Annoying creationists

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, let's see. You say:

What ev is showing is that each additional selection pressure slows the evolution process.

To which I say:

Everyone knows that the evolutionary process is slowed by the addition of selection pressures, if the new selection pressures produce independent effects.

To which you say:

What you are still having difficulty understanding is that multiple selection pressures no matter what their potency slows evolution for each of the selection conditions.

Um, what?

No difficulty here. I have repeatedly said that adding new selection pressures, holding potency constant will increase the total selection pressure. So stop wasting my time, your time, and anyone else's time repeating the same strawman error over and over again.

Increasing the number of selection pressures will always slow the evolutionary process.

Actually no, we don't know that. We do not know if a particular pressure in one context would act as an independent pressure in the context of several other pressures. There may be one pressure that is so strong in reducing reproduction that additions will have no effect. There may be a mild pressure, such as heat in reducing sperm production that will have no real pressure in the real world because it is only applied to a select group that is busy being eaten by tigers. Additional selection pressures do not always slow the process.

And this is shown in reality by the use of multiple antimicrobials which delays the evolution of resistant strains of these microbes.

That is exactly what is not shown by the data on resistance. The development of resistance depends critically on the strength of the selection pressures. Three HIV drugs that are not terrible potent with nearly perfect compliance results in resistance. There is no denying that reality. Current, more potent triple therapies, with nearly perfect compliance slows the development of resistance. Current, more potent triple therapies, with 80% compliance speeds the development of resistance. Current, more potent therapies, with compliance below 80% slows the development of resistance.

Deal with that issue and that issue alone before proceeding further.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I stand corrected here master of alchemical engineering. It is the family of peroxidases that decompose the peroxides. But the point is that the paper you provided describes the application of H2O2 as a single selection pressures in slowly increasing concentration to select yeasts which produce enzymes that decompose this oxidizer. That is unless you are arguing that the numerous proteins and other molecules which are damaged by H2O2 are all evolving to new forms that are not affected by H2O2.

Your factual errors have become quite numerous. You've claimed mastery of thermodynamics, but couldn't argue what thermo really is. Remember the, "Natural selection, which is a restatement of the 2nd law" silliness. You've claimed mastery of mathematics, claiming that magnitude doesn't matter. You've even used F=ma as an example, where we know it breaks down in instances of extreme velocity.
You've reiterated the importance of point selection as the only relavent method of mutation and that all others are of equal weight. Yet, the paper by Deem et. al., presented by Articulett the critical importance of gene transfer argues directly against this point. You claimed that 3 pressures halted evolution, and we have three examples where this isn't true. You claimed that SOD was the primary degrading enzyme of hydrogen peroxide, and this is, again, woefully wrong.

I wonder if you carefully read your own link. If you had you would have seen the following quote.

Permanent but gradually increasing oxidative-stress challenge was achieved by increasing the H2O2 concentration in the feed medium in daily (2.4 generations) 20-mM steps from 0 to 100 mM. Additionally, transient oxidative stress was applied by pulsing increasing volumes of H2O2 up to a final broth concentration of 1 M once a day for 68 generations. Transient temperature challenges were achieved by (i) two temperature

shocks of 52 C for 3 and 6 min with an intermediate steady-state growth physiology and (ii) temperature oscillations between 25 and 35 C which were achieved by programming a sinusoidal function in the temperature controller with a cycle time (2p) of 1 h. These oscillations were continued for 8 days or about 19 generations.

Now I’ll make this simple enough so even an alchemical engineer will understand it. I highlighted the number of generations so you could see it joobz. This paper has nothing to do with mutation and selection. These authors are simply selecting for populations that already have the capability to withstand H2O2, ethanol, increased temperatures and freeze/thaw cycles. You are not mutating and selecting the dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes and their associated proteins that are damaged by these types of stresses in less than 100 generations. For someone who has a PhD in engineering, your basic mathematical skills are nothing short of disappointing. Your mathematical skills make your grammatical skills look good.

 

[joobz]

Now I’ll make this simple enough so even an alchemical engineer will understand it. I highlighted the number of generations so you could see it joobz. This paper has nothing to do with mutation and selection. These authors are simply selecting for populations that already have the capability to withstand H2O2, ethanol, increased temperatures and freeze/thaw cycles. You are not mutating and selecting the dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes and their associated proteins that are damaged by these types of stresses in less than 100 generations. For someone who has a PhD in engineering, your basic mathematical skills are nothing short of disappointing. Your mathematical skills make your grammatical skills look good.

Where is this magical 100 generations you mention? Why do you devine these numbers and call them Math? where/when does natural selection end and evolution begin? Is this the same line as macro/micro evolution?

Each of your posts become less and less logical.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What you are still having difficulty understanding is that multiple selection pressures no matter what their potency slows evolution for each of the selection conditions.

Um, what?

No difficulty here. I have repeatedly said that adding new selection pressures, holding potency constant will increase the total selection pressure. So stop wasting my time, your time, and anyone else's time repeating the same strawman error over and over again.

And once again, you demonstrate you do not understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. The effects of multiple selection pressures are not additive. The only thing made out of straw here is your theory of evolution and it is being blown away by the ev computer model and the numerous real examples which confirm the mathematical behavior of this model.

Increasing the number of selection pressures will always slow the evolutionary process.

Actually no, we don't know that. We do not know if a particular pressure in one context would act as an independent pressure in the context of several other pressures. There may be one pressure that is so strong in reducing reproduction that additions will have no effect. There may be a mild pressure, such as heat in reducing sperm production that will have no real pressure in the real world because it is only applied to a select group that is busy being eaten by tigers. Additional selection pressures do not always slow the process.

If the physical stress does not affect reproduction, it is not a selection pressure. If the physical stress does affect reproduction and then you add a different physical stress which affects reproduction, the combined affect of the two stresses will slow evolution more than additively. This is what the mathematics of ev shows, this is what Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the description of fitness landscape shows.

And this is shown in reality by the use of multiple antimicrobials which delays the evolution of resistant strains of these microbes.

That is exactly what is not shown by the data on resistance. The development of resistance depends critically on the strength of the selection pressures. Three HIV drugs that are not terrible potent with nearly perfect compliance results in resistance. There is no denying that reality. Current, more potent triple therapies, with nearly perfect compliance slows the development of resistance. Current, more potent triple therapies, with 80% compliance speeds the development of resistance. Current, more potent therapies, with compliance below 80% slows the development of resistance.

Three HIV drugs may not be terribly potent selection pressures when used individually but when used in combination they are far more potent than any single drug. Clearly, a single 100% potent drug that could stop reproduction of the virus completely would be the ideal case but no such drug exists. By combining less potent drugs, the evolution of resistant strains of the virus can be delayed and give people suffering with HIV a longer period of relief.

Deal with that issue and that issue alone before proceeding further.

Don’t worry; I will continue to deal with this issue because it is the core principle of the mathematics of mutation and selection. Multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

Now I’ll make this simple enough so even an alchemical engineer will understand it. I highlighted the number of generations so you could see it joobz. This paper has nothing to do with mutation and selection. These authors are simply selecting for populations that already have the capability to withstand H2O2, ethanol, increased temperatures and freeze/thaw cycles. You are not mutating and selecting the dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes and their associated proteins that are damaged by these types of stresses in less than 100 generations. For someone who has a PhD in engineering, your basic mathematical skills are nothing short of disappointing. Your mathematical skills make your grammatical skills look good.

Where is this magical 100 generations you mention?

It is less than 100 generations. Either reread post #3602 or your link to the Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae paper carefully and you will see how many generations they ran the selection process.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And once again, you demonstrate you do not understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. The effects of multiple selection pressures are not additive. The only thing made out of straw here is your theory of evolution and it is being blown away by the ev computer model and the numerous real examples which confirm the mathematical behavior of this model.

Thank you mister strawman for the latest in the strawman arsenal.

How does my saying that multiple selection pressures, as I have said more than once, are at the very least additive (given the right situation) and possibly synergistic come to mean that I somehow said that multiple selection pressures are additive and only additive?

Answer that and we will move along. No more lies. I will not stand for them. I am going to call you on every single lie that you tell me from now on in this thread. Answer this one. Admit your lie and we can move along.

 

[Schneibster]

Good luck, Ichneumonwasp. kleinman's criterion is not whether he convinces anyone else; it's whether he can convince himself. Such people generally get locked up in asylums unless their brand of irrationality is religion. Hopefully we can fix that soon.

 

[joobz]

It is less than 100 generations. Either reread post #3602 or your link to the Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae paper carefully and you will see how many generations they ran the selection process.

Your intentional misdirections were originally frustrating, since I was assuming you intelligent. Now that you've demonstrated otherwise, I'll explain my response more clearly.

Now I’ll make this simple enough so even an alchemical engineer will understand it. I highlighted the number of generations so you could see it joobz. This paper has nothing to do with mutation and selection. These authors are simply selecting for populations that already have the capability to withstand H2O2, ethanol, increased temperatures and freeze/thaw cycles. You are not mutating and selecting the dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes and their associated proteins that are damaged by these types of stresses in less than 100 generations.

You're making the assumption that mutations must occur after the stress and that the natural selection that arises as a result of these post-stress mutations is evolution. You claim that this process must take at least 100+ generations and that anything less than this isn't an evolutionary event. I ask, why is 100 generations your goal post? Why not 1000, why not 50? What is your claim for this? have you run studies varing the mutation rate? you have invented numbers out of thin air without any meaning. This is far from a mathematical argument It is simply argument from ignorance.

Your assumption of mutations occuring only after stress is wrong. What about mutations that occured well before this stress? Does every mutation, gene exchange, have to result in immediate effect? Is it not a feature of evolution that some mutations just result in seemingly benign genetic diversity that doesn't mean much until the right stress comes along? You have set meaningless guidelines that life doesn't care about. Natural selection is the seive that selects for the mutations. It doesn't get rid of all mutations but the good ones. It just gets rid of the really really bad ones. When conditions change that resets what is considered really really bad, then a new set of phenotypes will be selected for. Sure, both mutation and natural seleciton must occur, but you don't get to dictate when these events happen. Life is allowed (and has been selected) to generate a cache of mutations that may provide future flexibility.

this is what I was saying when I stated:

Where is this magical 100 generations you mention? Why do you devine these numbers and call them Math? where/when does natural selection end and evolution begin? Is this the same line as macro/micro evolution?

Each of your posts become less and less logical.

I just assumed you'd understand. I realized I made a bad assumption. You haven't demonstrated any ability to understand anything.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

And once again, you demonstrate you do not understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. The effects of multiple selection pressures are not additive. The only thing made out of straw here is your theory of evolution and it is being blown away by the ev computer model and the numerous real examples which confirm the mathematical behavior of this model.

Thank you mister strawman for the latest in the strawman arsenal.

You evolutionists really need some new plays in your playbook. That strawman argument is not going to work here. We have an evolutionist written, peer reviewed model of random point mutation and natural selection that supports my argument.

How does my saying that multiple selection pressures, as I have said more than once, are at the very least additive (given the right situation) and possibly synergistic come to mean that I somehow said that multiple selection pressures are additive and only additive?

This paragraph again shows that you don’t understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. Multiple selection pressures do not affect the generations to evolve additively. Multiple selection pressures slow evolution far more than additively. The sorting process is much slower and more difficult when you have multiple selection pressures. Selection pressures do not function synergistically. You can think of this as a database sorting problem. The more sorting conditions you have, the slower the sort goes.

Answer that and we will move along. No more lies. I will not stand for them. I am going to call you on every single lie that you tell me from now on in this thread. Answer this one. Admit your lie and we can move along.

Is that all you mathematically challenged evolutionists can do when you when you can’t understand the mathematics of your own theory? If you think that multiple selection pressures are additive, produce the mathematics that shows this because we already have a mathematical model written by an evolutionist, peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press Journal Nucleic Acids Research that shows you are wrong. You evolutionists have lived with your dumb ass theory so long that you can’t distinguish between the truth and a lie.

What is sad about this is that an important principle for the treatment of infectious diseases is being revealed here by the ev computer model and your evolutionary prejudices stand in the way of understanding this principle.

Good luck, Ichneumonwasp. kleinman's criterion is not whether he convinces anyone else; it's whether he can convince himself. Such people generally get locked up in asylums unless their brand of irrationality is religion. Hopefully we can fix that soon.

You evolutionists are the ones denying the results from your own mathematical model. The only irrationality in this discussion is the failure of you evolutionist to accept the results from ev but I am patient. I will keep repeating these mathematical facts until all but the most fanatical evolutionists understand them. Of course, is there any other type of evolutionist but the fanatical type?

Now I’ll make this simple enough so even an alchemical engineer will understand it. I highlighted the number of generations so you could see it joobz. This paper has nothing to do with mutation and selection. These authors are simply selecting for populations that already have the capability to withstand H2O2, ethanol, increased temperatures and freeze/thaw cycles. You are not mutating and selecting the dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes and their associated proteins that are damaged by these types of stresses in less than 100 generations.

You're making the assumption that mutations must occur after the stress and that the natural selection that arises as a result of these post-stress mutations is evolution. You claim that this process must take at least 100+ generations and that anything less than this isn't an evolutionary event. I ask, why is 100 generations your goal post? Why not 1000, why not 50? What is your claim for this? have you run studies varing the mutation rate? you have invented numbers out of thin air without any meaning. This is far from a mathematical argument It is simply argument from ignorance.

Make it simple for yourself. Post a quote from your reference and show how many generations they ran their selection process. And then you will have proved that you are mathematically incompetent to describe the mutation and selection process.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This paragraph again shows that you don’t understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. Multiple selection pressures do not affect the generations to evolve additively. Multiple selection pressures slow evolution far more than additively. The sorting process is much slower and more difficult when you have multiple selection pressures. Selection pressures do not function synergistically. You can think of this as a database sorting problem. The more sorting conditions you have, the slower the sort goes.

You really are not capable of understanding this, are you? I am discussing with you a real world example that you brought into the discussion. I didn't invent it. You introduced it. You have repeatedly mischaracterized my position. I pointed out your mischaracterizations.

You can be a man and admit your mistakes or you can continue to act like this. It is your decision.

You can discuss the ev model all you wish with the others. As I have repeated to you now, I think, seven times, we (you and I) are discussing HIV triple therapy. There is no sense in relying on ev to explain your position. We are discussing this real world issue. The interaction with ev occurs later.

Are you ready to apologize and move ahead with the discussion, leaving all the name calling and obfuscation behind?

 

[articulett]

Good luck, Ichneumonwasp. kleinman's criterion is not whether he convinces anyone else; it's whether he can convince himself. Such people generally get locked up in asylums unless their brand of irrationality is religion. Hopefully we can fix that soon.

I think that locking them in their own tax free conglomerations might be more cost effective. I'd be all for faith-based spending if it meant keeping the faith based away from me.

 

[Mr. Scott]

A Question for Dr. Kleinman

Dr. Alan Kleinman, when I asked if you were paid for undermining evolution, you dodged the question on the basis that one should have been able to know the answer from reading some other of the 3,510 postings here. It took you more typing to refuse to answer than you would have if you had answered. I'll make it easy for you. If you have been paid, will be paid, or expect to be paid for undermining or attempting to undermine evolution, just answer with a "y" else with a "n".

Thank you, Dr. Kleinman.

 

[joobz]

Make it simple for yourself. Post a quote from your reference and show how many generations they ran their selection process. And then you will have proved that you are mathematically incompetent to describe the mutation and selection process.

Is this argumentum non sequitorum? Stating random bizarre gibberish that doesn't address my comments isn't a defense. It is a transparent attempt at avoiding the questions.

Where is this magical 100 generations you mention? Why do you devine these numbers and call them Math? where/when does natural selection end and evolution begin? Is this the same line as macro/micro evolution?

IF Mr. Scott's assumptions are correct, and you have been paid to argue against evolution, I think that that was some money horribly spent. I've seen more rational views from Hammegk than I've ever seen from you.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, Dr. Alan Kleinman, I would like to know as well. Have you been paid for this?

While you are at it, could you also address the issue of continually referring to the mathematical modelling of "evolution" as it relates to the real world in your very specific example of HIV triple therapy. Since the very question at hand is whether or not the mathematical model is effective for examining this question, why do you continue to dodge questions about HIV triple therapy and drug resistance in the real world? Do you fear that resistance developing in HIV strains indicates that this model does not relate to all real world examples of evolutionary change? Is that the problem, Dr. Kleinman?

Why are you doing that, Dr. Alan Kleinman?

 

[delphi_ote]

The only thing that Ichneumonwasp has shown here is that reducing the selection pressure speeds up the evolutionary process. This is what ev shows and this is what I have contended for pages on this thread. Ichneumonwasp is making my point.

Dr. Alan Kleinman, that is not what you have contended for pages. You contended that the number of selection pressures slowed evolution. I even asked you directly if that was your hypothesis, and you stated that it was.

Please stop being dishonest, Dr. Alan Kleinman.

 

[delphi_ote]

In case nobody has pointed this out previously, Dr. Alan Kleinman has previously had problems with ev. He got taught a lesson by the folks at Panda's Thumb.

 

[joobz]

In case nobody has pointed this out previously, Dr. Alan Kleinman has previously had problems with ev. He got taught a lesson by the folks at Panda's Thumb.

So, Dr. Alan Kleinamn, not only have you demonstrated your terrible understanding of fundemental scientific principles...but you show utter dishonesty in correcting these errors.

Shall i remind you, Dr. Alan Kleinman, what you have stated that is wrong?

Your factual errors have become quite numerous. You've claimed mastery of thermodynamics, but couldn't argue what thermo really is. Remember the, "Natural selection, which is a restatement of the 2nd law" silliness. You've claimed mastery of mathematics, claiming that magnitude doesn't matter. You've even used F=ma as an example, where we know it breaks down in instances of extreme velocity.
You've reiterated the importance of point selection as the only relavent method of mutation and that all others are of equal weight. Yet, the paper by Deem et. al., presented by Articulett the critical importance of gene transfer argues directly against this point. You claimed that 3 pressures halted evolution, and we have three examples where this isn't true. You claimed that SOD was the primary degrading enzyme of hydrogen peroxide, and this is, again, woefully wrong.

Dr. Alan Kleinman, Can you explain why you are wrong so often?

 

[kjkent1]

Kleinman and Paul:

Per Kleinman's request, I have some data from ev. The attached table is based on running ev with all defaults, except that I limited the population to eight (8) creatures, and I changed the mistake weights and genome length as indicated in the table.

I realize that Kleinman is looking for 32-64K genomes, but I just don't have the time to do anything more than identify a trend.

I see two things in the table data:

1) Three selection pressures converge faster than either/both one and/or two, in some, but not all cases. This suggests that if the trends below hold, then kleinman's theory that multiple selective pressures slow evolution in all cases is falsified.

2) There are some VERY weird coincidences where various mistake weights converge, or produce a perfect creature, at "exactly" the same number of generations. As I have suggested previously in this thread, I am suspect of the reliability of ev's random number generation, as the number of generations increases.

Note: as usual, I am not using zero (0) mistake weights, because to do so is to permit perfect creatures to be reported even though Rseq has not approached Rfreq. This is result of ev creating mistakes in the mutation function, and then completely ignoring those mistakes in the selection function. The result is a creature which ev reports as "perfect," but which, in fact, is described by random information. This state violates the fundamental premise of ev: that Rseq ~ Rfreq in all independent living organism -- Therefore, the state is invalid.

Table source data is attached at: http://www.geocities.com/kjkent1/evo1.pdf

 

[Mr. Scott]

Refutation of Dr. Alan Kleinman's Assertions

Don’t be silly Mr Scott; your example supports my contention. Single selection conditions can quickly evolve, the more selection conditions imposed, the slower the evolutionary process proceeds. Multiple selection conditions slow evolution.

Alan Kleinman, you are the one being silly. You've said point blank that more than one mutation in response to selection pressure enters the realm of macro-evolution, and that 3-4 was definitely macroevolution, and that macroevolution was mathematically impossible. When you made these statements, you did not offer the caveat that these adaptations must be simultaneous. Indeed, such mutations are usually sequential* even when simultaneous pressures are present. They can and will happen when the intensity of one or more selective pressures is sufficient to supply pressure but not so great as to cause extinction, like the sweet spot in which evolution runs at maximum speed when antibiotic compliance is weak.

*Parallel mutations can be combined when cells exchange genetic material. even cells of different species can "share notes" on selective pressure adaptations. I have a photo of cells caught in the act in my library I will look up. Even pandas and people can combine adptatations to varying selective pressures via sexual congress, thus speeding evolution far beyond what Ev currently models.

It really is silly of you, Dr. Kleinman, to suggest that point mutations as modeled by the Ev simulation, and point mutations alone, suggest an upper limit on the rate of evolution. No such assertion can be justified and is as far away from "mathematic proof" as can be. The genetic and geographical records prove that evolution is indeed fast enough to account for the diversity of life on Earth. The process is just too complex to model with today's computers, Dr. Kleinman. Please stop spreading your hoax the Ev disproves evolution. Quite the contrary is true. You embarass even the creationist community.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2) There are some VERY weird coincidences where various mistake weights converge, or produce a perfect creature, at "exactly" the same number of generations. As I have suggested previously in this thread, I am suspect of the reliability of ev's random number generation, as the number of generations increases.

I'll see if I can reproduce this, but, if you're right, it's a problem for the Java developers.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think it's just a marvelous coincidence. I verified the generation counts in Kjkent's table, row 8, columns 1 and 2. Then I reran those two cases with a different random number seed (10) and got two different generation counts.

~~ Paul