Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same old lies.

Is "Joobaquate" a new magic word?

I bet that won't make reality vanish either.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

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

I have applied my mathematical skills to this.

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

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

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

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

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


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

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

How about if I paint you a picture:

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

It's hard to believe even you are dumb enough to go on reciting Lie #5.

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

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

---

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

Who?

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

 

[I less than three logic]

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

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

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

Now, prove me right.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

Yes, let's.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stamp your hoof twice if you understood that.

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

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

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[kjkent1]

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

This is not precisely true. kleinman has convinced me that:

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

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

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

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

People only post in this thread now because they find your delusions entertaining.

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

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

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

 

[Dr Adequate]

His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true.

Well, if you said "insufficiently powerful", I'd agree with you --- for one thing, a point mutation can't change the size of the genome.

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

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

His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous ...

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

 

[Mercutio]

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

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

 

[Mercutio]

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

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

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

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

 

[joobz]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

Yes it can.

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

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

He's never tried to argue in favor of Lie #5. How could he? He's just programmed his Lying Machine to tell Lie #5 over and over --- as though having a computer repeat a lie would eventually make it true.

 

[Taffer]

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

Gladly.

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

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

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

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

Define gene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mercutio]

Congratulations, Taffer!

 

[Taffer]

Thanks!

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

 

[articulett]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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

I have applied my mathematical skills to this.

Posting a gif or jpeg does not qualify as mathematical skills.

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

That’s right the effect of increasing population on generations for convergence is non-linear. With small populations the effect of increasing population is much, much greater on the generations of convergence than with increases of large population. Of course if you had run a few cases with ev you would know this.

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

Poor adebz, the reason why it is not useful for cases with many possible solutions is seen if you read a little further.

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

We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process.

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

You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?

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

What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?

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

Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.

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

Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.

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

You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem? I’m torn; I don’t know whether to call this comment stupid or ridiculous? I know how to solve this quandary, it is both.

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

Don’t forget my Master of Science degree, two Bachelor of Science degrees and I graduated kindergarten with honors in sand box (that is still one of my favorite classes).

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

Ok, let’s investigate whether reptiles can evolve into birds. Let’s use the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection written by the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. You know that model that you have decided to discredit because it shows this is mathematically impossible.

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

The theory of evolution is nothing but gap which evolutionists try to fill with speculation. Of course except you, you fill that gap with string cheese.

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

I’m worried about neither. Do you want to tell us how forgiveness evolved?

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

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

What I think is most amusing is you evolutionists attempting to do CPR on the theory of evolution after rigor mortis has already set in.

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

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

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

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

This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse) but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.

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

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

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

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