin which can then get on with its job of killing the bacterium freely. Unfortunately, some bacteria can simply pump out clavulanic acid and this means that the penicillin may be destroyed. Other combination therapies may also be of use however.
Let some antibiotics lie 'fallow'. It has been observed that when the selective pressure to become drug resistant is removed, some bacteria will lose the DNA that leads to drug resistance. In other words they return to a more native state. It has therefore been proposed that it might be possible to use a rotating regime of antibiotics. Some antibiotics will be used for a period of time whilst others are not used at all. Hopefully, the bacteria would become resistant to those in use but would lose their resistance to those not in use. One could then switch the therapy and the situation would reverse, the bacteria would gain resistance to the new drug but would lose it to the old one. The cycle could then start again. This is analogous to the old three-field system in farming.
The second method discussed in this citation is demonstrated by Dr Schneider’s computer model when selection is turned off.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/icons/ev-fig2b.gif
This is another example for which ev demonstrates properly how mutation and selection works but what happens mathematically when selection is turn off.

You evolutionists should really study Dr Schneider’s computer simulation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You will learn how mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

[joobz]

Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.
there you go again. That's why you don't understand evolution. You think wookies are real. Perhaps you'd like to present evidence for a wookie while you are trying to prove that weather doesn't exist.

[rocketdodger]

I would like to take a minute and illustrate what a lying scumbag Kleinman really is and the level of rhetorical slime in which he wallows.

Consider the following dialogue:

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.


I can't post that data, because no such data exists. I guess its a good thing, then, that this is not our claim, you scumbag liar, and that is why you can't quote us as saying so.

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting.


I can't post that data, because no such data exists.
Of course you can’t rocket with failure of ignition. You forgot what the parameters for your model are.



Is anyone else disgusted by how low Kleinman will go in order to avoid looking like a fool? Seriously, most of us would never act like this.

[kleinman]

Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.there you go again. That's why you don't understand evolution. You think wookies are real. Perhaps you'd like to present evidence for a wookie while you are trying to prove that weather doesn't exist.
So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve? I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these selection conditions to occur.

[kleinman]

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Nogbad]

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

[Shalamar]

Yup. Mr. Kleinman, without any math, or proof to back his claim.

He's also no scientist. A scientist wouldn't attempt to tear apart a theory like this. What DOES happen, is that a scientist will provide an algternate view, or theory that would be more likely than the current established one.

Failing that, he would post what is incorrect about the current theory, what needs to be done to fix it.

However, I do suggest we not insult the poor guy, as he has no idea what he's talking about. He can't see past his established conclusion to the point that he IGNORES all other evidence. He's been shown where he's wrong, and he just ignores it since it is outside of his established beliefs.

Now, He will claim the same about us. In answer to that, I say 'Really? Show us this math'. As I have asked for multiple multiple times. One can NOT prove something mathematically without the actual math.

[joobz]

So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve? I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these selection conditions to occur.
Is your god a wookie? Is that why you think that's evolutions goal?
Does he make you say stupid things in some sort of worship?

[kleinman]

So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve? I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these selection conditions to occur.Is your god a wookie? Is that why you think that's evolutions goal?
Does he make you say stupid things in some sort of worship?
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]

[/color]
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?
That's so sad. The wookie gods are preventing you from seeing the truth of what multiple selection pressures mean. As you so clearly have shown, when you have these multiple strong constant pressures, the rate of evolutionary emergence of adaption is greatly reduced. The moment you have variable pressures, the rate of emergence accelerates tremendously. This has been shown in the countless examples which you have presented. I thank you for all that information.

Now weather is merely one example of the variable environment that is nature. I see no reason to present the countless other examples of natural variation.

Your only hope to wish evolution away is to prove weather doesn't exist. Why do you start working on that math?


So Kleinman, Please tell us, Is weather real?

You can tell us as soon as your done bowing in dedranged subserviance to the wookie lord. I can only assume that is what your gif means.

[articulett]

ugh... creationists spend all their time knocking evolution instead of learning the latest news humans are uncovering...

They just aren't curious about the facts... and they never, never have facts about an alternate theory... they dodge and weave to avoid saying what it is they "believe", because they know it's woo... and giving a voice to it, makes them have to hear how ridiculous they sound positing an invisible guy obsessed with this speck of universe making ebola and sharks and maggots and algae and humans... for some magical divine plan involving the most egotistical of his creations.

[kleinman]

They just aren't curious about the facts... and they never, never have facts about an alternate theory... they dodge and weave to avoid saying what it is they "believe", because they know it's woo... and giving a voice to it, makes them have to hear how ridiculous they sound positing an invisible guy obsessed with this speck of universe making ebola and sharks and maggots and algae and humans... for some magical divine plan involving the most egotistical of his creations.
I’m curious about your arti-culett-facts. Why don’t you post some of them about how mutation and selection actually works? Why don’t you give us some arti-culett-facts of how a gene evolves de novo by mutation and selection?

Even if you don’t give us some arti-culett-facts about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, my heart was warmed when your mothering instincts took over and you protected Shalamar after he got annoyed during his Survival of the Fittest Day celebration.

[Shalamar]

Even if you don’t give us some arti-culett-facts about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, my heart was warmed when your mothering instincts took over and you protected Shalamar after he got annoyed during his Survival of the Fittest Day celebration.


Poor Poor Mr. Klienman. I'm terribly sorry, but your made up 'holiday' 'survival of the fittest day' was only celebrated by you. After all, you designed it.

I was off having a very nice Christmas with my family.

[kjkent1]

Dr Schneider did a good job modeling the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process and it shows why the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process is mathematically impossible. Sorting by multiple selection conditions stochastically is profoundly slow. This is why combination therapy for treating diseases subject to this type of mechanism is far more effective than monotherapy. The only thing profoundly slow around here is Alan Kleinman.

Repeating for the umpteenth time:

Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model.

[joobz]

The only thing profoundly slow around here is Alan Kleinman.

Repeating for the umpteenth time:

Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model.
quoted for truth.

[BPScooter]

I guess the part that I'm missing is the Real Truth about how all this Actually Works. Kleinman will be the first to agree.

Yet somehow I'm not yet convinced that K. knows how it Actually Works. The computer model argument is still ongoing, apparently, so we might be better off by waiting, watching, or doing some experiments or excavations.

I'm sure this will brand me as some sort of ignoramus, one who has no idea how these processes "actually work." I'm also sure my understanding was profoundly slowed by spending precious time reading the posts of K., entertaining to be sure, but providing nothing but a scary devotion to Schneider and a propensity for insult and juvenile attitude.

So, K., you might just think you "won" this, but you are so repetitive and boring that I'm going to remove this thread from my regular reading. Boo hoo, big loss to you, you say, hooray for you. Just remember that you've stimulated my interest in order to contradict people like you with arguments like yours, elsewhere.

[Belz...]

So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve?

"Gee, these guys sure know more about this stuff than I do. Say, if I keep using insults and making up their own positions, instead, It'd be far easier for me!!"

Folks, Kleinman is not in the same conversation as the rest of us. He's constructed a mental universe where he sees posts differently than how they were written, and basically answers in a way that makes him feel good. He's completely detached from reality. We're just feeding his madness.

I, for one, an bowing out.

[kleinman]

Even if you don’t give us some arti-culett-facts about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, my heart was warmed when your mothering instincts took over and you protected Shalamar after he got annoyed during his Survival of the Fittest Day celebration.
Poor Poor Mr. Klienman. I'm terribly sorry, but your made up 'holiday' 'survival of the fittest day' was only celebrated by you. After all, you designed it.

I was off having a very nice Christmas with my family.
Really, an evolutionist celebrates Christmas? What do you think Jesus Christ thought of the book of Genesis?
Dr Schneider did a good job modeling the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process and it shows why the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process is mathematically impossible. Sorting by multiple selection conditions stochastically is profoundly slow. This is why combination therapy for treating diseases subject to this type of mechanism is far more effective than monotherapy.Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model.
I see, that’s why combination selection pressures never slow the evolutionary process. I’m overwhelmed by all your examples of these processes which contradict what ev shows mathematically and the hundreds of empirical examples which substantiates what ev shows.

Some smart legal beagle is going to figure out that the gross misinterpretation that evolutionists make of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That smart legal beagle will have a lawsuit that will dwarf the tobacco lawsuit. There are no smart legal beagles on this thread.
I guess the part that I'm missing is the Real Truth about how all this Actually Works. Kleinman will be the first to agree.

Yet somehow I'm not yet convinced that K. knows how it Actually Works. The computer model argument is still ongoing, apparently, so we might be better off by waiting, watching, or doing some experiments or excavations.
What you are missing BPScooter is that mutation and selection is nothing more than a sorting/optimization problem. These are very common problems throughout science. Somehow evolutionists have come to think that there is something special about this particular sorting/optimization process and that it is not governed by the same mathematical principles of all other sorting/optimization problems. The simple explanation for how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process Actually Works is that this process is dominated by the complexity of the sorting conditions. The only excavation you need to do is for a hole to bury your irrational and illogical theory of evolution in.
I'm sure this will brand me as some sort of ignoramus, one who has no idea how these processes "actually work." I'm also sure my understanding was profoundly slowed by spending precious time reading the posts of K., entertaining to be sure, but providing nothing but a scary devotion to Schneider and a propensity for insult and juvenile attitude.
If you weren’t ignorant of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, why would you say “we might be better off by waiting, watching, or doing some experiments or excavations”? You should study and learn how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works and stop having this scary devotion to a mathematically impossible theory. I wouldn’t call whatever relationship I have with Dr Schneider a scary devotion. In fact I disagree with his interpretation of his model. However, his underlying mathematics properly captures the essential features of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Dr Schneider blundered with his interpretation based on a single published case.
So, K., you might just think you "won" this, but you are so repetitive and boring that I'm going to remove this thread from my regular reading. Boo hoo, big loss to you, you say, hooray for you. Just remember that you've stimulated my interest in order to contradict people like you with arguments like yours, elsewhere.
You can’t repeat the truth about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to much. There are so many evolutionists who espouse a gross misinterpretation of how this process actually works that it takes a constant repetition of this mantra for it to have any chance for it to be seen through the evolutionist fog surrounding the process. I hope I haven’t bored you with the hundreds of real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process Actually Works.

Tell us again what your argument is which contradicts what Dr Schneider’s mathematical model shows and is substantiated by hundreds of real, measurable and repeatable examples of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Oh, that’s right; your argument is that you need more experiments and excavations. Check out the new citation posted below. That’s another experiment which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
I, for one, an bowing out.
Again? Just when you had almost convinced me that Beggaminases is how the theory of evolution works.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/webnotes/publications/archives_medicine.cfm (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/webnotes/publications/archives_medicine.cfm)
Worldwide over 170 million people are chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus and hence at high risk to develop fatal liver disease. There is no vaccine available and the standard therapy [(pegylated) interferon alfa plus ribavirin] is only effective in 50–60% of patients and is associated with important side-effects. The discovery of novel antiviral strategies to selectively inhibit HCV replication has long been hindered by the lack of convenient cell culture models for the propagation of HCV. This hurdle has been overcome first with the establishment of the HCV replicon system in 1999 and, in 2005, with the development of robust HCV cell culture models. In recent years also mouse models have been elaborated that will be instrumental in assessing the in vivo efficacy of novel drugs. The viral serine protease and the viral RNA dependent RNA polymerase have shown to be excellent targets for selective anti-HCV therapy. Clinical studies with a limited number of HCV protease and polymerase inhibitors resulted in encouraging results. However, and not unexpected, preclinical evidence suggest that the virus may become rapidly resistant to such inhibitors. Combination therapy of drugs with different mode of action and resistance profiles may thus be required. Alternative strategies, such as the use of non-immunosuppressive cyclosporin A analogues with potent anti-HCV activity, may prove important, in particular since such compounds may have a resistance profile that is very different from that of protease or polymerase inhibitors.
There is another experiment for you BPScooter which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process Actually Works.

[kjkent1]

I see, that’s why combination selection pressures never slow the evolutionary process. I’m overwhelmed by all your examples of these processes which contradict what ev shows mathematically and the hundreds of empirical examples which substantiates what ev shows.Your first sentence is a gross misrepresentation. I never said that combination selection pressures never slow the evolutionary process. My position is that strong combinations of selection pressures slow the evolutionary process by reducing the viral load and reducing the probability of a significant mutation which might provide immunoprophylaxis escape.

However, I also specifically posted a citation which showed such an escape under combination selection pressures applied to HIV-1, via a frame shift -- thus showing that despite the combination pressures, a random mutation can and does produce evolutionary change.

And, true to form, you ignored the citation. Which makes you intellectually dishonest -- and a really crappy scientist, IMHO.
.

[joobz]

Really, an evolutionist celebrates Christmas? What do you think Jesus Christ thought of the book of Genesis?
Why would you care what Jesus thought? It's obvious that you aren't christian.

[Shalamar]

Lets check on more of Mr. Klienmans dishonesty and his lies.

I do not consider myself an 'evolutionist'. That is a false label placed by creationists. I trust in the empirical evidence provided by the Theory of Evolution. I have yet to see any legitimate evidence in favour of a competing theory.

Jesus was a Jew. He likely would have said that Genesis was a moral story, and not to be taken at literal face value. What would Jesus say about your lies, dishonesty and your continued insults?

How. For your (false) claim that you have mathematical proof that evolution is impossible. Again. I ask for your math. Mind you, I know you don't have it, and you've never been able to show it. I'm going to try something different:

1: How many pressures are required for your hypothesis?
2: How strong do these pressures have to be?
3: How long do these pressures have to exert?

Can you answer these questions, Mr. Klienman?

Do you understand how the Theory Evolution actually works? ALL of it?

[Shalamar]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
Why would you care what Jesus thought? It's obvious that you aren't christian.

I wonder at that one myself. Its obvious he just pays lip service, and doesn't actually believe in any Christian Sect that I know of. Its some god that advocates lying attacking, and insulting ones enemies when one doesn't get their way.

That, and it seems he actually worships at the altar of evolution. He's so obsessed with the concept, and the sheer desperation of trying to prove it wrong, without having anything to replace it. Yeah. He's a terrible scientist.

[kleinman]

I see, that’s why combination selection pressures never slow the evolutionary process. I’m overwhelmed by all your examples of these processes which contradict what ev shows mathematically and the hundreds of empirical examples which substantiates what ev shows.Your first sentence is a gross misrepresentation. I never said that combination selection pressures never slow the evolutionary process. My position is that strong combinations of selection pressures slow the evolutionary process by reducing the viral load and reducing the probability of a significant mutation which might provide immunoprophylaxis escape.
Once again you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic science of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Strong selection pressures are strong because they select out (kill or prevent procreation) a large portion of the population. If the population can not adapt to these strong pressures, the population goes extinct. Weak selection pressures do not select out large portions of the population and therefore do not increase in frequency the genetic sequence those pressures are directed at. Strong selection pressures force rapid evolution of the genome. Weak selection pressures only cause slight drift of the population about the local optimum on the fitness landscape.
However, I also specifically posted a citation which showed such an escape under combination selection pressures applied to HIV-1, via a frame shift -- thus showing that despite the combination pressures, a random mutation can and does produce evolutionary change.
Apparently you haven’t been reading the citations I have been posting because I have posted several similar citations. All these citations show is that frame shifts do not change the fact that combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of the HIV virus. It is not the type of mutation the drives the mathematical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process it is the number of selection conditions which dominates the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Now legal beagle, if you are looking for a lawsuit to make some money on, here it is. The gross misinterpretation that evolutionists make of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. This suit will be bigger than the tobacco lawsuit.
Really, an evolutionist celebrates Christmas? What do you think Jesus Christ thought of the book of Genesis?Why would you care what Jesus thought? It's obvious that you aren't christian.
Really, you are sure that I am not a Christian? So you are more than a Wookie Weatherman, you are a mind reader.
Jesus was a Jew. He likely would have said that Genesis was a moral story, and not to be taken at literal face value.
You evolutionist really like to speculate. Read Matthew 19:1-9 and pay particular attention to verse 4 and you will get an idea of what Jesus said and thought about the book of Genesis.
1: How many pressures are required for your hypothesis?
2: How strong do these pressures have to be?
3: How long do these pressures have to exert?
1: Any more than a single selection pressure profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
2: Only a single strong selection pressure can drive a population to evolve rapidly. Strong selection pressures tend to kill or prevent procreation of more than 50% of the population.
3: Evolution only occurs when the selection pressures are exerted. If the strong selection pressure is only applied for a short period of time such has been done with antimicrobial agents, herbicides, pesticides in the past 5 decades or so, you select for populations that will evolve resistance to these agents. This would not have happened if evolutionists had properly elucidated how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. The actual length of time for selection pressures to act is dependent on the generation times for the particular populations considered. If more than a single selection pressure is applied to the population, this length of time is vastly increased. To give you an idea of some actual lengths of time, consider HIV. This rapidly reproducing virus can evolve resistance to monotherapy in two weeks. Three drug therapy can and does last for years.

Now if you were joobz, the Wookie Weatherman and mind reader, you would claim that variations in the weather can evolve anything and that chemicals cooperate to bring about life spontaneously. That’s the theory of evolution, SciFi channel style. Is there any other evolutionist style?

[Shalamar]

And yet Mr. Klienman, the lying Creationist, still does not understand Evolution, nor its evidence. Once again, you are wrong, as people have pointed out many times.

Selection Pressures, in nature, are of variable amounts, duration, and intensity. Of course, in your magic world, All PRessures are of the same durations, quantities, and strengths.

Too bad that Evolution, including Speciation has been actively observed in the world, regardless of the number of selection pressures. We also have to remember, that in this magic world, that slow is the same as stop, and that Mr. Klienmans Faith tells him to lie, and insult people.

Oh yes. Jews on Genesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
Now to be Fair, 2000 years ago was before the Theory of Evolution, and people had a different stance on evolution. Sine Jesus isn't around today to chat about it, Its hard to know what he would have thought.

Oh Yes. On the Origin of Life? Evolution doesn't talk about the Origin of Life. At all.

[kleinman]

And yet Mr. Klienman, the lying Creationist, still does not understand Evolution, nor its evidence. Once again, you are wrong, as people have pointed out many times.
Shallowmar, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is too important a phenomenon to be left to naïve laymen like you and mathematically incompetent evolutionists. People are dying from diseases subject to mutation and selection and evolutionists have failed to properly elucidate how this phenomenon works. If you can’t take the truth about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, run home and tell you mommy that a mean old creationist annoyed you when you were trying to celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day.
Now to be Fair, 2000 years ago was before the Theory of Evolution, and people had a different stance on evolution. Sine Jesus isn't around today to chat about it, Its hard to know what he would have thought.
So you might as well ignore the most documented and studied text which has ever been written and make up whatever you want. That’s exactly what an evolutionist would do.
Oh Yes. On the Origin of Life? Evolution doesn't talk about the Origin of Life. At all.
Oh yes, you are correct. You are describing the dumb and dumber concepts that dominate the field of biology right now. I’ll let you decide which one is dumb and which one is dumber.

[Shalamar]

Shallowmar,
Hooray! More insults, and attacks from an irrational creationist!


the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is too important a phenomenon to be left to naïve laymen like you and mathematically incompetent evolutionists.

WHat about mathematically incompetent creationists? You know.., the ones who claim to have math, and never, ever show the math they claim? Keep Lying Mr. Klienman.


People are dying from diseases subject to mutation and selection and evolutionists have failed to properly elucidate how this phenomenon works.

You know, this statement from you have always bothered me. And now I know why. Biologists, as in, people who study evolutionary theory, biology, life forms and the like, do just that. They study. They post their reports.

Seems like it would be doctors who would be the evil ones for not doing what you claim they should be doing. Perhaps some of these combination treatments would harm patients? Some haven't been properly tested? Sure, an evolutionist (Your term) would say ' If you throw a large amount of drugs at the disease, the disease may eventually be stopped, or irradicated. Of course, the patient may be as well.' Biologists cover quite a few disciplines. Perhaps you should talk to doctors about the risks of overwhelming a body, and why there are constant tests being done.

There is also the problem that some diseases are caused by viruses, and aren't so easily dealt with. We use vaccines. Again, a doctor could educate you.


If you can’t take the truth about how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works,

Sure I can. I do understand it a lot better than I did when I first joined here. Alas, not with your help, as you tell only lies, and only a part of the overwhelming story at that. I'm sorry you don't understand Evolution. Maybe one day you will. In the mean time, why don't you run off to you creationist friends and whine 'Those evil nasty evolutionists won't believe my lies!'



run home and tell you mommy that a mean old creationist annoyed you when you were trying to celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day.

I don't celebrate such false.. ahh.. occasions that you created. Maybe you're just upset that you aren't fit enough?

So you might as well ignore the most documented and studied text which has ever been written and make up whatever you want. That’s exactly what an evolutionist would do.

Who said I ignore it? Then again, it is obvious you only read those parts that you feel should apply to you, while ignoring all others. None of that being nice, turning the other cheek, or telling truth for you! No Sir!

Oh yes, you are correct. You are describing the dumb and dumber concepts that dominate the field of biology right now. I’ll let you decide which one is dumb and which one is dumber.


Oh Oh! I know the answer! Creationism and Intelligent Design! Except I don't describe them. Thats ok, Your lack of understanding continues to come to light.

[kleinman]

Shallowmar,Hooray! More insults, and attacks from an irrational creationist!
I’ve already annoyed you on your Happy Survival of the Fittest Day; watch out before I annoy you on your Merry Natural Selection Day.
People are dying from diseases subject to mutation and selection and evolutionists have failed to properly elucidate how this phenomenon works.You know, this statement from you have always bothered me. And now I know why. Biologists, as in, people who study evolutionary theory, biology, life forms and the like, do just that. They study. They post their reports.
Annoying a naïve layman just doesn’t give the thrill that annoying someone with a PhD in mythematics like Adequate does but let’s see what the evidence is show about the treatment of influenza shows.
http://avianflu.futurehs.com/?p=2973 (http://avianflu.futurehs.com/?p=2973)
Importantly, the combination of ion channel and neuraminidase inhibitors in vitro reduced the emergence of resistance and may even act synergistically against influenza A viruses.19,20 Even low concentrations of oseltamivir prevented the emergence of amantadine resistant variants of the highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus isolated from Hong Kong in 1997.19 Combination therapy may also allow the use of a lower dose of ion channel inhibitors, which is known to reduce side effects.21
And
In conclusion, ion channel inhibitors could yet have an important role in our armoury against a future flu pandemic. To preserve their activity we recommend that they are not used as monotherapy or for prophylaxis against seasonal or avian influenza. Several countries including the US, the UK, and Greece are already stockpiling ion channel inhibitors. Other countries should consider following suit. As well as being cheap, these drugs are chemically stable, giving them a long shelf life.25 Combined antiviral therapy with neuraminidase inhibitors has the potential to reduce both their side effect profile and the likelihood of resistance. More clinical data are urgently needed to verify such an effect.
Now Shallowmar, I understand that you are a naïve layman and don’t know what influenza can do to a population but perhaps you should learn a little history. There was an influenza epidemic around 1920 that killed more people than World War One killed. If you don’t properly understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, maybe we can break that record. At least the scientist above understands how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

Shallowmar, do you remember the SARS scare a few years ago? I had quite a few patients come to me frightened about this episode. I asked them if they got their flu shot and most of them said “no”. I then asked them how many people died in the United States in the previous year from influenza and none had any idea. I had checked the CDC web site and there had been 60,000 deaths that year from influenza in the United States while SARS had only a few hundred deaths world wide. You naïve laymen need to work at getting your facts straight. Of course you have an excuse; you have no training or experience. On the other hand, evolutionists have college degrees and years of studying the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. They still don’t get it right.

[joobz]

Really, you are sure that I am not a Christian? So you are more than a Wookie Weatherman, you are a mind reader.
No speculation. I'm simply going by your actions.

I don't think jesus would approve of a doctor who knowingly endangered their patients by using unsound medical practices. Indeed, evolutionary theory as explained by the concept of multiple constant selection pressures vs. variable pressures is used today by modern medicine to treat patients. A rejection of evolution would endanger millions of lives.

Would Jesus really want a doctor who openly contradicts evolution practice such unsafe medicine? Is that christian?

[kleinman]

Really, you are sure that I am not a Christian? So you are more than a Wookie Weatherman, you are a mind reader.No speculation. I'm simply going by your actions. I don't think jesus would approve of a doctor who knowingly endangered their patients by using unsound medical practices. Indeed, evolutionary theory as explained by the concept of multiple constant selection pressures vs. variable pressures is used today by modern medicine to treat patients. A rejection of evolution would endanger millions of lives.
Well now, the Wookie Weatherman and mind reader knows of unsound medial practice I am using. Why don’t you tell us of all these unsound medical practice I am using? Then you can tell us how variations in the weather will evolve a Wookie. Let’s see if your paranormal skills work over here on the Science forum.

[joobz]

Well now, the Wookie Weatherman and mind reader knows of unsound medial practice I am using. Why don’t you tell us of all these unsound medical practice I am using? Then you can tell us how variations in the weather will evolve a Wookie. Let’s see if your paranormal skills work over here on the Science forum.
well,
you've said

the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible

We know that combination therapy (the use of constant, strong selection pressures) works to suppress adaptation. If we listened to you, we wouldn't use such advanced medicine.

I would hate to think that you've used any of your anti-evolution concepts to treat patients. It would be horribly amoral and unchristian.

[kleinman]

Well now, the Wookie Weatherman and mind reader knows of unsound medial practice I am using. Why don’t you tell us of all these unsound medical practice I am using? Then you can tell us how variations in the weather will evolve a Wookie. Let’s see if your paranormal skills work over here on the Science forum.well, you've saidthe theory of evolution is mathematically impossibleWe know that combination therapy (the use of constant, strong selection pressures) works to suppress adaptation. If we listened to you, we wouldn't use such advanced medicine.
Tell us more of what your paranormal skills reveal. Tell us how variable selection pressures evolve a Wookie. Tell us how cooperative chemistry gives spontaneous generation of life.
I would hate to think that you've used any of your anti-evolution concepts to treat patients.
Why joobz, there are no theory of evolution concepts suitable for treating patients. What do you want me to do, put my patients out into the weather and tell them to evolve to it? Who knows, I might end up with Wookies for patients. I’d hate to have to treat a Wookie for alopecia.

[kjkent1]

Once again you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic science of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Strong selection pressures are strong because they select out (kill or prevent procreation) a large portion of the population. If the population can not adapt to these strong pressures, the population goes extinct. Weak selection pressures do not select out large portions of the population and therefore do not increase in frequency the genetic sequence those pressures are directed at. Strong selection pressures force rapid evolution of the genome. Weak selection pressures only cause slight drift of the population about the local optimum on the fitness landscape.Well, that was incomprehensibly vague, Alan.

What exactly is the measurement equating to "large proportion of the population" that divides strong pressures from weak? Furthermore, your statement indicates that where strong selective pressures force rapid evolution, they simultaneously drive the population to extinction. That's a pretty interesting dichotomy, if ya ask me.

Work on your theory a little bit before you present it, because you're looking pretty foolish at the moment.

Apparently you haven’t been reading the citations I have been posting because I have posted several similar citations. All these citations show is that frame shifts do not change the fact that combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of the HIV virus. It is not the type of mutation the drives the mathematical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process it is the number of selection conditions which dominates the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Apparently, there's at least one citation -- mine -- which shows that the frame shift leads to immunoprophylaxis escape. And, that one cite falsifies your conclusion, because the selective pressures were unable to suppress the evolution by frame shift mutation.

Maybe you should go back and read it.

[joobz]

Tell us more of what your paranormal skills reveal. Tell us how variable selection pressures evolve a Wookie. Tell us how cooperative chemistry gives spontaneous generation of life.I'm not certain how this relates to your failure to maintain chrsitian principles. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how endangering millions of people is not a sin.

Why joobz, there are no theory of evolution concepts suitable for treating patients. And this is why you are obviously not a christian. A person who actually loved their fellow man wouldn't hold to such an amoral position.

[Mr. Scott]

Some smart legal beagle is going to figure out that the gross misinterpretation that evolutionists make of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That smart legal beagle will have a lawsuit that will dwarf the tobacco lawsuit.

Dr. Kleinman, tell us about a time you used a creationist-based drug regimen instead of an evolution-based regimen in a treatment of one of your patients. What was the nature of the infection? What was the standard treatment you thought wrong because it depended on the standard theory of evolution? What was the creationist-based treatment you used as a substitute? Was it as successful as you expected?

[kleinman]

Tell us more of what your paranormal skills reveal. Tell us how variable selection pressures evolve a Wookie. Tell us how cooperative chemistry gives spontaneous generation of life.I'm not certain how this relates to your failure to maintain chrsitian principles. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how endangering millions of people is not a sin.
Tell us more about Christian principles. You seem to know much about this topic.
Why joobz, there are no theory of evolution concepts suitable for treating patients.And this is why you are obviously not a christian. A person who actually loved their fellow man wouldn't hold to such an amoral position.
Is that what it takes to be a Christian, tell us more.

Joobz, your paranormal skills are quite remarkable. You know how chemistry cooperates to spontaneously produce life, you know how the weather makes Wookies, you are an expert in evolutionist medicine and you are so knowledgeable about Christianity.

Who would have known that an alchemical engineer could be so wise?
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Some smart legal beagle is going to figure out that the gross misinterpretation that evolutionists make of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That smart legal beagle will have a lawsuit that will dwarf the tobacco lawsuit.Dr. Kleinman, tell us about a time you used a creationist-based drug regimen instead of an evolution-based regimen in a treatment of one of your patients. What was the nature of the infection? What was the standard treatment you thought wrong because it depended on the standard theory of evolution? What was the creationist-based treatment you used as a substitute? Was it as successful as you expected?
Why Mr Scott, so nice to have you back on this thread after starting another ridiculous evolutionist concept on another thread. Since you won’t tell us about the lies your atheist parents told you perhaps you would tell us how viruses caused us to evolve.

Oh, by the way, I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.

[joobz]

Tell us more about Christian principles. You seem to know much about this topic.Well, of course I do. I was raised christian. Indeed, I would say that I am more prepared to understand christianity than a person, who thinks that natural selection is the same as the first law of thermodynamics, does at understanding evolution.



Is that what it takes to be a Christian, tell us more.What are you saying that killing millions makes you christian?




Oh, by the way, I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.

So you take chisels to your patients regularly or do you merely carve laws into them?

[kleinman]

Tell us more about Christian principles. You seem to know much about this topic.Well, of course I do. I was raised christian. Indeed, I would say that I am more prepared to understand christianity than a person, who thinks that natural selection is the same as the first law of thermodynamics, does at understanding evolution.
So tell us, you were raised as a Christian, what does that mean?
Is that what it takes to be a Christian, tell us more.What are you saying that killing millions makes you christian?
Of course not, tell us what it takes to be a Christian. You say you were raised Christian, tell us what it means to be a Christian.
Oh, by the way, I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.So you take chisels to your patients regularly or do you merely carve laws into them?
For someone who claims to be a Christian, you know very little about the Bible or the practice of medicine. Since you need a lot of help in both areas, it’s take two tablets and call me in the morning.

So since you couldn’t figure out those verses perhaps you can figure out what it takes to be a Christian.

[joobz]

So tell us, you were raised as a Christian, what does that mean?It means that you prefer to worship the wookie devil and his anti-evolutionism.

Of course not,
but your wookie devil's antievolutionism would result in such death. Be glad that the AMA doesn't agree with you. But then, I'm sure the majority of AMA members are good christians.


For someone who claims to be a Christian, you know very little about the Bible or the practice of medicine. Since you need a lot of help in both areas, it’s take two tablets and call me in the morning.
it's obvious you are not a good judge on that fact. Afterall, you are the one who would let millions of people die by not providing proper medical care.

[Mister Earl]

Kleinman. You pretend to be a doctor, so let's focus on something you should be familiar with for a moment. Say a bacterial strain becomes prevalent in an area. Treatment heals all but a small handful of people, who had a small population of that strain that happened to be resistant. That resistant strain begins infecting other people. As a doctor or pretend doctor (I don't know you, so I'm making no assumptions), you've probably seen this often enough.

Now, the remaining bacterial strain and the generations of these bacterium are all resistant to this drug. Wouldn't that drug be considered an environmental pressure, and wouldn't the resistance inherent in latter generations be considered an evolved trait?

If evolution isn't possible, than what would you call this?

[kleinman]

So tell us, you were raised as a Christian, what does that mean?It means that you prefer to worship the wookie devil and his anti-evolutionism.
That’s impressive joobz, very convincing.

So, let’s get back on topic, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed by combination selection pressures. Here is yet another example which demonstrates what Dr Schneider’s mathematical simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows.
http://members.portplus.com/storage/2455/content/2455_190607093821_867.pdf (http://members.portplus.com/storage/2455/content/2455_190607093821_867.pdf)
Research Assistant Jane Bardell has continued to investigate how small molecule inhibitors of cell signalling pathways might be used to specifically target both the survival of leukaemia cells and their ability to spread to multiple organs of the body. Some of these compounds inhibit the ability of leukaemia cells to move towards an attractant stimulus, and in this fashion may prevent leukaemia spread. Another attractive property of some of these compounds is that they may sensitise leukaemia cells to treatment with conventional agents and therefore may be useful in combination therapy to overcome drug resistance.
and
Importantly, combination therapy with TSA and interferon, through inhibiting cancer cell proliferation and limiting the cancer’s blood supply, proved even more effective than conventional chemotherapy or retinoids in the treatment of neuroblastoma.

[kleinman]

Kleinman. You pretend to be a doctor, so let's focus on something you should be familiar with for a moment. Say a bacterial strain becomes prevalent in an area. Treatment heals all but a small handful of people, who had a small population of that strain that happened to be resistant. That resistant strain begins infecting other people. As a doctor or pretend doctor (I don't know you, so I'm making no assumptions), you've probably seen this often enough.

Now, the remaining bacterial strain and the generations of these bacterium are all resistant to this drug. Wouldn't that drug be considered an environmental pressure, and wouldn't the resistance inherent in latter generations be considered an evolved trait?

If evolution isn't possible, than what would you call this?
I’ll pretend I’m a doctor and you pretend you are paying attention. You specifically asked me this question previously and I answered it for you. Look at my response to your last post.

[joobz]

So, let’s get back on topic, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed by combination selection pressures.

And what happens when those pressures are constant??

Class? any one want to take a guess?

[rocketdodger]

If evolution isn't possible, than what would you call this?

Here is how this conversation will go, Earl:

Kleinman: "It is micro-evolution, which is possible, but can't produce a bird from a reptile."

Us: "Ok, but what if there were many such small changes, over time -- couldn't large change come of it?"

Kleinman: "If you think so, tell me which genes were targeted by which pressures when producing a bird from a reptile."

Us: "Nobody knows all of that yet -- which is also why you can't rule it out"

Kleinman: <Stupid attempt at making fun of valid scientific speculation, followed by a laughing dog gif>

[kleinman]

Kleinman: <Stupid attempt at making fun of valid scientific speculation, followed by a laughing dog gif>
Rocketdodger, you don’t need to speculate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. We have a peer reviewed and published mathematical model written by Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute and hundreds of real, measurable and repeatable examples of the mutation and selection phenomenon which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection. Now rocket who flames out, when you say things like this:
On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
You earn the laughing dog.

[kjkent1]

kleinman, you seem to be ignoring this citation: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/88511241

Please explain how the HBV manages to avoid the multiple selection pressures by way of a "novel frame shift." This should be quite impossible, if your theory is correct, because, under multiple selection pressures were frame shifts to occur, they might accelerate evolution in a manner not modeled by "ev."

[Shalamar]

I now know that Klienman is not a Doctor. :)

He fails.

Ok. So, does anyone else have any other interesting tidbits about Annoying Creationists? Or other evolution models to take a look at such things?

[Mr. Scott]

I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.

Another blantant dodge. The passage has no bearing on the subject. You don't want an intellectual or scientific conversation, do you? We are really interested to know if you have enough faith in your creation-based theories to put them into practice. If you don't, it suggests you have no confidence in your own theories. If you do, then you should be proud to tell us what you've achieved. If you've used creation-based theories in your practice and refuse to report them, we'd really like to know why.

I'll ask the question again, and will make it a bullet list so you can more easily remember what the questions are so you can answer each of them.

Regarding a time you used a creationist-based drug regimen instead of an evolution-based regimen in a treatment of one of your patients:

- What was the nature of the infection?

- What was the standard treatment you thought wrong because it depended on the standard theory of evolution?

- What was the creationist-based treatment you used as a substitute?

- Was it as successful as you expected?

[Mister Earl]

No, Kleinman. You tell me to look here, there, everywhere but where I can find an answer. You make strawman attacks on weathermen, math, wookies, but you NEVER give a straight answer. When I came here, I gave you the benefit of a doubt. I'm starting to think I was wrong for doing so. Stop being facecious, drop the arrogance long enough to type a post up with an actual ANSWER. If my example isn't evolution, by definition, then what is it? And where is your math that "proves" evolution isn't possible?

[Nogbad]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.

This is called having your cake and eating it. Dr Kleinman has a number of beliefs and tablets of stone, one of which is his sorting and strong combination pressures mantra (possibly his favourite) What this actually means in the real world is anyones guess as every other comment is vague evasive and backed up by nothing other than a model the author of which believes supports basic evolutionary principles.

So what do we have? 191 pages of tripe seems to be the reasonable summation (with some funny bits) although I daresay we will raise an eyebrow of interest if Dr Kleinman is called to give evidence at the next Dover School Board case (if there is one)

[Shalamar]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.

He now has claimed that evolutionists caused the Flu Pandemic in the early part of the 20th century, as well as the Sars outbreak. Mainly by refusing to admit their 'flaws' in the ToE, and thus causing all those people to die.

I guess he thinks we have a cure for the Flu, and Sars, and everything else, but the evil evolutionists are hiding it.

I vote that the thread be moved to conspiracy theories.

[rocketdodger]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process.

I would say strong destructive pressures, because he hasn't shown us any data regarding combinations of pressures that don't act to kill off a population.

He claims all pressures are destructive, which is curious, since in his treasured ev population size is held constant. How he can simultaneously cling to an idea and yet base his theory on a program that violates it is beyond my understanding.

[Nogbad]

He now has claimed that evolutionists caused the Flu Pandemic in the early part of the 20th century, as well as the Sars outbreak. Mainly by refusing to admit their 'flaws' in the ToE, and thus causing all those people to die.

I guess he thinks we have a cure for the Flu, and Sars, and everything else, but the evil evolutionists are hiding it.

I vote that the thread be moved to conspiracy theories.

I must have missed that but given the daft nature of such claims is it not conceivable that he is merely trolling - quite successfully too given the length of the thread - and is no more a Creationist than any of the rest of us. (seems that way to me). That said, there has been some quite entertaining parts to this discussion.

[kleinman]

kleinman, you seem to be ignoring this citation: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...tract/88511241 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...tract/88511241)

Please explain how the HBV manages to avoid the multiple selection pressures by way of a "novel frame shift." This should be quite impossible, if your theory is correct, because, under multiple selection pressures were frame shifts to occur, they might accelerate evolution in a manner not modeled by "ev."
Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.
I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.Another blantant dodge. The passage has no bearing on the subject. You don't want an intellectual or scientific conversation, do you? We are really interested to know if you have enough faith in your creation-based theories to put them into practice. If you don't, it suggests you have no confidence in your own theories. If you do, then you should be proud to tell us what you've achieved. If you've used creation-based theories in your practice and refuse to report them, we'd really like to know why.
That’s no dodge, I often tell people to take two tablets and call me in the morning. That comes straight out of the Bible.

Sure we can have intellectual and scientific conversation. For example, you started a new thread the other day “Human DNA is >50% Virus DNA?!”, where your source is the New York Times and now claim that human DNA is made up of >50% viral DNA. Now, why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?
No, Kleinman. You tell me to look here, there, everywhere but where I can find an answer. You make strawman attacks on weathermen, math, wookies, but you NEVER give a straight answer. When I came here, I gave you the benefit of a doubt. I'm starting to think I was wrong for doing so. Stop being facecious, drop the arrogance long enough to type a post up with an actual ANSWER. If my example isn't evolution, by definition, then what is it? And where is your math that "proves" evolution isn't possible?
Mister Earl, it’s the same mathematics as your “biological simulation program” that you discussed earlier.
I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids. I skewed the fitness requirement to give higher values for organism height. After I would up with those simulated organisms, I changed the fitness requirements towards mobility and lifespan. I gave them the ability to consume each other, and to generate slightly mutated offspring if a specific organism had eaten enough competitors. It'll be an interesting result when I get home, I fully expect to see fully ambulatory, cannibalistic, digital Ents. Anyway, I am familiar with the parameters set, I've tinkered with these programs myself, but not in any professional capacity. Call it a passing interest.
These sorting algorithms only work quickly with trivially simple sorting conditions. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting/optimization process. You need several features for evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to work. Some of these features are, a population which does not reproduce perfectly, selection conditions which sort which reproductions are beneficial and which are detrimental, a trajectory on the fitness landscape which would allow evolution to a new local optimum and sufficient number of generations for the population to adapt to these selection conditions.

There are several deficiencies in the theory of evolution. The first is there are no selection conditions which would accomplish the massive transformations required such as metamorphosing reptiles into birds. The second is that mutation and selection can only quickly evolve single selection conditions which target single genes. The third is there are no trajectories on the fitness landscape that could accomplish these types of transformations. As soon as you subject a population to selection conditions that target more than a single gene, the ability of the population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations is markedly confounded. This is why combination therapy works on every population that has the capability of evolving by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Mutation and selection only works for a very narrow range of situations. Once you have more than a single sorting condition the sorting process is profoundly slowed unless the population is driven to extinction. All sorting problems are slowed when you impose more complex sorting conditions. This is what the mathematics of ev shows, this is what the real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection show. You may be able to evolve “digital Ents” with your trivial sorting conditions in your computer simulation, however you can not evolve real Ants with the selection conditions and time available in reality. It is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply does not work that way.
As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.
Weak selection pressures are profoundly slow at transforming populations. In addition all selection pressures interfere with each other when a population tries to traverse the fitness landscape. Weak selection pressures interfere with the evolution of strong selection pressures and slow the evolutionary process as well.

There was sufficient understanding 50 years ago that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. It took 5 years of monotherapy for evolutionists to relearn this lesson on HIV. The price for this ignorant evolutionist interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process was the introduction of huge number of resistant viruses in the HIV gene pool. We also have MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea… You evolutionists have done a completely incompetent job in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
This is called having your cake and eating it. Dr Kleinman has a number of beliefs and tablets of stone, one of which is his sorting and strong combination pressures mantra (possibly his favourite) What this actually means in the real world is anyones guess as every other comment is vague evasive and backed up by nothing other than a model the author of which believes supports basic evolutionary principles.
Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolution is a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.
So what do we have? 191 pages of tripe seems to be the reasonable summation (with some funny bits) although I daresay we will raise an eyebrow of interest if Dr Kleinman is called to give evidence at the next Dover School Board case (if there is one)
Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades. The complete incompetence that evolutionists have demonstrated in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has left us with multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds… Mutation and selection simply does not work the way you evolutionists allege. Your irrational and illogical interpretation of this phenomenon has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That is the contribution evolutionists have made to science.

Yet again, I have to remind you of the civility rule. If you cannot be civil, you will be suspended or banned from this forum.

[Nogbad]

]Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolution is a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.

Well I am a historian by academic training and accountant by profession and I don't think I have ever described myself as a working evolutionist. It is not an article of faith for me and I really couldn't care that much one way or another. As I said some time ago, ToE seems like a good working principle to hang what we know on but if something better comes along I'll listen - I have no emotional or professional vested interest in ToE. However, I have seen nothing here agin it that makes even the slightest bit of sense. If you have something then you are singularly failing in communicating it. To say "I am brilliant you are all simply too stupid to see it" is not a desperately convincing argument.

Personally, I think you are just having a laugh ;)

[joobz]

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades.
Thank god we did. Otherwise we'd be at a loss to explain MRSAs.

[Shalamar]

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades. The complete incompetence that evolutionists have demonstrated in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has left us with multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds… Mutation and selection simply does not work the way you evolutionists allege. Your irrational and illogical interpretation of this phenomenon has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That is the contribution evolutionists have made to science.[/SIZE][/FONT]

THIS is why I vote we move this thread to Conspiracy Theories. Klienman has finally moved away from Science, and has instead decided to move towards 'Evil evolutionists are KILLING us!'.

[kleinman]

]Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolutionist in a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.Well I am a historian by academic training and accountant by profession and I don't think I have ever described myself as a working evolutionist. It is not an article of faith for me and I really couldn't care that much one way or another. As I said some time ago, ToE seems like a good working principle to hang what we know on but if something better comes along I'll listen - I have no emotional or professional vested interest in ToE. However, I have seen nothing here agin it that makes even the slightest bit of sense. If you have something then you are singularly failing in communicating it. To say "I am brilliant you are all simply too stupid to see it" is not a desperately convincing argument.
You are an accountant?!? The mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem is simply a bookkeeping problem. You should audit the books; you will find that the evolutionist’s books don’t balance. Perhaps these books are a little difficult for you to audit?
Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades.Thank god we did. Otherwise we'd be at a loss to explain MRSAs.
Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Nogbad]

Books are rarely difficult to audit - being innovative (and legal) in mitigating tax liability, now that can be tricky :D

[kleinman]

Books are rarely difficult to audit - being innovative (and legal) in mitigating tax liability, now that can be tricky http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Dr Schneider’s bookkeeping model has shown that evolutionists have been caught with their fingers in the till. Their books don’t balance.

[joobz]

Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.


As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.

[Mr. Scott]

why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?

It happens by direct infection of a germ cell, like this:

Ob31Ahdlhk8

[Mister Earl]

I second the motion to have this moved to the CT area. Kleinman is getting less and less rational as time goes on, here. First it is "Evolution doesn't exist, I have math to prove it", now it's "Evil evolutionists committing murder" and finally to "Wookie weathermen".

And Kleinman, *you* initially pointed to that model to make a point. I only used your own model to show your point wasn't valid. I didn't say, "Look at this model, it _proves_ evolution.", I said instead, "This selection in this reference you just used doesn't support your claim."

Let's be upfront, here, Kleinman. I want you to post your evidence here, written by your own hand. Prove to me and everyone else that evolution isn't possible. If it is so obvious, I shouldn't have to follow numerous links, looking for an obscure passage that only makes sense when it is taken out of context.

You claim evolution is bull, and that it's easy to prove that, so I'm only asking you to do what you claim you can. Make it happen, Kleinman.

[kjkent1]

Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.kleinman, you are so full of crap, your eyes are brown!

Your argument in this thread is that neither ev nor any empirical evidence has shown that an organism can escape the effects of combination selective pressures. You stated that we should modify ev to use non-random-point mutations if we believed we could prove otherwise. You further stated that if someone posted just one counter-example that the thread would end.

Well, I've provided a peer-reviewed counter-example, in which HBV escapes combination therapies via a frame shift -- something which you claim is mathematically and empirically impossible.

The example clearly demonstrates how non-random-point mutation avoids the effects of combination selection pressures -- directly falsifying your conclusion.

The cite is a very clear black swan for your theory (as are many others, but this one is just blatantly so). So, you can post as many white swan examples as you wish, but it won't change reality -- which is that whatever the truth of evolutionary theory may be, that truth is definitely not encompassed by I shall now refer to going forward as the "kleinman doctrine," namely the false claim that "evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically and empirically impossible."

[kleinman]

Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.
Joobz, the only thing you present on this thread are bizarre, irrational speculations. However, you were truthful on another thread when you said this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241)
If there was a "sticky" thread on drug delivery, biomaterials or polymer chemistry, I'd be there instantly. But evolution isn't my field.
A rare example of a truthful statement from you but let’s hear what a PhD in alchemical engineering has to say about evolution.
As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.
Not only do strong combination selection pressures slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, weak selection pressures when combined with strong selection pressures slow the process. The only way you can accelerate the process is by having single strong selection pressures applied sequentially. Initially applying the strong selection pressure at less than totally lethal intensity, allow the population to recover then slowly increase the intensity of the single selection pressure until the population adapts to the selection pressure. Then apply the next strong selection pressure in the same manner and so on. You posted a citation a while back where these scientists did exactly that.

So let’s see what kind of myth you can make up which takes this very limited process and transforms reptiles into birds.
Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.
We also need to remember that you believe that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously give life. It is raw speculation but you think it is possible despite not having a single shred of evidence.
Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.
There you go folks; that’s the evolutionist view of how reptiles transform into birds. Hey joobz, you forgot plate tectonics. Why don’t you put a little science into your irrational speculations and tell us what genes are targeted by your shopping list of environmental variables? Then you can peddle this nonsense to naïve school children and Shalamar and you all can celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day. You evolutionists think your speculations qualify as science but that argument only works when you are preaching to your fellow dogmatists. Keep your religion out of our public schools.
why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?It happens by direct infection of a germ cell, like this:
All these viruses passed on in germ cells. Seems like immunizations are such a waste since we have all these viruses already, so why when the parents get measles to we have to immunize the children? Or chicken pox, or rubella, or polio, or mumps…

Mr Scott, I do think that evolution by viral infection is a better argument than evolution by mutation and selection. After all, evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible. Now if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.
I second the motion to have this moved to the CT area. Kleinman is getting less and less rational as time goes on, here. First it is "Evolution doesn't exist, I have math to prove it", now it's "Evil evolutionists committing murder" and finally to "Wookie weathermen".

And Kleinman, *you* initially pointed to that model to make a point. I only used your own model to show your point wasn't valid. I didn't say, "Look at this model, it _proves_ evolution.", I said instead, "This selection in this reference you just used doesn't support your claim."

Let's be upfront, here, Kleinman. I want you to post your evidence here, written by your own hand. Prove to me and everyone else that evolution isn't possible. If it is so obvious, I shouldn't have to follow numerous links, looking for an obscure passage that only makes sense when it is taken out of context.

You claim evolution is bull, and that it's easy to prove that, so I'm only asking you to do what you claim you can. Make it happen, Kleinman.
You evolutionist speculators would like to close this thread because the mathematics and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is clear. It can not do what you evolutionists allege. You think just because you have simple stick models of mutation and selection that you can extrapolate the results to reptiles transforming into birds. If you want to understand what happens when selection conditions become complex in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, consider what happens in Dr Schneider’s model 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.

That finding is reflected in the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which I have posted and will continue to post more examples. These citations demonstrates what happens to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process when you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene.
Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.Your argument in this thread is that neither ev nor any empirical evidence has shown that an organism can escape the effects of combination selective pressures. You stated that we should modify ev to use non-random-point mutations if we believed we could prove otherwise. You further stated that if someone posted just one counter-example that the thread would end.

Well, I've provided a peer-reviewed counter-example, in which HBV escapes combination therapies via a frame shift -- something which you claim is mathematically and empirically impossible.
Well legal beagle, here is a citation which shows that it doesn’t matter if HBV does from shifts. Combination selection pressures still profoundly slow the evolution of this virus.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3180.htm (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3180.htm)
Increasingly, combination therapy with more than one nucleoside or nucleotide analog is contemplated for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Combination therapy may be more effective than monotherapy in patients who have exhibited drug resistance. It remains to be determined whether combination therapy is appropriate for patients with chronic hepatitis B who are drug naive.
andhttp://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.
And
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.
and
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.
These citations are only from the pool of most recent citations on HBV I have found. I have almost 2000 pages of notes with hundreds of other citations as well. And legal beagle, if you think you are correct about HBV, you better contact all these scientists and tell them they are wrong for using combination therapy. It’s useless, HBV does frame shifts. Legal beagle, you are chasing the wrong ambulance. On the other hand, perhaps you are shooting to be the defense lawyer in the suit.

[joobz]

Joobz, the only thing you present on this thread are bizarre, irrational speculations. However, you were truthful on another thread when you said this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241)

A rare example of a truthful statement from you but let’s hear what a PhD in alchemical engineering has to say about evolution.
yawn. Your insults are boring.

Not only do strong combination selection pressures slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, weak selection pressures when combined with strong selection pressures slow the process. The only way you can accelerate the process is by having single strong selection pressures applied sequentially. Initially applying the strong selection pressure at less than totally lethal intensity, allow the population to recover then slowly increase the intensity of the single selection pressure until the population adapts to the selection pressure. Then apply the next strong selection pressure in the same manner and so on. You posted a citation a while back where these scientists did exactly that.

So let’s see what kind of myth you can make up which takes this very limited process and transforms reptiles into birds.

We also need to remember that you believe that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously give life. It is raw speculation but you think it is possible despite not having a single shred of evidence.

There you go folks; that’s the evolutionist view of how reptiles transform into birds. Hey joobz, you forgot plate tectonics. Why don’t you put a little science into your irrational speculations and tell us what genes are targeted by your shopping list of environmental variables? Then you can peddle this nonsense to naïve school children and Shalamar and you all can celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day. You evolutionists think your speculations qualify as science but that argument only works when you are preaching to your fellow dogmatists. Keep your religion out of our public schools.
a lot of words that say absolutely nothing.

let's try again.

See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.


As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.

[rocketdodger]

I also favor moving this to conspiracy theories.

It is obvious that Kleinman has no scientific or mathematical arguments of his own. It is also obvious that he is now doing nothing more than claiming everyone in the scientific community is interpreting the results of numerous studies incorrectly and reaching the wrong conclusions. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.

[kleinman]

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.
The only thing constant in this thread is your constant stream of speculations. You post a long shopping list of environmental variables and claim that is how you evolve birds from reptiles. This is the same type of speculation you posted about abiogenesis.
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, tell us how the environment evolves a Wookie.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

I also favor moving this to conspiracy theories.

It is obvious that Kleinman has no scientific or mathematical arguments of his own. It is also obvious that he is now doing nothing more than claiming everyone in the scientific community is interpreting the results of numerous studies incorrectly and reaching the wrong conclusions. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.
couple that with his arguments where he attempted to include anti-religious sentiments as a motivation for evolution, it is clear that his argument isn't scientific.

[joobz]

The only thing constant in this thread is your constant stream of speculations. You post a long shopping list of environmental variables and claim that is how you evolve birds from reptiles. This is the same type of speculation you posted about abiogenesis.
[/color]
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold? Joobz, tell us how the environment evolves a Wookie.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
I put forth a scientific argument based upon facts. You respond with non sequitor insults.


this thread should be moved either to abandon all hope or the conspricy theory forum. It is clear that Kleinman has abandoned any pretense of making a scientific claim.

[kleinman]

couple that with his arguments where he attempted to include anti-religious sentiments as a motivation for evolution, it is clear that his argument isn't scientific.
Joobz, presents a scientific argument:
I acknowledge this is complete speculation
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[rocketdodger]

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?

[Henners]

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?


Why not just wait until the man gets his Nobel for overturning all of the science of Biology, and then apologise to him.

Or, hang on, if somebody came up to you in the street and claimed to be Napoleon, would you try to convince them otherwise, or just point and laugh?

[kleinman]

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?
How could we forget rocketdodger’s scientific proof:
I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/frown.gif
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Hey buzz bomb, having a little trouble coming up with a valid argument so you thought you’d try censorship instead. That very evolutionary of you.

[Mister Earl]

"You evolutionist speculators would like to close this thread because the mathematics and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is clear. It can not do what you evolutionists allege. You think just because you have simple stick models of mutation and selection that you can extrapolate the results to reptiles transforming into birds. If you want to understand what happens when selection conditions become complex in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, consider what happens in Dr Schneider’s model which show that combination selection pressure profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection."

There you go again, claiming you've proved something you haven't. We've asked you to post the math a hundred times now. You can't, because it is meaningless speculation on your part. It's an opinion of yours, not fact. That's why this should go to the CT forums. This thread has de-evolved into a sideshow.

[joobz]

Joobz, presents a scientific argument:

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Actually, When I say something is based upon speculation, I mean it.

When I say something is based upon evidence and facts, I mean it.

You should be wise and not attempt to quote mine me. Indeed, all you have done is present evidence that I admit honestly when my posts are speculations or when they are facts:

So, For the record.

This is speculation

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.

this is scientifically supported fact

As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development

Your attempts to blur between the two do not help your case and only further proves that you don't actually believe in what you say. If you did, you would actually attempt to critique the science of my second argument.


As for moving the thread, Paul can at any time. I'm certain that he avoids doing so to prevent kleinman from having the satisfaction of pretending an "annoying victory".

Obviously, if this was a moderated debate, Kleinman wouldn't have lasted an afternoon. But being an open forum, he's allowed to annoy at his lesuire.

[kleinman]

"You evolutionist speculators would like to close this thread because the mathematics and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is clear. It can not do what you evolutionists allege. You think just because you have simple stick models of mutation and selection that you can extrapolate the results to reptiles transforming into birds. If you want to understand what happens when selection conditions become complex in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, consider what happens in Dr Schneider’s model which show that combination selection pressure profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection."
Dr Schneider’s model is peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press journal Nucleic Acids Research. Here is what Dr Schneider has to say about his model:
A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.
Dr Schneider’s model has all the essential variables properly modeled in order to study how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And it doesn’t work the way evolutionists allege. What Dr Schneider’s model shows and what the empirical evidence demonstrates is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is dominated by the complexity of the selection conditions. Only a single selection condition targeted at a single gene can evolve quickly. As soon as you target selection conditions at more than a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.
There you go again, claiming you've proved something you haven't. We've asked you to post the math a hundred times now. You can't, because it is meaningless speculation on your part. It's an opinion of yours, not fact. That's why this should go to the CT forums. This thread has de-evolved into a sideshow.
I have posted Dr Schneider’s computer model, his URLs which describe how the mathematics of his model are applied, numerous real examples of how the mutation and selection process works in reality and still you either haven’t read and studied these references, you simply don’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics or you are in denial. Perhaps if I gave you a picture from Dr Schneider’s web site which explains how his model works.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html)
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/penta/penta.jpg
That’s for all of you evolutionists who graduated from Mathishard University and can’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics is all about. And that sorting process that Dr Schneider is talking about with his jpg is profoundly slowed when you have any selection condition that targets more than a single gene. That’s the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are slow to understand.

[Mister Earl]

" have posted Dr Schneider’s computer model, his URLs which describe how the mathematics of his model are applied, numerous real examples of how the mutation and selection process works in reality and still you either haven’t read and studied these references, you simply don’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics or you are in denial. Perhaps if I gave you a picture from Dr Schneider’s web site which explains how his model works."

I guess you keep ignoring the parts about the factors left out, or "multiple stressors" being transitory, not continual. No, Kleinman, I'm not "In denial". If that single paper is the basis of your entire argument, then I strongly suggest you find a new line of work.

The fact that you steadfastly ignore every single item that doesn't agree with your point of view is plenty enough for me to consider you a lost cause. If you are, in reality, a doctor, then I am seriously concerned for the welfare of your patients.

Either way, I'm done here. I've heard your point of view.

[Mr. Scott]

if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.

Remember, Kleinman, that every time you move the goalposts, we have a round of beer. Thanks! May I also remind you that every time a creationist moves the goal posts, a reptile gets its wings.

The serious answer is: by mutation and natural selection, as if you didn't know.

[rocketdodger]

I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was :(
Hey buzz bomb, having a little trouble coming up with a valid argument so you thought you’d try censorship instead. That very evolutionary of you.

Oh I see, you repeatedly quote the same statement in exclusion of everything else I have said on the topic, and you accuse me of attempting censorship.

Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[kleinman]

I guess you keep ignoring the parts about the factors left out, or "multiple stressors" being transitory, not continual. No, Kleinman, I'm not "In denial". If that single paper is the basis of your entire argument, then I strongly suggest you find a new line of work.
It’s not that single paper Mister Earl, it is a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have presented hundreds of empirical examples which demonstrate what Dr Schneider’s model shows mathematically. Now if you want to join joobz in his speculations that reptiles evolved into birds one gene at a time because of variations in the weather, feel free to jump on his band wagon without wheels. Just don’t teach this asinine speculation to naïve school children.
The fact that you steadfastly ignore every single item that doesn't agree with your point of view is plenty enough for me to consider you a lost cause. If you are, in reality, a doctor, then I am seriously concerned for the welfare of your patients.
Of course I ignore irrational and illogical evolutionist speculations. I examine the mathematics and empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. I’m still waiting for you evolutionists to post either.

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence:
I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/frown.gif
Oh yes, and here is joobz’s evidence for abiogenesis:
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, tell us how the environment evolves a Wookie.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
If you are going to teach children evolutionism, you might as well train them to be mathematically incompetent idiots. Look what it has done to joobz and rocketdodger.
Either way, I'm done here. I've heard your point of view.
You go back and play with your stick model and wonder what would happen if you were trying to sort 3 billion sticks. You might need a little more computer time to do that one.
if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.Remember, Kleinman, that every time you move the goalposts, we have a round of beer. Thanks! May I also remind you that every time a creationist moves the goal posts, a reptile gets its wings.

The serious answer is: by mutation and natural selection, as if you didn't know.
Are you whining about goalposts again? One evolutionist whines that I repeat myself and another one whines that I move the goal posts.

I’m sure your theory of evolution seems much more plausible when you are snockered. Are you ever going to tell us what the lies your atheist parent told you? What did they give you on Survival of the Fittest Day when you were young Master Scott.

Here are a couple more empirical examples of how mutation and selection actually works.
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/11/3173.pdf (http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/11/3173.pdf)
Beginning with observational data, the clearest difference between genotypes is in their susceptibility to treatment with IFN monotherapy or IFN/ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy. Typically, only 10–20 and 40–50% of individuals infected chronically with genotype 1 HCV on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively, exhibit complete and permanent clearance of virus infection.

http://cardenjennings.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,16;journal,35,67;linkingpublication results,1:106944,1 (http://cardenjennings.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,16;journal,35,67;linkingpublication results,1:106944,1)
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a stem cell disorder caused by a constitutively activated tyrosine kinase, the Bcr-Abl oncoprotein. An inhibitor of this tyrosine kinase, imatinib mesylate, is rapidly becoming the first-line therapy for CML. However, the development of resistance to this drug is a frequent setback, particularly in patients in advanced phases of the disease. Several mechanisms of resistance have been described, the most frequent of which are amplification and/or mutations of the BCR-ABL gene. To overcome resistance, several approaches have been studied in vitro and in vivo. They include dose escalation of imatinib, combination of imatinib with chemotherapeutic drugs, alternative Bcr-Abl inhibitors, inhibitors of kinases downstream of Bcr-Abl, farnesyl and geranylgeranyl transferase inhibitors, histone deacetylase, proteasome and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, arsenic trioxide, hypomethylating agents, troxacitabine, targeting Bcr-Abl messenger RNA, and immunomodulatory strategies. It is important to understand that these approaches differ in efficiency, which is often dependent on the mechanisms of resistance. Further investigations into the molecular mechanisms of disease and how to specifically target the abnormal processes will guide the design of new treatment modalities in future clinical trials. Int J Hematol. 2004;79:420-433.
These are for you Mister Earl as you head back into the ether to play with your stick models.

You know there is an old saying, “visits always bring pleasure, either in the coming or in the going”.

[rocketdodger]

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence:I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was :(

I guess I will just use the same reply...

Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?

[Mr. Scott]

Are you whining about goalposts again? One evolutionist whines that I repeat myself and another one whines that I move the goal posts.

If we had a round of beer every time you lied, like the lie above, we'd have all died of alcohol poisoning by now. No whining was involved, just a gleeful observation.

Here's a serious question: You've stated that population size doesn't matter in the progress of evolution. I'm not trying to straw man, that's just what I recall. This seems to me to be quite unintuitive. If, for example, there's a one in a billion chance of a specific adaptive mutation happening in a bacterium in a day, the a population of a billion would be expected to achieve this mutation, on the everage, once a day. Double the population, and you expect to see a similar mutation twice a day. Seems obvious to me. The vast populations even in something like a serious HIV infection would seem to be beyond the scope of a limited program like Ev.

So please convince me of your claim that population size has no bearing on the progress of evolution. I'm willing to listen.

[kleinman]

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence: I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/frown.gif Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?
You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.

[joobz]

You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.your quoting of Rocketdodger's post demonstrates his ability to admit limitations in his argument. this only strengthens his credibility on the subject.

Your continual attempt to use his temporary admission as proof of him being wrong is just further proof that you aren't intersted in science, mathemetics, medicine, or technology. As such, you do not belong in this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to address his model? or would you like to admit defeat?

[kleinman]

You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.your quoting of Rocketdodger's post demonstrates his ability to admit limitations in his argument. this only strengthens his credibility on the subject.

Your continual attempt to use his temporary admission as proof of him being wrong is just further proof that you aren't intersted in science, mathemetics, medicine, or technology. As such, you do not belong in this forum.
Rocketdodger had a “temporary admission”? The only thing that rocketdodger admitted was he forgot his parameters and then never posted them. Rocketdodger has posted nothing from his miscalculations just like Adequate admitted he had no real examples of his silly graph. It is irrational and illogical to think that the more complex the sorting conditions the faster the sorting process will proceed. That is what both rocketdodger and Adequate have posted.

The only thing you evolutionists have going for your theory is censorship. You have no mathematical or empirical evidence that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process will do what you claim so you resort to censorship.
Perhaps you'd like to address his model? or would you like to admit defeat?
Rocketdodger has only miscalculations. I would much rather discuss the peer reviewed and published mathematical model that was written by Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute but all you evolutionists would much rather talk about something else, like censorship. I told Dr Schneider that evolutionists would discredit his model as soon as evolutionists had any idea what his model really showed.

[rocketdodger]

I might add that the quote of yours, joobz, that he is in love with has also been vindicated at least three times by me, yet Kleinman keeps repeating it.

I have told him over and over that your speculation is in fact an observed phenomenon and is used in the synthesis of organic chemicals. Actually, its nothing more than repeated applications of equilibrium driven reactions that rely on Le`Chatelier's principle.

Of course, he only ever quotes your initial post, and none of the responses we have made showing you to be fairly on target.

You know, I don't mind much. I don't even care when people attack me personally in arguments. But misrepresenting things we have said, and selectively quoting in order to do so, is something that really pisses me off. Of course, this kind of behavior seems to be what caused Paul to start this thread in the first place.

[rocketdodger]

Rocketdodger had a “temporary admission”? The only thing that rocketdodger admitted was he forgot his parameters and then never posted them.

Why do you try to be such a lying scumbag on a forum, Kleinman, where people can just scroll up to see what was actually said? Or perhaps you missed all of the pertinent posts, although I somehow doubt it -- take a look at this post if you have forgotten:

See...

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point. If you continue to treat kleinman this way after his suspension, you will be suspended.

[kleinman]

You know, I don't mind much. I don't even care when people attack me personally in arguments. But misrepresenting things we have said, and selectively quoting in order to do so, is something that really pisses me off. Of course, this kind of behavior seems to be what caused Paul to start this thread in the first place.
Hey rocketdodger, I haven’t tried to censor you. You are free to say whatever you want and you do. If you understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works tell us but all I’ve seen from you are miscalculation and whining. So far the only thing you have proven is that you are a graduate of the University of Nomathzona.

Paul should be pissed off, his own mathematical model discredits his irrational and illogical theory and the empirical evidence verifies what his mathematical model shows.

[kleinman]

Rocketdodger had a “temporary admission”? The only thing that rocketdodger admitted was he forgot his parameters and then never posted them.Why do you try to be such a lying scumbag on a forum, Kleinman, where people can just scroll up to see what was actually said? Or perhaps you missed all of the pertinent posts, although I somehow doubt it -- take a look at this post if you have forgotten:
Rocketdodger posted his data?
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[joobz]

Rocketdodger has only miscalculations.
If you believe so, prove it.

It is interesting that a mathematician on this forum came to the exact same conclusions as Rocketdodger. the burden of proof is on you to prove that their math is wrong. I'm certain that rocketdodger would be happy to provide you with any text to help you in your analysis.

[joobz]

I might add that the quote of yours, joobz, that he is in love with has also been vindicated at least three times by me, yet Kleinman keeps repeating it.

I have told him over and over that your speculation is in fact an observed phenomenon and is used in the synthesis of organic chemicals. Actually, its nothing more than repeated applications of equilibrium driven reactions that rely on Le`Chatelier's principle.
Well, I knew my statements would stand on thier own merits. the fact that he continues to use it as some sort of barb against me simply demonstrates his stupidity.

Much like when he posts Dr. Adequate's graph and drA's analysis of the graph. His mockery is blind admission that he knows nothing of what he talks about.



Of course, he only ever quotes your initial post, and none of the responses we have made showing you to be fairly on target.

You know, I don't mind much. I don't even care when people attack me personally in arguments. But misrepresenting things we have said, and selectively quoting in order to do so, is something that really pisses me off. Of course, this kind of behavior seems to be what caused Paul to start this thread in the first place.
That is his whole purpose. He has no interest in anything but being annoying. He knows he's wrong. He's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I just continue to post to see if he says anything interesting.
Unfortunately, no.
So, I think i'm done with this thread.

[kleinman]

Rocketdodger has only miscalculations.If you believe so, prove it.
It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:
I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.
And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself.

I’ll continue to work with Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. I’ve studied his mathematics and he got it right.

Now if you want to explain how the weather will evolve a wookie, I think everyone would like to hear that. That would be a good one.
:dl:

[rocketdodger]

It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.

This illustrates two major differences between us, Kleinman.

1) When I don't understand something I ask for help and try to learn.

2) When presented with an argument, I examine the argument itself rather than whether the person presenting it was born with the knowledge or had to learn it. Most people are not a genius like you --we need to learn topics before we think we are ready to discuss them.

And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself. [/QUOTE]

I don't know what else I can do besides making the source code easily available to you, Kleinman. Do you want me to come to California and tape your eyes open, read the code aloud for you, and wipe your arse while I am at it?

[kleinman]

It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.This illustrates two major differences between us, Kleinman.

1) When I don't understand something I ask for help and try to learn.

2) When presented with an argument, I examine the argument itself rather than whether the person presenting it was born with the knowledge or had to learn it. Most people are not a genius like you --we need to learn topics before we think we are ready to discuss them.
So tell us what you have learned about ev.
And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself.I don't know what else I can do besides making the source code easily available to you, Kleinman. Do you want me to come to California and tape your eyes open, read the code aloud for you, and wipe your arse while I am at it?
It’s up to you to prove your code is a valid computation. You claim it shows that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the system evolves. While you are at it, give us some empirical examples of what you claim your code shows. Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model shows the exact opposite of what you claim and the empirical evidence substantiates it. The peer reviewed and published model and empirical evidence which substantiates it shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Here’s another empirical example which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.
http://www.imbim.uu.se/dokument/IMBIM-2004%20nr1.pdf (http://www.imbim.uu.se/dokument/IMBIM-2004%20nr1.pdf)
Several antimalarial drugs act on the folate metabolism, eventually affecting synthesis of DNA precursors, especially dTTP. Examples are Fansidar, which is a combination of pyrimethamine and sulfadoxine, and LapDap, which is a combination of chlorproguanil and dapsone. We still do not know exactly how these compounds interfere with the folate pathways, which include both de novo synthesis and salvage of folates from the host. To be an efficient antimalarial, a drug or drug combination should act on both pathways.
Prove your case and while we are waiting for you to do this, I will continue to post more and more and more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

[kjkent1]

These citations are only from the pool of most recent citations on HBV I have found. I have almost 2000 pages of notes with hundreds of other citations as well. And legal beagle, if you think you are correct about HBV, you better contact all these scientists and tell them they are wrong for using combination therapy. It’s useless, HBV does frame shifts. Legal beagle, you are chasing the wrong ambulance. On the other hand, perhaps you are shooting to be the defense lawyer in the suit.kleinman, you have finally convinced me that you're an idiot.

A scientific theory is falsified on the proof that just one example does not fit the hypothesis.

So, if your hypothesis is that mutation and selection cannot evolve novel traits due to the imposition of strong combination selection pressures, and I provide you with an experiment that does exactly that, then your hypothesis is falsified. P E R I O D !

The referenced study shows a "novel frame shift" which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures. Given enough of these novelties over time, and you will have an entirely different virus, or maybe not even a virus, because the mutations are novel and beneficial and they cause significantly more change than mere random-point mutations.

I don't need to show that combination therapy doesn't help slow down viral resistance to defeat the "kleinman doctrine." I only need to show one example where a virus does something other than random-point mutation and gains resistance.

And, that, my sorry little friend, I have done. So, you lose. Your theory is, as my father would say in Yiddish: "facocked!"

So, just keep on dreaming that evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. Because that's all it is, kleinman: a big fairytale dreeeeeaaaam!

[kleinman]

These citations are only from the pool of most recent citations on HBV I have found. I have almost 2000 pages of notes with hundreds of other citations as well. And legal beagle, if you think you are correct about HBV, you better contact all these scientists and tell them they are wrong for using combination therapy. It’s useless, HBV does frame shifts. Legal beagle, you are chasing the wrong ambulance. On the other hand, perhaps you are shooting to be the defense lawyer in the suit.A scientific theory is falsified on the proof that just one example does not fit the hypothesis.
Really? Then the theory of evolution has been proved false hundreds of times over on this thread alone. But your strategy to be defense lawyer on your losing case should bring you a fortune. Even the tobacco company lawyers made money on that one.
So, if your hypothesis is that mutation and selection cannot evolve novel traits due to the imposition of strong combination selection pressures, and I provide you with an experiment that does exactly that, then your hypothesis is falsified. P E R I O D !
That’s not my hypothesis but thank you for giving me another opportunity to present my hypothesis. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works quickly when you have a single selection condition targeting a single gene. As soon as two or more selection conditions are posted targeting two or more genes, the sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations is profoundly slowed. That is what Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations shows and that is what these hundreds of citations of real examples of mutation and selection shows. The only thing falsified on this thread is the irrational and illogical theory of evolution.
The referenced study shows a "novel frame shift" which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures. Given enough of these novelties over time, and you will have an entirely different virus, or maybe not even a virus, because the mutations are novel and beneficial and they cause significantly more change than mere random-point mutations.
Really again? Why don’t you post the quote from your article where it says that “a novel frame shift which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures? You wouldn’t be trying to fabricate your own evidence, would you legal beagle?
I don't need to show that combination therapy doesn't help slow down viral resistance to defeat the "kleinman doctrine." I only need to show one example where a virus does something other than random-point mutation and gains resistance.
I’ve never claimed that adaptation could only occur by random point mutations. I’ve only claimed that it doesn’t matter what type of mutation you have, what I have claimed is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Your HBV citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts only confirms my hypothesis. It does not matter what type of mutation you have, combination therapy slows the evolution of HBV, HIV and what ever other population that is trying to adapt to a selection pressure by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. It is the number of selection pressures which dominate the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, not the type of mutation. I suggest you don’t try this argument at trial; it will lose because of the overwhelming contradictory evidence.
And, that, my sorry little friend, I have done. So, you lose. Your theory is, as my father would say in Yiddish: "facocked!"
A mentsh tracht und Gott lacht.

So while legal beagle is planning for his big payday, here is another example of how combination selection pressures affect a population.
http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/34_1_2/34_1_2Abstracts.shtml (http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/34_1_2/34_1_2Abstracts.shtml)
We have investigated the modulated antitumor activity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by 1-leucovorin (LV) and recombinant human interferon a-2a (IFN) against human colon carcinoma xenograft (Co-4) serially transplanted into nude mice. 5-FU showed dose-dependent antitumor activity on Co-4 and a significant combination antitumor effect was obtained, when 200 mg of LV per kg was administered intraperitoneally on -1 and 0 hours before 5-FU (90 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) treatment. The modulated antitumor effect of 5-FU was dependent on the dose of LV and correlated with the increment of the thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibition. When IFN was administered subcutaneously in a schedule of qdx14 at doses of 6 x 10^3, 6 x 10^4 and 6 x 10^5 IU/mouse, IFN alone indicated the antitumor activity in a dose-dependent manner. The combination treatment of 5-FU (60 mg/kg intraperitoneal, q4dx3) and IFN (6 x 10^4 IU/mouse subcutaneously, qdx14) showed an additive antitumor effect on Co-4 without any changes of TS inhibition. These results showed that the modes of action of 5-FU modulator are diverse and a human tumor xenograftnude mouse system would be useful in evaluating these modes of action.

[Shalamar]

Kleinman, no-one here has EVER denied that multiple strong constant selections pressures on a population could slow down the populations evolution to the point of potential extinction.

What is denied, and has been proven wrong, many times on this thread, is that this claim disproves the Theory of Evolution. Your statement regarding multiple strong constant selection pressures is well within evolutionary theory, but it does not mean that evolution is impossible.

Now, Let us recap for the readers on Kleinmans claims.

Multiple Constant strong selection pressures profoundly slow down evolution.
Slow = Stop.
There is no variation of the amount of selection pressures in nature.
There is no variation in the strength of selection pressures in nature.
Neither a population nor an organism can adapt to multiple selection pressures.
Evolution is evil.
'Evolutionists' are evil.
'Evolutionists' kill people due to selection pressures.
Doctors, who only have access to 'evolutionist' writings, kill people due to selection pressures.
Creationism is the only conclusion.
Wookies are real.

Kleinman is not a scientist. Or rather, a very very bad one. He already has his conclusion, which is that Creationism is True. His source is a very very old book, that has been translated many many times.
Because his conclusion is creationism, he will only look at evidence that supports his claim. Since there is no evidence in favor of creationism, he has attempted to try and disprove evolution. He has found some evidence regarding selection pressures, but it seems he is placing his own interpretation upon these studies.
'
He flat out ignores ANY evidence that discounts his claim. He simply inserts a laughing dog.

When called out on his false claims, and his constant lying, he resorts to that time old debating technique, calling his opponents names, putting his great wit to changing peoples forum names to make them seem week, and unintelligent, making up bizzare and frankly stupid holidays, and when all that fails, flat out ignoring people.

He has been proven wrong. At least a decent scientist would consider the new evidence, and see how it impacts his hypothesis. Sadly, his reasoning is circular:

Creationism is True.
This means that Evolution is False.
If Evolution is False, then creationism is true.

Have I missed anything? (I will be ignoring anything from Mr. Kleinman, as he will simply call me names, or toss a laughing dog at me. He has nothing intelligent to say.)

[Henners]

toss a laughing dog at me

Oh, I see.

I always thought that the laughing dog was the man himself.

I was wondering how the Nobel Prize Committee was going to look handing over the prize to a laughing dog.

Well, presumably a serious dog, on the day, getting its paws on all that dosh.

Doggie chews for life, that.

[kleinman]

Kleinman, no-one here has EVER denied that multiple strong constant selections pressures on a population could slow down the populations evolution to the point of potential extinction.

What is denied, and has been proven wrong, many times on this thread, is that this claim disproves the Theory of Evolution. Your statement regarding multiple strong constant selection pressures is well within evolutionary theory, but it does not mean that evolution is impossible.
Shalamar, you are wrong on several points here. Let’s start with your first point. Several evolutionists on this thread claim that simultaneous and sequential selection pressures evolve at the same rate and others have claimed that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs.

These are fundamental blunders that you evolutionist make in the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. What you are failing to understand Shalamar is that weak selection pressures sort more slowly than strong selection pressures and that all selection pressures influence the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape.

Shalamar, there are no selection pressures (weak or strong) that work in harmony to sort mutations to achieve the massive changes required to accomplish common descent. It is a mathematical and empirical impossibility. The mutation and selection sorting optimization/sorting process simply can not and does not work that way. Evolutionists have done an atrocious job in teaching the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and it is reflected in your confused understanding of the process. But you are not alone; it took 5 years of monotherapy on HIV for David Ho to relearn the lesson that Nobel laureate Edward Tatum understood three decades before.

[Henners]

you are failing to understand Shalamar is that weak selection pressures sort more slowly than strong selection pressures and that all selection pressures influence the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape

Woo-oo, Woo-oo, Wee-ooo....

[kleinman]

Henners contribution to the understanding of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process:
Woo-oo, Woo-oo, Wee-ooo....
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

[Shalamar]

Lets add another claim in Kleinmans theory:

Evolution is Mathematically and empirically impossible.
But he never has to show the math to prove this claim.

Besides, Genetics, the fossil record alone show common descent.
But all he cares about are his claims. All other evidence is ignored.

Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.

[Nogbad]

Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.

When he is having so much fun?

I doubt it.

[Henners]

In that last post, kleinman, you seem to be shagging the carpet.

They'll never give you a Nobel prize if you blot your copybook like that.

Incidentally, your statment: the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape


...is not even a schoolboy error, but one of the most inane comments that I have ever seen. It would lose marks at university-entrance level in England because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution.

The description of populations pursuing a purposeful trajectory toward a predefined end-point is inconsistent with everything that is known about evolution.

You wouldn't be one of those moronic Wedge Strategists, would you, perchance?

[kleinman]

Evolution is Mathematically and empirically impossible.
But he never has to show the math to prove this claim.
Not quite right on both points. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible and I all I have to do is show you Dr Schneider’s mathematics. Here’s how Dr Schneider’s mathematics works:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html)
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/penta/penta.jpg
Shalamar, click on the link and read Dr Schneider’s description how the mathematics for his ev program works.
Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.When he is having so much fun?
Of course I am having fun annoying all you evolutionists with the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. The best argument you have had for your theory so far is to censor anyone who doesn’t believe your irrational and illogical nonsense.

[rocketdodger]

So tell us what you have learned about ev.

What is Rfreq and Rseq?
Rfreq is a measure of the information required to locate a valid binding site in a genome.

Rseq is a measure of the information conserved in the binding site.

What is ev?

A program written to show that the naturally observed phenomonen of Rseq ~= Rfreq in real genomes is easily evolvable. The genes in the program represent proteins that can bind to DNA, thus controlling their (or other's) transcription -- similar to how known genetic control mechanisms work.

In the program, the fittest invididuals have the least mistakes, where a mistake is a) a gene that cannot control itself (its protein doesn't bind to its binding site), b) a gene whose protein binds somehwere other than its binding site.

Why can't the ev program be used for the purposes Kleinman contends it can?

-The population size in ev remains constant (every generation only half the population is killed off, and then the fittest reproduce to fill the gap back up) whereas in every single empirical example Kleinman has cited the population dies off in only a few generations.

-The three selection pressures in ev each target every single potential binding site in the genome (something Kleinman has repeatedly said to be impossible in reality, mind you), instead of individual genes / bases.

Why is Kleinman wrong with regards to the mistake count selection pressures?

There are three global selection pressures active in ev. First, mistakes are generated for missed sites, which is when a gene's protein doesn't bind to its own binding site. Second, there is spurious binding within gene, which is when a gene's protein binds to its own gene but not at the control site. Third, mistakes are generated for spurious binding outside gene, which is when a gene's protein binds to a site outside of the gene. In ev, users can assign a relative weight to how bad each of these mistake categories are. I will use vector notation, I.E. [1,1,1] meaning each has an equal weight of 1, [1,2,3] meaning missed sites have weight 1, spurious binding within gene has 2, etc.

Furthermore, there are two metrics one can use when determining when to stop the simulation. First, one can stop when a perfect creature is evolved, which is defined as an individual with no mistakes -- when all of its proteins can bind to their own binding sites. Second, one can stop when Rseq >= Rfreq, or when the control is nearly perfect. Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of ev is to research the latter and it was written with that in mind.

Now, Kleinman's contention is that ev supports his hypothesis because the number of generations it takes to evolve a perfect creature with weights [1,0,0] is much less than the number of generations it takes with weights [1,1,1], or in other words that the evolution under one global pressure is much faster than under three. Let us examine whether this claim has merit.

First, what is a perfect creature when the weights are [1,0,0]? By definition, it is a creature who's genes all produce proteins that bind to their own control sites. That is good. But it also has a myriad of proteins that bind in many other places (because no penalty is given to spurious bindings). This is bad. In fact, it would not happen in reality, for reasons that should be obvious. Already, we have shown that Kleinman is incorrect in this matter, but for the sake of completion, let us proceed.

Second, what about using Rseq >= Rfreq as the stopping point? It turns out that with weights [1,0,0] the simulation will never attain it, even with extremely small population and genome size. This should be a pretty good indicator that the program was not designed to run with weights [1,0,0].

Third, what about using other combinations, like [0,1,0] or [0,0,1]? Mathematically, if Kleinman wants to treat each of the three pressures similarly, then they should in fact be similar and thus lead to similar results when they are the only active pressure. This, however, is not the case. Both [0,1,0] and [0,0,1] evolve a perfect creature in only one generation, meaning that the garbage the genome is initialized with is in fact considered "perfect" under those weight distributions. This is quite different than [1,0,0] where, using the default parameters for instance, it takes 6 generations. Likewise, neither [0,1,0] or [0,0,1] ever stop on the Rseq >= Rfreq metric.

Thus, it is utterly ignorant to set any of the weights to zero. Note that none of the "peer reviewed" articles on, or even citing, ev make use of such weights.

What happens when we use ev as intended?

First, we have already gotten Kleinman to admit that in reality there is never a single selection pressure -- rather, there are instances of a single strong pressure against a background of many weak ones. So lets look into this by making one weight 100 times as high as the others. Using the default settings and stopping on a perfect creature, here are the generations required:

a) - [100,1,1] = 360 generations
b) - [1,100,1] = 1034 generations
c) - [1,1,100] = 889 generations
d) - [100,100,100] = 662 generations

Interesting. Applying all three strong pressures at once (d) resulted in not only a higher rate than only one pressure in two cases (b and c) but also a faster evolution. Furthermore, even using Kleinmans prized pressure, missed bindings, the rate under three pressures was higher (because if we applied the single pressure back to back it would take 360 x 3 = 1380 generations).

ETA: similar results follow if you use the Rseq >= Rfreq stopping point.

FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THIS AND EXPLAIN WHY I AM WRONG, KLEINMAN



It’s up to you to prove your code is a valid computation. You claim it shows that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the system evolves.

Kleinman, it is code -- it is its own proof. All you have to do is look at the code.

Or are you saying that you don't know programming, and need help understanding the code? If that is the case, I would be happy to explain it, but.... well, then why do you insist you know the internals of ev if you can't even read code?


Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model shows the exact opposite of what you claim and the empirical evidence substantiates it.

No, it does not.

[kleinman]

It would lose marks at university-entrance level in England because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution.
It didn’t take very long for the English Empire to evaporate after the irrational beliefs of Darwin took hold. Maybe it was just survival of the fittest.

[Shalamar]

Good thing then that Evolution doesn't really talk about Survival of the Fittest.

[kjkent1]

What is Rfreq and Rseq?
(clip)This post is a brilliant summary. Nominated.

Some brave moderator should spare us further punishment and close the thread.

[kleinman]

Good thing then that Evolution doesn't really talk about Survival of the Fittest.
Shalamar, you should take a university-entrance exam in England, you would pass with flying colors.
What is Rfreq and Rseq?
(clip)This post is a brilliant summary. Nominated.
Tell us kjkent1, what is Rfreq and Rseq? You are an expert on ev and claim to know what ev shows and doesn’t show.
Some brave moderator should spare us further punishment and close the thread.
You find the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works punishing? I thought it was only annoying. I pray for God’s forgiveness that I enjoy the thought that showing how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is punishing for a legal beagle. Well, that’s a legal beagle whose only argument for his theory is to censor those who don’t believe his irrational and illogical theory.

[Shalamar]

Rocketdodger, thaty post was actually quite enlightening, and explains Kleinmans problems. His sole source of 'evidence' is ev for the most part, and the writers of ev have said that it doesn't work the way Kleinman thinks (Or prays) it does.

And oh? Kleinman? Survival of the Fittest is a largely Darwinian term. The ToE shows that it is not just the fittest that survive. Just the 'Fit enough'. Or not the least fit.

[Henners]

It didn’t take very long for the English Empire to evaporate...

"English Empire"

!

I see that your competence in Biology and Mathematics is easily matched by your knowledge of History.

Where's the shaggy dog gone, and who's going to clean your carpet?

___________________________

My point was that you were describing creeping creationism rather than evolution - and this illustrates a fundamental lack of command of your subject.

In fact, a detailed description of your whole approach may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[kleinman]

And oh? Kleinman? Survival of the Fittest is a largely Darwinian term. The ToE shows that it is not just the fittest that survive. Just the 'Fit enough'. Or not the least fit.
Show us your mathematics.

[Henners]

Show us your mathematics


Show us your carpet.

Come on, you've only every done one thing around here, and we know what it is.

[Shalamar]

Show us your mathematics.

I asked you first. A long time ago, in fact.

[Mr. Scott]

I'll repeat this essential question you ignored, Dr. Kleinman. Perhaps there's a problem with your browser:

You've stated that population size doesn't matter in the progress of evolution. I'm not trying to straw man, that's just what I recall. This seems to me to be quite unintuitive. If, for example, there's a one in a billion chance of a specific adaptive mutation happening in a bacterium in a day, the a population of a billion would be expected to achieve this mutation, on the everage, once a day. Double the population, and you expect to see a similar mutation twice a day. Seems obvious to me. The vast populations even in something like a serious HIV infection would seem to be beyond the scope of a limited program like Ev.

So please convince me of your claim that population size has no bearing on the progress of evolution. I'm willing to listen.

[kleinman]

Show us your mathematicsShow us your carpet.

Come on, you've only every done one thing around here, and we know what it is.
You are correct; I’m pulling the rug from under your theory. And that rug is woven from mathematical and empirical evidence. I hope you find that annoying but not too punishing unless you are a legal beagle.

[Shalamar]

Kleinman, Why don't you address Rocketdodgers points on ev?

Or are you unable to do so? I notice you are flat out ignoring it, and making strange rug comments instead.

[Henners]

You are correct; I’m pulling the rug from under your theory. And that rug is woven from mathematical and empirical evidence. I hope you find that annoying but not too punishing unless you are a legal beagle.

My theory?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Edited out personal attack.

[kleinman]

I'll repeat this essential question you ignored, Dr. Kleinman. Perhaps there's a problem with your browser:You've stated that population size doesn't matter in the progress of evolution. I'm not trying to straw man, that's just what I recall. This seems to me to be quite unintuitive. If, for example, there's a one in a billion chance of a specific adaptive mutation happening in a bacterium in a day, the a population of a billion would be expected to achieve this mutation, on the everage, once a day. Double the population, and you expect to see a similar mutation twice a day. Seems obvious to me. The vast populations even in something like a serious HIV infection would seem to be beyond the scope of a limited program like Ev.

So please convince me of your claim that population size has no bearing on the progress of evolution. I'm willing to listen.
I’ve never said that population size has no bearing on the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. What I have said is that huge populations do not accelerate evolution in the way evolutionists allege. If you read back in this thread you will see that I have done extensive studies with ev which investigates the effects of population on the rate of sorting in ev. That data has been posted previously and I will post it again if you wish. What that data shows is that increasing population size very quickly approaches an asymptote for the rate of convergence of the model as you use larger populations in the model. Initially this didn’t make sense to me since I erroneously thought that the effect of population size on the probability of a proper beneficial mutation would occur at a particular locus was additive with population. Myriad corrected my error and I acknowledged this. Myriad showed that the effect of population on a beneficial mutation occurring at a proper locus is less than additive and this is reflected in the population data you obtain from ev. Interestingly, when you set two of the three selection conditions to zero in ev, the remaining selection condition evolves very quickly, even with tiny populations. This finding is reflected in reality. For example, treating HIV with monotherapy can drive down viral loads to very small numbers for a short period of time but the remaining relatively small population can still easily evolve resistance to the single selection pressure.

By the way, ev (Pascal version) is not limited by population size used other than the memory capacity of the computer you are using to do the calculation.
Kleinman, Why don't you address Rocketdodgers points on ev?
Oh, you want me to explain to you what Rfreq and Rseq are? Why don’t you read Dr Schneider’s web site.
For the definition of Rfrequency, click here http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html#Rfrequency (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html#Rfrequency)

For the definition of Rsequence, click here http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html#Rsequence (http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html#Rsequence)

Now be careful Shalamar, you may run into some mathematics.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
You are as clear as a London fog, fitting for someone who believes in a theory that only exists in a fog. But don’t worry, we have Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection to clear away that fog.

[Henners]

You are as clear as a London fog, fitting for someone who believes in a theory that only exists in a fog.

The theory only exists in a fog?

Rubbish.

I've seen all the pictures you posted, you disgusting little pup.

[kleinman]

If you like to screw stuff made of mathematics, well, who am I to judge?
If you were an evolutionist with any competence in the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you could judge but since evolutionists get their degrees from Mathishard University, it makes it quite difficult for you to judge.
You are as clear as a London fog, fitting for someone who believes in a theory that only exists in a fog.The theory only exists in a fog?

Rubbish.
That correct, rubbish can exist in fog, don’t you remember the black fog in London?
I've seen all the pictures you posted, you disgusting little pup.
Wait a minute; are you discrediting the picture I posted of a Wookie? Don’t you know that joobz, the Wookie Weatherman has shown that the weather evolves Wookies, it was probably in a London black fog. Now Henners, since you like my pictures so much, let me post a word picture which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and it doesn’t work anything like you evolutionists allege. Bow wow.
http://drugs.adisonline.com/pt/re/drugs/abstract.00003495-200060030-00001.htm;jsessionid=HGBJRkCysz1w6fbCHL9G4Z5Qx11c7 W5h22VD6W54HQSghlTFlhPL!-1297386286!181195629!8091!-1 (http://drugs.adisonline.com/pt/re/drugs/abstract.00003495-200060030-00001.htm;jsessionid=HGBJRkCysz1w6fbCHL9G4Z5Qx11c7 W5h22VD6W54HQSghlTFlhPL!-1297386286!181195629!8091!-1)
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) was identified as a cause of viral hepatitis more than 30 years ago and hepatitis B vaccines have been available for almost 20 years, but HBV infection continues to be a global health problem, responsible for about 1.2 million deaths annually. By the end of this year, almost 400 million people - about 5% of the world's population and more than ten times the number infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - will be infected with HBV. Chemotherapy remains the only treatment option for controlling chronic HBV infection once acquired, but none of the many different chemotherapeutic strategies used in the past has proven consistently successful. Prospects for successful treatment of HBV have improved dramatically during the past decade due to the development of new, well tolerated and efficacious anti-HBV drugs, and to advances in our understanding of HBV replication and pathogenesis. The newer anti-HBV drugs are capable of reducing viral loads very rapidly, but the initial response is invariably followed by very much slower elimination of residual virus. As more effective anti-HBV drugs become available, the emergence of drug resistance during the slower phase of HBV elimination will probably become the most significant obstacle in the way of eventual control of HBV infection. Experience with HIV indicates that combination chemotherapy may suppress or eliminate drug resistance and methods for pre-clinical and clinical assessment of anti-HBV drug combinations are being developed. Basic research into mechanisms of drug action and interaction should assist in the design and optimisation of combination chemotherapy for HBV infection, for which additional new anti-HBV drugs will undoubtedly be required in future.
Hey kjkent1, this word picture is for you to. You had better contact these authors and tell them that HBV does frame shifts and therefore combination therapy will not work.

[Henners]

If you were an evolutionist with any competence in the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you could judge but since evolutionists get their degrees from Mathishard University, it makes it quite difficult for you to judge.

My, where to start...

How about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

or here, also from Wikipedia...

"...excessive seeking for attention, criticism of others, overly dutiful obedience, and worry."

Sound familiar?

Do your best.

[Shalamar]

SO the answer is 'no'. Kleinman will not address Rocketdodgers post, and he still won't show any evidence for his claim.

[kleinman]

"...excessive seeking for attention, criticism of others, overly dutiful obedience, and worry."
What’s the matter Henners, do you have your evolutionary shorts in a mathematical wedgie?

[kleinman]

So another week goes by trying to teach evolutionists the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This week has been dominated by claims of conspiracy by you evolutionists. You think that I believe there is a conspiracy on the part of evolutionists to contribute to the premature deaths of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. If there is a conspiracy on the part of evolutionists it is simple a conspiracy of ignorance. Then we have Henners belief that I’m conspiring with the Discovery Institute, his evidence for this is that he has his evolutionist shorts in a mathematical wedgie. And then we have had numerous calls to try to censor anyone who doesn’t hold to the evolutionist dogma, especially when they annoy evolutionists with the mathematical and empirical evidence which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. It just doesn’t register with evolutionists that this is a mathematical and empirical fact of life. Well, what we have here is the Titanic theory of evolution running into a mathematical iceberg and this unsinkable theory is now sitting down at the bottom of the primordial sea, millions of self replicators swimming in an out of the portholes. Perhaps sometime we can organize a tour of this wreck of a theory and look for arti-culett-facts. In the meantime, here are a couple more citations which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works which is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by this process.

http://www.malariaandhealth.com/professional/abstracts.htm (http://www.malariaandhealth.com/professional/abstracts.htm)
The rationale for combining drugs with independent modes of action to prevent the emergence of resistance was developed first in antituberculous chemotherapy. It has subsequently been adopted in the treatment of cancer and, more recently, AIDS. These infections are now never treated with a single drug. The same should apply to the treatment of malaria. The principle is simple. Resistance arises from one or more mutations. These will be selected when exposed to concentrations of antimalarial drug which kill susceptible parasites but not those with the mutation(s). When two unrelated drugs are used together, a parasite with mutations conferring resistance to one drug will be killed by the other drug, and vice versa. The chance that a mutant will emerge that is simultaneously resistant to both the drugs is the product of the individual mutation frequencies, and will be many orders of magnitude lower than that for the drugs individually. Thus, compared with sequential use of single drugs (current policy), combinations will considerably retard the development of resistance. Artemisinin and its derivatives (artesunate, artemether, dihydroartemisinin) are the most potent and rapidly acting of antimalarials, reducing the infecting parasite biomass by approximately 10,000-fold per asexual (two day) life cycle compared to 100 to 1,000-fold for other antimalarial drugs. They are remarkably well tolerated and no significant resistance has been reported either in clinical isolates or in laboratory experiments. Combinations of artemisinin, or one of its derivatives, and mefloquine or lumefantrine (benflumetol) have proved highly effective even against multi-drug resistant P. falciparum. On the North-Western border of Thailand, which harbours the most resistant P. falciparum in the world, the use of combination chemotherapy has halted the progression of mefloquine resistance. This is attributed to two factors. First, combinations ensure high cure rates because the residuum of parasites remaining after treatment with an artemisinin derivative for three or more days is exposed to maximum concentrations of the more slowly eliminated mefloquine. This residuum (a maximum of 105 parasites or 0.000001% of the asexual parasites present initially) is all that is exposed to mefloquine alone, thus the selective pressure for the emergence of mutants with reduced mefloquine sensitivity is lessened considerably. Second, the artemisinin derivatives reduce gametocyte carriage by approximately 90%. Recrudescent (i.e. resistant) infections are associated with increased gametocyte carriage rates which provide a powerful selection pressure to the spread of resistance. This is prevented by the artemisinin derivatives. Combination therapy makes therapeutic sense, and there are good arguments for combining an artemisinin derivative with all antimalarial drugs.
And
The combination of artesunate and mefloquine is now the standard treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria in the displaced populations living on the Thai-Burmese border. The use of the combination was made necessary because P. falciparum had developed high-grade resistance to all antimalarials, including mefloquine and halofantrine. Since 1994, all patients with uncomplicated falciparum infections have received artesunate (4 mg/kg/day for 3 days) combined with mefloquine (25 mg/kg) as first-line therapy. The in vivo efficacy, prospectively monitored in over 3000 patients, has remained high and stable (95%). This stabilisation of mefloquine efficacy for the 4th consecutive year, following the rapid decline that we witnessed between 1986 and 1994, was confirmed by in vitro sensitivity monitoring. This coincides with a rapid decline in the incidence of falciparum (but not vivax) malaria incidence in the populations where the combination is used, but not in the surrounding communities. Concomitantly, entomological surveillance indicates that the mosquito vector abundance remains unchanged but that only vivax (and not falciparum) sporozoites can be detected in the salivary glands of the anophelene captures. Clinical studies indicate that the rate of gametocyte carriage in the population increased with the decline in mefloquine efficacy when the drug was used alone. However, we described how artemisinin derivatives reduce the gametocyte carriage rate by 90% following treatment of an acute episode. The rapid effect (and elimination) of artesunate on sexual and asexual stages of the parasite reduces the selective drug pressure of the slowly eliminated mefloquine (i.e. artesunate protects mefloquine and vice versa), prevents the spread of resistant strains, and selectively reduces falciparum transmission. The same impact on transmissibility of falciparum malaria was observed with another highly effective combination: artemether-benflumetol. All patients with P. falciparum infection should be treated with a combination of drugs that includes an artemisinin derivative.
Now you all have a good weekend and I’ll be back next week to annoy you with more citations which show how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. If you are a legal beagle it does a little more than annoy you, God forgive me for enjoying that.

[kleinman]

Well this is a little change of pace. No evolutionists have responded this weekend. Have I bored you? Or have I convinced you with the empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works? Have you read Dr Schneider’s web site and learned how mutation and selection works? Do you all understand Dr Schneider’s mathematics? I think I’ll change gears and stop posting empirical examples and show you how you to study the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. In order to study the mathematics of mutation and selection you need to understand two advanced topics of mathematics, analytic geometry and functional analysis. I’m going to assume that you evolutionists understand basic algebra and will start the discussion from this point. We’ll start with the basics on analytic geometry. Do you recall the following equation?

y = f(x) = mx + b

For the moment, ignore the f(x) term and you should recognize the above equation as the algebraic representation of a straight line. What analytic geometry does is to take the algebraic representation of a function and expresses that algebraic representation as a shape (sometimes as a line or point). The analytic geometric representation of the above equation would look like this (From the Math Forum @ Drexel) http://mathforum.org/cgraph/cslope/mxplusb.html (http://mathforum.org/cgraph/cslope/mxplusb.html)
y = 1/3 x + 4
http://mathforum.org/cgraph/cslope/pictures/intercept/blueslopeonethird.gif
Now consider the much more interesting function:

(x/a)^2 – (y/b)^2 – z = 0 = f(x,y,z)

The analytic geometric representation of this function from Wikipedia looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/HyperbolicParaboloid.png/180px-HyperbolicParaboloid.png
This interesting shape which looks something like a saddle gives a good example how you can use analytic geometry to study the shape of a function. For example if you make a cut through this shape along a plane where y held constant, you get a section with a parabola opening upward. If you make a cut through this shape with x held constant, you get a section with a parabola opening downward. If you make cuts along the z axis, you can get a section with straight lines at z = 0 or hyperbolas if z ≠ 0.

Now, if you would consider the terms y = f(x) and f(x,y,z) = 0. These are examples of the implicit mathematical notation for a functional equation. The first example is read as “y” is a function of “x”, or the value of “y” depends on the value of “x”. The second example is read as, there are certain values of “x”, “y” and “z” that when plugged into f(x,y,x) will give a value of zero. An explicit example of the function f(x,y,z) is given above with the algebraic equation for the hyperbolic paraboloid. There are many other examples of explicit functions which mathematicians use all the time, the trigonometric functions sin(x), cos(x) etc., logarithmic functions log(x), ln(x) and so on. These explicit functions are relatively easy to understand, tabulate and plot geometrically. Now the question for you to consider is how do you understand, tabulate and plot geometrically an implicit function f(x,y,z) that you can not express algebraically because many scientific problems can not be expressed explicitly in simple algebraic terms. The example we are considering on this thread is the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. How do you even write out the mathematics of this process? How do you tabulate and plot such a phenomenon. The problem that most biologists have is that they don’t study and understand analytic geometry and functional analysis. Engineers study these topics in upper division applied mathematics courses and regularly use these principles to analyze and solve functional equation which you can not write down algebraically. Let’s see if you evolutionists can understand how this is done.

Let finish this post by expressing the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process in functional notation, Dr Schneider’s publication on ev gives guidance on writing this functional equation:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794 (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794)
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution. Another use of the program may include understanding the sources and effects of skewed genomic composition (4,7,30,31).
Here are some of the variables in this functional relationship:

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

The functional expression for these variables can be written:

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

The analysis of this function requires the mapping of a surface in a six dimensional space. Any of you want to suggest how to map this six dimensional surface? Any of you want to suggest other variables for this function? In my next post, I’ll show you how to map this functional equation in a six dimensional space. Oh, one last point, this is not the same surface that we talk about when we speak of the fitness landscape.

[Belz...]

Well this is a little change of pace. No evolutionists have responded this weekend. Have I bored you?

No, it's just that watching paint dry is a more enjoyable experience.

Or have I convinced you with the empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works? Have you read Dr Schneider’s web site and learned how mutation and selection works? Do you all understand Dr Schneider’s mathematics? I think I’ll change gears and stop posting empirical examples and show you how you to study the mathematics of mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. In order to study the mathematics of mutation and selection you need to understand two advanced topics of mathematics, analytic geometry and functional analysis. I’m going to assume that you evolutionists understand basic algebra and will start the discussion from this point. We’ll start with the basics on analytic geometry. Do you recall the following equation?

That's what I mean.

[kleinman]

The image for the hyperbolic paraboloid looks like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/HyperbolicParaboloid.png/180px-HyperbolicParaboloid.png

[kleinman]

Well this is a little change of pace. No evolutionists have responded this weekend. Have I bored you?No, it's just that watching paint dry is a more enjoyable experience.
There must be a lot of people who enjoy watching paint dry since there were 500 views of this thread since I last posted.

Hey Belz, were you one of the kids in math class who whined “how does all this stuff relate to reality”? Well, I’m going to show you how all this abstract mathematics relates to the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

[kjkent1]

There must be a lot of people who enjoy watching paint dry since there were 500 views of this thread since I last posted.

Hey Belz, were you one of the kids in math class who whined “how does all this stuff relate to reality”? Well, I’m going to show you how all this abstract mathematics relates to the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.:jaw-dropp:shocked::gasp::eye-poppi:crowded::eek::drool::rolleyes:

[Belz...]

There must be a lot of people who enjoy watching paint dry since there were 500 views of this thread since I last posted.

View <> enjoyment.

Hey Belz, were you one of the kids in math class who whined “how does all this stuff relate to reality”?

No, because I already knew that mathematics was an abstract language, nothing else.

Well, I’m going to show you how all this abstract mathematics relates to the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Somehow, I expect you won't.

[kleinman]

:jaw-dropp:shocked::gasp::eye-poppi:crowded::eek::drool::rolleyes:
I'll even explain it so a legal beagle understands the mathematics. This should be a punishing experience for this legal beagle.

[kleinman]

There must be a lot of people who enjoy watching paint dry since there were 500 views of this thread since I last posted.View <> enjoyment.
Especially if you are a legal beagle who believes in the theory of evolution.
Hey Belz, were you one of the kids in math class who whined “how does all this stuff relate to reality”?No, because I already knew that mathematics was an abstract language, nothing else.
It’s the abstract language of science, something which evolutionists need many lessons.
Well, I’m going to show you how all this abstract mathematics relates to the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.Somehow, I expect you won't.
Prepare yourself for unmet expectations unless your expectation is that you won’t understand this abstract mathematics relates to reality. You evolutionists only have a superficial training in mathematics, let’s see if we can bring you up to speed on the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

[Belz...]

Prepare yourself for unmet expectations unless your expectation is that you won’t understand this abstract mathematics relates to reality. You evolutionists only have a superficial training in mathematics, let’s see if we can bring you up to speed on the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

I have a feeling I'll be preparing for a long, long time.

[kleinman]

Prepare yourself for unmet expectations unless your expectation is that you won’t understand this abstract mathematics relates to reality. You evolutionists only have a superficial training in mathematics, let’s see if we can bring you up to speed on the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.I have a feeling I'll be preparing for a long, long time.
It won’t be that long; it surely won’t be eternity. Did you understand what I said about analytic geometry and functionals above?

[kleinman]

So we have the functional expression:

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

Where,

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

We have no explicit algebraic expression in which to plug in values in order to map out this functional surface as we have with the hyperbolic paraboloid equation or other explicitly defined functions such as trigonometric and logarithmic functions. In fact, this situation is much more complex because we are working in six dimensions with the above functional equation and only three dimensions for the hyperbolic paraboloid function. The only thing we know about this function is that the generations for convergence is dependent on population size, genome length, gamma, mutation rate and number of selection pressures.

There are two ways to obtain data points necessary to map out the defined by the functional equation F(n,G,g,mr,nsp) = gfc. One way to try to attempt to construct this surface would be experimentally and the other way is to use simulations like Dr Schneider’s computer model to generate points on this surface. The former method is extremely arduous, costly and slow while the latter can much more quickly give data to generate the function surface.

When doing such a study, I suggest you be systematic and study the behavior of one parameter at a time. This is done by holding 4 of the 5 independent variables (n, G, g, mr and nsp are the independent variables) to a fixed value and compute the effect on the dependent variable (gfc, the generations for convergence) from the variation of the remaining independent variable. What you obtain are sets of points on the 6-dimensional functional surface which are equivalent to views of the hyperbolic paraboloid when you take cuts along the axis. This is like taking a mathematical CT scan of the 6-dimensionsal surface which enables you to start picturing how the surface appears.

Tomorrow, I’ll walk you through the generation of some tabular data (which could be plotted graphically but I’ll leave that to you) which describes this 6-dimensional surface using Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation.

[rocketdodger]

Tomorrow, I’ll walk you through the generation of some tabular data (which could be plotted graphically but I’ll leave that to you) which describes this 6-dimensional surface using Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation.

I am sure your "walk through" will include the few sets of parameters you repeat over and over.

I am sure it will also conveniently not include all the rest of the parameter combinations that show how much of a liar you are.

I am sure you will tell us "if you want to see what happens when you use those parameters, then try it yourself, I have no time for such nonsense."

Finally, I am absolutely sure that when people do try it themselves, you will accuse them of being mathematically incompetent (as if the mere act of plugging in parameters on a Java applet, exactly like you told us, could be an indicator of such a thing).