Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Gene duplication does not make a new gene; it only duplicates an existing gene. Only when mutation and selection acts on this duplicated gene do you have any possible mechanism for creating a new gene. Recombination can change the way a gene is expressed but does not create a new gene. Recombination alone can not create a new gene.

Even if it were to catenate a promoter and a partial gene with another partial gene?

You appear to be saying that both recombination and mutation are required for evolution. That may even be somewhat true.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by Kleinman
Gene duplication does not make a new gene; it only duplicates an existing gene. Only when mutation and selection acts on this duplicated gene do you have any possible mechanism for creating a new gene. Recombination can change the way a gene is expressed but does not create a new gene. Recombination alone can not create a new gene.

Thank you for highlighting this Paul.

It is refreshing to see that Kleinman's knowledge of molecular biology is now only 27 years out of date.

Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function by Recombination within a Gene

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Ok, quote some of these selection pressures and let’s discuss them. With all these selection pressures, perhaps it is HIV that is evolving into birds.

I have posted a link to the paper, kleinman. They give a very nice, mathematical definition of how they are calculating selection pressure for each amino acid codon.

Let me help you with this Dr Richard and I’ll show you how to quote from a paper to support your position:

And here is another quote from the paper:

Thus a Ka/Ks = 1 value indicates neutral selection. Ordinarily Ka/Ks is « 1, indicating negative selection against amino acid mutations (far fewer observed than expected under a neutral model). Ka/Ks > 1 is referred to as positive selection (i.e. amino acid mutations increase reproductive fitness) and is observed in rare cases where new evolutionary challenges create strong pressure for rapid evolution of a protein (e.g. immune system genes like MHC that are involved in recognizing pathogenic antigens).

I added the highlighting. So this nice mathematical definition tells us that of your 500 or so selection pressures most are neutral (Ka/Ks = 1) or negative (Ka/Ks is « 1). Note that negative selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures. Only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (Ka/Ks > 1), that is directional selection pressures. These are the types of selection pressures which evolve drug resistance and lead to evolution.

Thank you Dr Richard, your link again proves my point that multiple selection pressures slows evolution, however I will modify my wording slightly in order to accommodate your contention. Multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution. Neutral and stabilizing selection pressures do not lead to evolution. Dr Richard, stick with us, we will get you up to speed on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Let me show you evolutionists how to use a links to support your position. In case you have forgotten what I am contending, here it is again:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|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.░░░░░░*
******************************************

The following quote is from the Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents and can be viewed at http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf .

Simultaneously stopping all drugs in a regimen containing these agents may result in functional monotherapy with the NNRTIs, because their half-lives are longer than other agents. This may increase the risk of selection of NNRTI-resistant mutations.

This quote shows that monotherapy of HIV accelerates the evolution of resistant strains of the virus.

Here is an example from Wikipedia on the topic of pesticides and can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

Tankmixing pesticides is the combination of two or more pesticides with different modes of action. This practice may improve individual pesticide application results in addition to the benefit of delaying the onset of or mitigating existing pest resistance.

This quote shows that combining pesticides delays the evolution of pest resistance strains.

This example is from Iowa State University on the topic of herbicides and can be viewed at http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2004/combination.shtml

The evolution of herbicide resistance within a weed population is based on selection pressure. The more frequently a herbicide is used, the more pressure placed on a weed population, and the sooner resistance will appear at a troublesome level in the population. Using alternative modes of action can reduce the potential for selecting resistant weeds by placing different selection pressures on weed populations. In a system relying only on glyphosate, a weed possessing a trait allowing it to survive glyphosate will rapidly increase in frequency. But if a second herbicide is used with glyphosate, this alternative herbicide may kill the weed with the glyphosate resistant trait and prevent it from increasing within the weed population. Theoretically this approach is sound and can reduce the potential for herbicide resistance.

This quote shows that combining herbicides delays the evolution of weed resistance strains.

This example is from German researchers on the topic of rodenticides and can be viewed at http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rHo5amSD9IAJ:digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1047%26context%3Dvpc16+combination+rodenticide+resistance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Coumatetralyl (Racumin ) has been known since 1957 as a multiple dose anticoagulant and has been used successfully over many decades. In the seventies and especially the eighties, rats developed an increased resistance to anticoagulants in certain regions of Central Europe. Also, the addition of vitamin K to animal feed (especially to chicken feed) has reduced the efficacy against rats and mice in farm buildings. Combinations of anticoagulants with different types of vitamin D are generally described to increase the efficacy of action against rodents. It was found that especially the combination of coumatetralyl with cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) could overcome the above mentioned problems. Cholecalciferol causes hypercalcemia and, therefore, has a different mode of action compared to anticoagulants. The combination of these active ingredients leads to an obvious increase in efficacy against rodents, even under difficult conditions. The formulation with optimal rodenticidal efficacy contains 0.04 % coumatetralyl and 0.025 % cholecalciferol mixed in rolled oats.

This quote shows that combination rodenticides delay the evolution of rodenticides resistance.

If these links and associated quotes are not sufficient for you evolutionists, google search with the following terms; combination "selection pressures" resistance and you will find a huge number of papers that show that combination selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of a wide variety of different types of life forms.

Now if you evolutionists think that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution, post your links and associated quotes that support your contention. Posting links with your vague speculations does not cut it here.

 

[Taffer]

Let me help you with this Dr Richard and I’ll show you how to quote from a paper to support your position:

And here is another quote from the paper:

I added the highlighting. So this nice mathematical definition tells us that of your 500 or so selection pressures most are neutral (Ka/Ks = 1) or negative (Ka/Ks is « 1). Note that negative selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures. Only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (Ka/Ks > 1), that is directional selection pressures. These are the types of selection pressures which evolve drug resistance and lead to evolution.

Small correction, as I see it. "Positive selection" selects for any mutations which increase reproductive function, it does not drive to any goal. This is important.

Thank you Dr Richard, your link again proves my point that multiple selection pressures slows evolution, however I will modify my wording slightly in order to accommodate your contention.

It does nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you get that from the paper, because it says nothing of the sort whatsoever. Perhaps you could point out exactly where it says that multiple selection pressures slows evolution?

Because that would go against all other evolutionary models we currently have.

Multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution.

No selection is directional, kleinman, so this statement is false. Selection does one thing only: selects against those with a lower reproductive fitness. It does not "select for" anything, becuase evolution is not directional.

Neutral and stabilizing selection pressures do not lead to evolution.

Selection always leads to evolution. Selection acts on variation in a population. In the absense of variation, no evolution can occur. But in the presence of evolution, even "stabalizing" selection changes the ratio of new alleles in a population, which is what evolution is.

Dr Richard, stick with us, we will get you up to speed on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

We sure will, but you won't teach it, because you lack the ability to grasp it.

The following quote is from the Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents and can be viewed at

http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf .

This quote shows that monotherapy of HIV accelerates the evolution of resistant strains of the virus.

No it doesn't! All it shows is that monotherapy increases the risk of selection of a resistant strain of the virus. Selection of a strain and evolution are different. No-one denies that the presence of a single drug will lead to a population of organisms which are resistant to that drug. Multiple drugs do not slow the evolution of any individual resistances, but require all 3 drugs to be present (assuming, of course, that all drugs are "kill" drugs, which is not the case in real life) in the organism for it to live. But the time for such an organism to arise is the same as the same organism arising through "serial" resistance evolution.

This quote shows that combining pesticides delays the evolution of pest resistance strains.

Yet again you show a lack of understanding of the topic. "Evolution of" and "arisal of" are not the same thing. What multiple pesticides does is reduce the available population for any variation to occur in. But once that variation occurs, evolution happens very rapidly, regardless of single or multiple selection pressures.

Perhaps that's a better way to explain it to you. Multiple drugs reduce variation in a population. Once the variation exists, evolutionary rate is unchanged.

This example is from Iowa State University on the topic of herbicides and can be viewed at [/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2004/combination.shtml

This quote shows that combining herbicides delays the evolution of weed resistance strains.

This is the same quote I gave before which I pointed out states that increased selection pressures increases evolutionary rate! Did you not read my post at all?!

Kleinman, you are confusing evolution. Evolution is "the change in allele frequency in a population over time", not "the arrisal of novel alleles in a population over time". The gain of variation in a population is not "evolution", but "random mutation" and other such things. "Selection pressures" work on "variation" which causes "evolution". Evolution is a combination of all these things, not one without the other. All you have shown is that multiple drugs reduce variation in a population. Fine. Wonderful. That does not slow down evolution!

The rate of evolution is dependent only on the strength of selection.

This example is from German researchers on the topic of rodenticides and can be viewed at [/SIZE][/FONT]http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rHo5amSD9IAJ:digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1047%26context%3Dvpc16+combination+rodenticide+resistance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

This quote shows that combination rodenticides delay the evolution of rodenticides resistance.

Did you even read your own bloody source? It shows that using more then one drug is more effective then only one! It says nothing about resistance arising at a slower rate, only that multiple drugs are useful with already existing resistance.

If these links and associated quotes are not sufficient for you evolutionists, google search with the following terms; combination "selection pressures" resistance and you will find a huge number of papers that show that combination selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of a wide variety of different types of life forms.

Kleinman I have already done this, posted the first 3 pages, and showed why they do not say what you think they do! Ignoring the rest of my post, and respond to more then a single point I rose!

Now if you evolutionists think that multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution, post your links and associated quotes that support your contention. Posting links with your vague speculations does not cut it here.

I have already posted a mathematical model which clearly shows stronger selection increases the rate of evolution. Since you cannot refute this, I think it is evidence enough.

 

[Dr Richard]

Originally posted by kleinman:

Multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution

priceless

 

[Taffer]

priceless

How did I miss that? You can't buy this stuff, folks.

 

[Dr Richard]

Let me help you with this Dr Richard and I’ll show you how to quote from a paper to support your position:

I am glad that you have now properly read the paper.

You really should try that before commenting on them, as it would have saved me having waste almost an entire post correcting your previous misconception of the term selection pressure.

As for cutting and pasting from papers, in my undergraduate days we concentrated on understanding the papers we were reading, not assigning random .gifs to macro keys.

And here is another quote from the paper:[/SIZE][/FONT]

I added the highlighting. So this nice mathematical definition tells us that of your 500 or so selection pressures most are neutral (Ka/Ks = 1) or negative (Ka/Ks is « 1). Note that negative selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures. Only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (Ka/Ks > 1), that is directional selection pressures. These are the types of selection pressures which evolve drug resistance and lead to evolution.

Taffer had already corrected your mistake about a selection pressure of 1.

Yet another mathematical error - how many is that now?

To sharpen your skills, lets go back to the basics. How many positive selection pressures do they identify in the paper?


And now back to the questions you are evading:

Again, please tell me the minimum number of selection pressures you think must operate to slow evolution in the real world based on your extensive mathematical modelling.

If one base pair mutation is a microevolutionary event, how many base pair mutations to make a macroevolutionary event? 2? 10? 100?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I added the highlighting. So this nice mathematical definition tells us that of your 500 or so selection pressures most are neutral (Ka/Ks = 1) or negative (Ka/Ks is « 1). Note that negative selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures. Only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (Ka/Ks > 1), that is directional selection pressures. These are the types of selection pressures which evolve drug resistance and lead to evolution.

Small correction, as I see it. "Positive selection" selects for any mutations which increase reproductive function, it does not drive to any goal. This is important.

Are you not a student of population genetics? Go back to your text book and you will find that population geneticists distinguish three types of selection; they are stabilizing selection, directional selection and disruptive selection. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate optimum phenotype and selects against phenodeviants. Directional selection is selection directed toward a new intermediate optimum, not at the mean of the population, in response to a new selective challenge. Disruptive selection, rather than favoring any one phenotype, favors two quite different forms and selects against the intermediates; this may be viewed as directional selection of two separate subpopulations, in response to two different sets of environmental conditions. These definitions are taken from the text Genetics in Medicine by Thompson & Thompson. Dr Richard’s link also includes “neutral selection” which essentially occurs with mutations which don’t affect fitness. The goal for directed selection is a new intermediate optimum on the fitness landscape.

Thank you Dr Richard, your link again proves my point that multiple selection pressures slows evolution, however I will modify my wording slightly in order to accommodate your contention.

It does nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you get that from the paper, because it says nothing of the sort whatsoever. Perhaps you could point out exactly where it says that multiple selection pressures slows evolution?

Because that would go against all other evolutionary models we currently have.

The reason you don’t understand this is that you don’t understand the different types of selection pressures. Go back to the Ka/Ks equation. When Ka/Ks = 1 you have neutral selection pressure, that is mutations occur which don’t affect the frequency of the particular gene in the gene pool, when Ka/Ks is « 1 you have a stabilizing selection pressure, that is a mutation causes a phenodeviant which is detrimental to the creature and is selected against. When Ka/Ks is « 1, the frequency of that particular mutation is reduced in the gene pool. Only when Ka/Ks > 1 do you have selection which increases the frequency of that mutation in the gene pool. These types of mutations lead to a new optimum on the fitness landscape and are thus directional in nature. The authors have indicated that only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (or directional) (Ka/Ks > 1).

Neutral or stabilizing selection processes do not lead to new strains in the gene pool. Only when you have directional selection do you introduce new strains in the gene pool and again, these authors indicate that directional selection for HIV is rare. When antiretroviral medications are used on HIV, these apply directional selection pressure on the virus. Note that when a resistant strain evolves, that directional selection pressure will become a stabilizing selection pressure if the virus is still exposed to the drug.

Only directional selection pressure leads to genetic evolution. Of the hundreds of selection pressures Dr Richard refers to, only a tiny fraction of these are directional selection pressures. If you want to evolve drug resistance in HIV, use a single directional selection pressure and you can achieve this quickly because of the viruses’ high mutation rate and rapid reproduction. Combine multiple directional selection pressures and you will slow this process.

Multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution.

No selection is directional, kleinman, so this statement is false. Selection does one thing only: selects against those with a lower reproductive fitness. It does not "select for" anything, becuase evolution is not directional.

You better go back and re-read your textbooks before you take your final exams.

Neutral and stabilizing selection pressures do not lead to evolution.

Selection always leads to evolution. Selection acts on variation in a population. In the absense of variation, no evolution can occur. But in the presence of evolution, even "stabalizing" selection changes the ratio of new alleles in a population, which is what evolution is.

I don’t know what to tell you other than go back to your textbooks and learn what the different forms of selection do.

Dr Richard, stick with us, we will get you up to speed on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

We sure will, but you won't teach it, because you lack the ability to grasp it.

If you teach what you are saying here, you will be misleading your students on how mutation and selection works. What can you expect from an evolutionist?

This quote shows that monotherapy of HIV accelerates the evolution of resistant strains of the virus.

No it doesn't! All it shows is that monotherapy increases the risk of selection of a resistant strain of the virus. Selection of a strain and evolution are different. No-one denies that the presence of a single drug will lead to a population of organisms which are resistant to that drug. Multiple drugs do not slow the evolution of any individual resistances, but require all 3 drugs to be present (assuming, of course, that all drugs are "kill" drugs, which is not the case in real life) in the organism for it to live. But the time for such an organism to arise is the same as the same organism arising through "serial" resistance evolution.

You still don’t understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. Once you understand what the different forms of selection are, perhaps you will be able to begin to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution

priceless

If you ever graduate Sesame Street and learn how to count, you will understand how mutation and selection really works. Your own link to The HIV positive selection mutation database shows this but it must be too technical for you to understand.

This is what happens when you try to discuss mathematics with a Sesame Street drop out.

 

[Dr Richard]

This is the same quote I gave before which I pointed out states that increased selection pressures increases evolutionary rate! Did you not read my post at all?!

Thank you for another gem Taffer. I have taken Kleinman's advice and decided to copy a few quotes from the example he cites:

For herbicide combinations to reduce resistance risks, they both must achieve efficacy that is high enough against all weeds to ensure redundant kill. This redundant kill rarely, if ever, occurs in the real world

Relying on alternative modes of action to reduce resistance risks will rarely result in the redundant kill essential for this strategy to be effective against resistance selection

Thus, for the majority of weed species the described herbicide program has a similar risk of glyphosate resistance as if glyphosate had been used alone

My only regret is that I'm on holiday as of tomorrow and will miss such kleinman komedy moments.

At least this thread will be still be going when I return

And I confidently predict that over the 10 days klienman will continue to evade the questions I have asked him.

 

[Dr Richard]

This is what happens when you try to discuss mathematics with a Sesame Street drop out.[/FONT]

A bizarre ad hom but evades these two questions: I have numbered them to make them seem mathematical and help you...


1. Again, please tell me the minimum number of selection pressures you think must operate to slow evolution in the real world based on your extensive mathematical modelling.

2. If one base pair mutation is a microevolutionary event, how many base pair mutations to make a macroevolutionary event? 2? 10? 100

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Let me help you with this Dr Richard and I’ll show you how to quote from a paper to support your position:

You really should try that before commenting on them, as it would have saved me having waste almost an entire post correcting your previous misconception of the term selection pressure.

Really, what comment did I make on this paper before reading it? Please feel free to quote me.

I added the highlighting. So this nice mathematical definition tells us that of your 500 or so selection pressures most are neutral (Ka/Ks = 1) or negative (Ka/Ks is « 1). Note that negative selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures. Only in rare cases are selection pressures positive (Ka/Ks > 1), that is directional selection pressures. These are the types of selection pressures which evolve drug resistance and lead to evolution.

Taffer had already corrected your mistake about a selection pressure of 1.

Taffer has no idea of what selection pressures are, he needs to go back and read his textbook, perhaps you need to do this as well.

And now back to the questions you are evading:

Again, please tell me the minimum number of selection pressures you think must operate to slow evolution in the real world based on your extensive mathematical modelling.

I haven’t evaded this question; you must have a problem reading this thread. The way the mathematics of mutation and selection works, the more directional selection pressures you have, the slower the evolutionary process goes. If you read your link to The HIV positive selection mutation database carefully, you will see that directional selection pressures are rare for HIV, the other selection pressures are either neutral or stabilizing which do not lead to drug resistance. No wonder advancement in the treatment of HIV is proceeding so slowly due to the distorted and contorted misunderstanding of mutation and selection that you evolutionists put forward. At least infectious disease experts understand that combination therapy slows the evolution of resistant strains of the virus. Someday this reality will sink into your evolutionist brainwashed heads.

 

[joobz]

I see that the chain gang has been working overtime on the goal posts

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution.

to

The way the mathematics of mutation and selection works, the more directional selection pressures you have, the slower the evolutionary process goes

So we no longer have a 2 selection pressures =macroevolution =impossible, but rather a
x number of "directional selection pressures" = slower evolution=???

Slower is rather vague, don't you think? Since when does "slow" equal never?
Using your search criteria has pulled up this little gem from
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (1998) 353, 1787-1795

One myth involves the belief that we can manage resistance. I will maintain that we can only attempt to mitigate resistance because resistance is a natural evolutionary response to environmental stresses. As such, resistance will remain an ongoing dilemma in pest management and we can only delay the onset of resistance to pesticides.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Slower is rather vague, don't you think? Since when does "slow" equal never?

Using your search criteria has pulled up this little gem from
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (1998) 353, 1787-1795

One myth involves the belief that we can manage resistance. I will maintain that we can only attempt to mitigate resistance because resistance is a natural evolutionary response to environmental stresses. As such, resistance will remain an ongoing dilemma in pest management and we can only delay the onset of resistance to pesticides.

Good for you joobz. I read this article the other day; my first impression was Ms Hoy has never heard of extinction. If you read a little further into the abstract you will see the following quote:

Delaying resistance, whether to traditional pesticides or to transgenic plants containing toxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, will require that we develop multi-tactic pest management programmes that incorporate all appropriate pest management approaches.

What does “incorporate all appropriate pest management approaches” mean? Why it means multiple selection pressures, which is how you delay resistance. Sound familiar doesn’t it? I’m glad that Ms Hoy understands this principle, now if only other evolutionists can learn to understand this and then the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution will become apparent to you evolutionists.

For those of you who wish to read this paper, it is located at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8436(19981029)353%3A1376%3C1787%3AMMAMOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

Finally, joobz, you are starting to think about the problem. Did you notice all the other links in that google search that also shows that multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution?

 

[joobz]

Why it means multiple selection pressures, which is how you delay resistance.

NOTE that word, delay. Hoy was talking about delaying the resistance development against pesticides. But Hoy doesn't say, Halt, stop, prevent, abolish, never will happen,.... Hoy says delay. We can only ever delay things, we can't stop evolution.

Repeat after me,
Slow is a relative term.
Slow is a relative term.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Multiple directional selection pressures ...

Ah, now it's multiple directional pressures.

I'm buying stock in a goalpost moving company with lots of big trucks.

I see that the chain gang has been working overtime on the goal posts.

They are moved by chain gangs?! Why, that's just cruel and unusual punishment.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

They are moved by chain gangs?! Why, that's just cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course they're moved by chain gangs. Nobody would willingly sign on for that kind of labor!

Don't worry. It's not cruel and unusual. They're doing the Lord's work.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why it means multiple selection pressures, which is how you delay resistance.

NOTE that word, delay. Hoy was talking about delaying the resistance development against pesticides. But Hoy doesn't say, Halt, stop, prevent, abolish, never will happen,.... Hoy says delay. We can only ever delay things, we can't stop evolution.

This is progress. You finally understand that multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution. We now need to get you to understand two more points. The first point is that evolution does not go on for ever, extinction does occur. The second point is that additional directional selection pressures have a profound affect on the rate of evolution. HIV is an example of a bracketing case for this phenomenon. HIV has a short genome, a high mutation rate and a high reproduction rate, all features which contribute to a relatively rapid adaptation by mutation and selection. Even with these features, the delay in evolution of multiple drug resistance of this virus when using combination therapy can be and is striking when compared to monotherapy. This mechanism of mutation and selection for adaptation to multiple directional selection pressures for creatures with much larger genomes, much slower reproductive rates and lower mutation rates can accomplish nothing in realistic time spans especially evolving reptiles into birds.

I do commend you though for finally understanding that multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution.

Repeat after me,

Slow is a relative term.
Slow is a relative term.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Slow doesn't mean stop.

Slow is a relative term.
Slow is a relative term.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Extinction means stop.
Too slow means the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Now it only remains to show you that extinction does occur and that mutation and multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution too much for the theory to be mathematically impossible.

Multiple directional selection pressures ...

Ah, now it's multiple directional pressures.

I'm buying stock in a goalpost moving company with lots of big trucks.

Paul, stop whining about moving goal posts. Ev is demonstrating this exact effect. When you initially start the program with random genomes, the selection conditions are directional. Once you satisfy the selection conditions, the selection conditions become stabilizing selection conditions. Ev is demonstrating exactly how mutation and selection (both directional and stabilizing) works.

I see that the chain gang has been working overtime on the goal posts.

They are moved by chain gangs?! Why, that's just cruel and unusual punishment.

I can’t help it that you finding out the truth of your theory of evolution is cruel and unusual punishment. Just think of this as an improvement in the goalposts.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░Directional░░░░░░░░░|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.░░░░░░*
******************************************

 

[joobz]

This is progress. You finally understand that multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution.

I've never said this. I was simply demonstrating your have moved your whole argument into such a nebulous realm that it is meaningless.

Slow is a relative term.

Slow is a relative term.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Extinction means stop.
Too slow means the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

When did stop=too slow? again, you lack any sense of numerical reasoning.

extinction only means "stop" for that which is extinct. however, all else that survives is still evolving. Complete Global extinction would mean stop. But really, this is not what you have been advocating or defending.

You have claimed that evolution is a myth and that ev shows this. But you now admit that evolution is only "slowed" by your multiple directional pressures. How can something that doesn't exist be slowed?

 

[Dr Richard]

Really, what comment did I make on this paper before reading it? Please feel free to quote me.

Ok, quote some of these selection pressures and let’s discuss them. With all these selection pressures, perhaps it is HIV that is evolving into birds.

Would appear to have been written by someone who has not read the paper.

Taffer has no idea of what selection pressures are, he needs to go back and read his textbook, perhaps you need to do this as well.

I would love to hear your definition of "selection pressure" klienman.


I'll add it to the list of questions Kleinman can't answer: (I have amended question 1 as you have moved the goalposts from "multiple selection pressures prevent evolution" to "multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution"

1. Again, please tell me the minimum number of "directional "selection pressures you think must operate to prevent macroevolution by slowing microevolution to such an extent that it cannot happen within the timeframe of life on earth in the real world based on your extensive mathematical modelling.

2. If one base pair mutation is a microevolutionary event, how many base pair mutations to make a macroevolutionary event? 2? 10? 100?

3. How many positive selection pressures are listed on the HIV positive selection database for just two of the genes?

4. What is your definition of a "selection pressure"

5. (for old time's sake) What is your definition of macroevolution again? (NB random lists of things you think it is are not acceptable)


Please note the numbering. You seem to be ignoring questions.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

They are moved by chain gangs?! Why, that's just cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course they're moved by chain gangs. Nobody would willingly sign on for that kind of labor!

If this is slavery, I’m really enjoying it.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Important principles you display here. Delphi, do you know your Master?

This is progress. You finally understand that multiple directional selection pressures slow evolution.

I've never said this. I was simply demonstrating your have moved your whole argument into such a nebulous realm that it is meaningless.

Two steps forward, one step back. We will get to the point where you can understand how mutation and selection actually works.

Slow is a relative term.

Slow doesn't mean stop.
Slow doesn't mean stop.
Extinction means stop.
Too slow means the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

When did stop=too slow? again, you lack any sense of numerical reasoning.

I didn’t say stop=too slow, I said extinction means stop. What I said was too slow means that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, you simply do not have enough time to accumulate the information by mutation and selection.

extinction only means "stop" for that which is extinct. however, all else that survives is still evolving. Complete Global extinction would mean stop. But really, this is not what you have been advocating or defending.

What I have been advocating is that the ev computer model shows that the acquisition of information by random point mutation is profoundly slow, too slow to support the theory of evolution. The reason why it is too slow is the competing directional selection conditions which slow the evolutionary process profoundly when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. This is also seen in reality.

You have claimed that evolution is a myth and that ev shows this. But you now admit that evolution is only "slowed" by your multiple directional pressures. How can something that doesn't exist be slowed?

It is the theory of evolution which is the myth, microevolution does occur but extrapolating this phenomenon to the evolution of reptiles into birds is mathematically impossible, that’s the myth.

Really, what comment did I make on this paper before reading it? Please feel free to quote me.

Ok, quote some of these selection pressures and let’s discuss them. With all these selection pressures, perhaps it is HIV that is evolving into birds.

Would appear to have been written by someone who has not read the paper.

Apparently you didn’t understand your own reference. I asked you do discuss the selection pressures mentioned in the article and you couldn’t. I quote from the article specifically what kinds of selection pressures are computed and they show the vast majority are neutral or stabilizing and only rarely are the selection pressures directional. It is the directional selection pressures which evolve drug resistance.

Taffer has no idea of what selection pressures are, he needs to go back and read his textbook, perhaps you need to do this as well.

I would love to hear your definition of "selection pressure" klienman.

If you had read the Taffer post, you would know the definitions that I use. Since you are a lazy reader, I will post these definitions again, just for you.

Go back to your text book and you will find that population geneticists distinguish three types of selection; they are stabilizing selection, directional selection and disruptive selection. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate optimum phenotype and selects against phenodeviants. Directional selection is selection directed toward a new intermediate optimum, not at the mean of the population, in response to a new selective challenge. Disruptive selection, rather than favoring any one phenotype, favors two quite different forms and selects against the intermediates; this may be viewed as directional selection of two separate subpopulations, in response to two different sets of environmental conditions. These definitions are taken from the text Genetics in Medicine by Thompson & Thompson. Dr Richard’s link also includes “neutral selection” which essentially occurs with mutations which don’t affect fitness. The goal for directed selection is a new intermediate optimum on the fitness landscape.

So let’s discuss your article The HIV positive selection mutation database and your 500 selection pressures in this context and what it means to the mathematics of mutation and selection. You will find that your article supports my contention that multiple directional selection pressures slows evolution.