Annoying creationists

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Now this is a real creationism debate.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...568239761.html

They don't say which side won.

It took a bit of googling, but it looks like the creationist made the evolutionist a martyr.

Quote:

The couple, both biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York [the killer] had taken a more biblical view of history.

Evolution vs creation row ends in stabbing

[Belz...]

I must've missed the commandment that says "Thou shalt kill the disbelievers."

Why is this subject so infuriating ?

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I must've missed the commandment that says "Thou shalt kill the disbelievers."

Why is this subject so infuriating ?

Because there are two distinctly different types of people in the subject.

There are the scientists. They don't care what the outcome is, all the care about is the evidence. They work at it, examine it, experiment, and see where it all leads. They publish for peer review, and other scientists use the evidence to see if it is accurate.

There has been a lot of work on evolution, and I imagine it is infurating to see ones lifes work reduced to 'Oh.. ,That can't POSSIBLY be real. How can you be so stupid?'

And then you have the theistic views. The 'God did it all', the 'I'm insulted that you say my grandparents are apes'. They fight tooth and nail against evolution because they think it demeans them, or lessens them, or threatens their faith.

And scientists don't really see the point. Science isn't faith. It isn't believed. It is trusted, and experimented until a conclusion is arrived at. And so much work has been done on evolution that you can't just look at one little part of it (Like mutation and selection). You have to look at it ALL. There there is a lot!

Mostly, people don't look at the evidence, and they fight passionately against it, because they can't bring themselves to believe in evolution. Scientists fight passionately for it, because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it!

[rocketdodger]

I fight passionately because the evil and stupidity that creationism (and most religious hogwash in general) breeds is extremely threatening.

One Kleinman, across the country from me, is tolerable. Being surrounded by millions of them is not. It simply can't be allowed to go that far.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So, now we have "cooperative" selection pressures ?

Gee, Kleinman, you could revolutionise science with all these new terms.

Well actually there are cooperative selection pressures, which are defined to be selection pressures that target the same bases. If the target mutation occurs, then both pressures are closer to being satisfied. I would be money such a thing is pretty common.

The FUNNY thing is that when I brought this up about 20 pages ago, Kleinman of course dismissed the idea as nonsense, saying 1) it would be impossible for selective pressures to share targets, even just partially, and 2) if not, then give him a real world example.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I must've missed the commandment that says "Thou shalt kill the disbelievers."

Why is this subject so infuriating ?

"Of all the creatures that inhabit this planet, only man knows that he will die." -- Phillip Wylie, "The Magic Animal"

Humans are alone in the knowledge of their mortality. But, we have the same basic drive of every other biological organism: survival.

These two concepts are irreconcilable contradictions.

The theist, especially the Christian theist, has solved the contradiction by replacing it with a convenient lie, which must be accepted as absolutely true, regardless of any other personal cost. Otherwise, his/her immortality is lost.

The above is the entire "theory" of Christianity. Everything else is a detail. Only through Jesus can man obtain immortality. Abandon your faith and you will perish.

Once you understand the truth, the allegory of scripture becomes utterly transparent.

Most people need the lie to fight their way through life. It makes the warrior stronger to know that when he goes into battle, he does it to preserve the immortality of his clan.

Thus, the trait of "belief in an afterlife" is literally a "selective" advantage, and we have been selecting for it ever since the first human looked down and recognized that his/her companion was dead.

...and so ends the lesson for today.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

"Of all the creatures that inhabit this planet, only man knows that he will die." -- Phillip Wylie, "The Magic Animal"

Humans are alone in the knowledge of their mortality.

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

I still don't get why killing the atheist seems like a good way to keep one's faith. What, silencing your opponents is the same as negating their arguments ? Weird.

[rocketdodger]

Its not a big deal.

If you read the article, it says that 1) the stabbing was done during a scuffle, the instigation of which the evolutionist is just as much responsible for and 2) the guy didn't intend to hurt him, it was an accident that it was as bad as it was.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What, silencing your opponents is the same as negating their arguments ? Weird.

If the contradictory information is not presented it has no power.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Kotatsu

Yet at least one evolutionist has done so repeatedly in this very thread. I listed about 30 selection pressures that alone or in combination would lead to the evolution of birds from a dinosaur ancestor. These posts still stand, so you can go back and read them again, if you like to.

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


Kleinman simply rejects any information that contradicts his dogma. I simply hope he doesn't do the same thing in all parts of his life. Such behavior is quite dangerous.


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

The pure and simple fact that nature isn't constant disproves his claim and his theory helps support the reality, that evolutionary adaptation is real.

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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by joobz

Your input is not in vein.

Well, that's a weird thing to say.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, that's a weird thing to say.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

I still don't get why killing the atheist seems like a good way to keep one's faith. What, silencing your opponents is the same as negating their arguments ? Weird.

Has nothing to do with keeping the faith. Has everything to do with survival.

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

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

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by joobz

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

Thank you!

Originally Posted by joobz

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

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

Originally Posted by joobz

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

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

[Dr Adequate]

So did he do anything new this week?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

~~ Paul

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So did he do anything new this week?

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

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

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

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So did he do anything new this week?

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

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

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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

The thing is that when he cuts and pastes this stuff, he doesn't need to read it, so I guess he'll never notice that it's gibberish.

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

Quote:

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

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

That isn't new, he's been doing it for months.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by kleinman

It is clear from ev that the shape of the fitness landscape is strongly dependent on the number of selection pressures. It is this mathematical fact that ev demonstrates that you are in denial of.

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

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

[kleinman]

Any of you evolutionists figure out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process yet? Or are you evolutionists still advancing your mathematically irrational and illogical concept which contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process? Let’s see who is still working on the latest bloody chapter in the story of evolutionism.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

After all this time working with your model, you still don’t recognize that there is a measure of the complexity of the sorting conditions. That measure is dependent on the number of loci the sorting conditions must evolve in order to get to a local optimum and the availability of a trajectory for the population to get to that local optimum.

Originally Posted by Paul

Most excellent. Now we know that when we argue about whether n+1 pressures are faster or slower than n, we are arguing simplistically.

Obfuscate the argument as much as you want Paul but the fact of the matter is that is what your own model shows.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

It is this type of empirical evidence along with the mathematical evidence from the peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and selection, ev, written by Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute which shows that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when more than a single selection pressure is applied to a population and therefore the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

So let me see if I understand this -- you put Schneider on a pedestal and throw his title around in this forum as if it somehow makes his work more important, and then proceed to claim that his interpretation of his own project is incorrect.

Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection does properly model the essentials of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. However, using a single 256 base case to describe the behavior of a complex model has led Dr Schneider to an incorrect interpretation of the behavior of his model. If Dr Schneider had simply done what he called for in his own publication, he would have learned what his model actually shows. And what his model shows is the mutation and selection process is profoundly slowed when you have combined selection pressures. It shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

If Scheider is the head of computational molecular biology at NCI, with peer reviewed and published material, what makes you think you know more about his area of expertise than he does?

That’s simple rocketdodger, I did the study that Dr Schneider called for in his publication and it shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. What his model shows is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Now. You can not prove something does not exist. You are attempting to prove that evolution does not exist. You can no more prove that evolution does not exist, than you can prove that I do not have an invisible elf living in my backyard.

I’m not proving that evolution does not exist, I am showing you how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works both mathematically and empirically. And the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Evolutionists can not describe the selection pressures that would lead to the transformation of a reptile population to a bird population

Originally Posted by Kotatsu

Yet at least one evolutionist has done so repeatedly in this very thread. I listed about 30 selection pressures that alone or in combination would lead to the evolution of birds from a dinosaur ancestor. These posts still stand, so you can go back and read them again, if you like to.

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

Originally Posted by Adequate

So did he do anything new this week?

Just more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, somebody needs to counter the mathematically irrational and illogical assertions that you evolutionists advance about this process so that we can try to reverse the millions of premature deaths that people suffering from diseases like HIV which are subject to the mutation and selection process.

Originally Posted by Paul

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

We all know evolutionist ethics, survival of the fittest. We are now learning evolutionist mythematics.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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

Originally Posted by Adequate

The thing is that when he cuts and pastes this stuff, he doesn't need to read it, so I guess he'll never notice that it's gibberish.

You evolutionists keep on making the claim that the more complex sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process proceeds and you won’t even need to have passed Sesame Street to know that your arguments are irrational and illogical.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

It is clear from ev that the shape of the fitness landscape is strongly dependent on the number of selection pressures. It is this mathematical fact that ev demonstrates that you are in denial of.

Originally Posted by delphi ote

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by delphi ote

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

So now you are going to try to express joobz’s nonsense of cooperative selection pressures to mathematically? Let’s go for it. Let’s start with your own Wikipedia reference to the fitness landscape concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

Originally Posted by Fitness landscapes in evolutionary optimization

Apart from the field of evolutionary biology, the concept of a fitness landscape has also gained importance in evolutionary optimization methods such as genetic algorithms or evolutionary strategies. In evolutionary optimization, one tries to solve real-world problems (e.g., engineering or logistics problems) by imitating the dynamics of biological evolution. For example, a delivery truck with a number of destination addresses can take a large variety of different routes, but only very few will result in a short driving time. In order to use evolutionary optimization, one has to define for every possible solution s to the problem of interest (i.e., every possible route in the case of the delivery truck) how 'good' it is. This is done by introducing a scalar-valued function f(s) (scalar valued means that f(s) is a simple number, such as 0.3, while s can be a more complicated object, for example a list of destination addresses in the case of the delivery truck), which is called the fitness function or fitness landscape. A high f(s) implies that s is a good solution. In the case of the delivery truck, f(s) could be the number of deliveries per hour on route s. The best, or at least a very good, solution is then found in the following way. Initially, a population of random solutions is created. Then, the solutions are mutated and selected for those with higher fitness, until a satisfying solution has been found.

Originally Posted by Fitness landscapes in evolutionary optimization

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

Your own example shows that once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful, it becomes almost impossible to check all the possible routes. So, when you claim “f(g(x),h(y)) results in an infinite number of possible fitness landscapes”, you are almost correct, it results in 4^G possible fitness landscapes.

The combination operator for two selection pressures g(x) (you erroneously said f(x)) and h(y) in the context of "multiple selection pressures" argument can not be superposition because the mathematical behavior of these combined functions is not additive. However, what you are doing physically when combining selection pressures is superimposing the behavior of g(x) on h(y). It is the mathematical and empirical behavior of superimposing two selection pressures simultaneously which shows the blunder in the theory of evolution. You can not extrapolate the rapid evolution of a microbial population to a single targeted selection pressure to the massive transformation of the genetic structure of one life form to another life form. The superposition of the huge number of fitness functions prohibits this. You can’t sort mutations for huge number of fitness functions simultaneously. That is what Dr Schneider’s program shows and that is what the huge number of empirical examples of mutation and selection shows.

Originally Posted by delphi ote

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

Delphi, tell us all about the mathematical and empirical studies you have done which show that huge number of fitness functions can evolve simultaneously.

While you are trying to do this, I’ll continue to post citations which show that multiple fitness functions interfere with the evolutionary process when these fitness functions are superimposed on each other.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/505711

Originally Posted by Antagonism between the HIV-1 Reverse-Transcriptase Mutation K65R and Thymidine-Analogue Mutations at the Genomic Level

Prior virologic and biochemical studies have shown phenotypic antagonism between K65R and multiple thymidine-analogue mutations (TAMs) in site-directed mutants tested in vitro. We hypothesized, on the basis of this observed antagonism, that K65R and T215Y/F with multiple TAMs would not be selected on the same human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genome in vivo. We searched a large database of patient genotypes (n=59,262) for the frequency of K65R in combination with ≥3 TAMs as determined by standard population sequencing. K65R and multiple TAMs were rarely detected (

Originally Posted by Antagonism between the HIV-1 Reverse-Transcriptase Mutation K65R and Thymidine-Analogue Mutations at the Genomic Level

<0.1%) in the same plasma sample. Samples with both K65R and ≥3 TAMs (n = 21) were further analyzed by use of single-genome sequencing. K65R was never found on the same genome with T215F/Y and ≥2 other TAMs, except in the presence of the Q151M multiple nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)–resistance complex. These results indicate that antagonism between the K65R and T215Y/F pathways of NRTI resistance occurs at the genomic level. Therapy with NRTI combinations that select both pathways simultaneously may delay the emergence of NRTI resistance and prolong treatment response.

http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCR D&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=16&abstractID=104 5

Originally Posted by Interim analysis of imatinib treatment in 300 patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML): evaluation of response and resistance.

Between 7/1999 and 11/2001 300 patients (pts.) with BCR-ABL+ CML (173 m., 127 f.; median age 60, range 16-82 years; late chronic phase, CP, n=135, accelerated phase, n=86, blast crisis, n=78) were treated with imatinib (STI571, Glivec, 400-800 mg/day) at a single institution in close cooperation with the referring centers as part of multiinstitutional trials. Median treatment duration is 260 days with a maximum observation time of 850 days. Pts. are evaluated for induction of hematologic response, major cytogenetic response, molecular response, time to progression, survival, and safety. In CP, cytogenetic response after six months was predictable with real-time PCR after two months. All pts. in complete cytogenetic remission (n=55) remained RT-PCR positive after a median observation time of 1.3 years. Mechanisms of resistance have been evaluated in 50 pts.. 5/46 pts. showed a more than 10fold increase in BCR-ABL levels. Genomic amplification of BCR-ABL was found in 2/26 pts.. Clonal evolution was observed in 15/29 pts.. Heterogenous point mutations of the ABL tyrosine kinase domain leading to amino acid substitutions were detected in 11/50 pts.. (Y253F, n=1; Y253H, n=2; E255K, n=2; E255V, n=1; T315I, n=3; M351T, n=2). ABL autophosphorylation assays demonstrated an increase of the IC50 for imatinib from 0.025 μM for wildtype ABL to 1.8 μM for Y253F and >5.0 μM for E255K and V and T315I. Reactivation of BCR-ABL was confirmed by CRKL immunoblotting in eight pts. with point mutations. We conclude (i) that imatinib is an effective treatment for CML pts. with interferon resistant CP and advanced disease; (ii) quantitative RT-PCR is the method of choice for response monitoring; (iii) in relapsing pts., restored activity of the BCR-ABL protein in resistant cells suggests that the chimeric oncoprotein remains a rational drug target; (iv) early combination therapy is suggested in advanced disease to prevent clonal selection of resistant cells.

Delphi, this is what the combination operator does when you combine selection pressures.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by kleinman

So now you are going to try to express joobz’s nonsense of cooperative selection pressures to mathematically?

It's not my nonsense, it is your own theory that I am presenting. It's just that you don't yet understand the nature of the theory you are suggesting.

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

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

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

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

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

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Kotatsu

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

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]

Do not make up quotes from other posters.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Originally Posted by Kotatsu

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

And they lived happily ever after.

[rocketdodger]

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

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

[Shalamar]

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

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

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

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by kleinman

And they lived happily ever after.

Ah, paedomorphosis.

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

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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

Aren’t you the good little censor.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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

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

Originally Posted by Shalamar

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

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Of course not. I informed her that Dr. Kleinman deveoped a theory that helped provide proof that evolution is mathematically possible.

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Any luck proving that weather doesn't exist?

[Henners]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Oooooh. Get her

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Why don't you provide us with some evidence that research using multi-drug therapies to control disease has been suspended or abated in response to a general acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific community?


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

They're also really dumb.

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

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

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

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Aren’t you the good little censor.

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

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

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

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

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Hey, kleinman, here's a little Christmas present for ya:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

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

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

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

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

Damn, kleinman, I've found another Christmas present for ya! This one's got MATH, and it should give you an opportunity to show us how you will go about defeating a mathematical argumnt which appears to be in direct contradiction to your own.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17967052

Have fun!

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Why don't you provide us with some evidence that research using multi-drug therapies to control disease has been suspended or abated in response to a general acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific community?

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

Originally Posted by Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1958

In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics - such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.

Originally Posted by Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1958

As an important example of the application of these same concepts of microbial genetics to mammalian cells, we may cite the probable mutational origin of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents in leukemic cells 44, and the increasing and effective simultaneous use of two or more chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of this disease.

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Kotatsu

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

It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.

I see. So, since 1958, due to the conclusions of the Nobel Lecturer, there has been no ongoing study of multi-drug therapy and disease?

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

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

I think you owe the entire scientific community an apology.

[rocketdodger]

Awesome job finding those studies kjkent1!!!

I actually learned something from reading this thread today!

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Awesome job finding those studies kjkent1!!!

I actually learned something from reading this thread today!

Well, Merry Christmas to you!

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Evidence of how the mutation and selection process actually works was available more than 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html

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

It is evolutionists like you who deny the mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection actually works. It is your ignorance and denial of these facts which will continue to cause the premature death of people who suffer from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. You evolutionists have done a masterful job in teaching ignorance of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in the middle of writing the bloodiest chapter in the bloodiest concept ever known.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

I see. So, since 1958, due to the conclusions of the Nobel Lecturer, there has been no ongoing study of multi-drug therapy and disease?

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