Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

I don’t have to show that evolution is stopped; I only have to show that it is slowed down sufficiently that it is mathematically impossible to occur in the time available.

Really? So:

(a) Why don't you try to show that evolution is "slowed down sufficiently"?

Let me guess, because that would require actual math rather than hysterics and ravings about "cheese" and "joobequate" and "herrings" and "fecal matter".

(b) Why do you keep lying about how evolution is "stopped", if all you have to do is prove that it is "slowed down sufficiently"?

Let me guess, because you find that telling the same lie over and over is easier than doing the math.

(c) Why don't your actions correspond in any way to your windy, empty boasts?

I guess that one answers itself.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Look what two or three selection pressures do to the evolution of viruses and bacteria. What do you think will happen with millions of selection pressures on much more complex creatures? If you studied ev a little, you would have some idea of the answer to this question. The mathematics of mutation and selection shows something completely different than what evolutionists allege.

Now, when you say "the mathematics of mutation and selection", you're not referring to any mathematics, are you?

You're referring to the crazy crap you think up in your head.

 

[Taffer]

Now, when you say "the mathematics of mutation and selection", you're not referring to any mathematics, are you?

You're referring to the crazy crap you think up in your head.

Given that he thinks that "the mathematics of mutation and selection" and "the mathematics of recombination and selection" are different things, I'm fairly certain we can answer that question.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know that Paul said this and I agree with him:

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.

I'm glad you agree with my statement about what you said, otherwise you'd be disagreeing with yourself. And that would just be weird.

So you're saying that bacteria, for example, have never evolved?

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

I'm glad you agree with my statement about what you said, otherwise you'd be disagreeing with yourself. And that would just be weird.

Although, it would be par for the course.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Is that an admission that recombination alone does not and can not create new genes? We are talking about mathematical precision in this discussion of mutation and selection, not the sloppy speculations that you evolutionists use to explain your theory.

Once you accept this point, then we can go on to your next misunderstanding of recombination and natural selection. That is that recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles from the gene pool and thus the loss of information from the gene pool.

No, kleinman, stop your strawmen. It is possible for recombination to create new genes. But I never claimed that it does regularly, nor did I even use that as a part of my argument. I have given you a mathematical model for selection, and you said it was "recombination and selection", which is utter rubbish. Recombination creates variation. Mutations create variation. Reproduction creates variation. Gene flow creates variation. Selection only acts on variation, and it matters not how this variation arose.

Make sure you stamp your foot when you say this. If you are so sure that recombination makes new genes, add this feature to ev and show us how the theory of evolution works mathematically.

So stop blathering on about "recombination and selection", and address my posts.

Hey, I’m not telling you to stop your blathering, I’m telling you to prove your blathering mathematically.

You can have errors in the recombination process that can make new sequences of bases.

Yes. And you can also have recombination occuring inside of genes. It does not occur at specific locations, you realise.

Really, you think that crossing over during meiosis does not occur at specific locations? If you think that non-homologous crossing over is the mutation process that drives the your theory of evolution, put the feature into ev and prove it mathematically.

Are you proposing this as the mutation mechanism that will solve the deficiencies which ev reveals for the theory of evolution?

There are no deficiencies, only misconceptions on your part. Recombination creates variation. Mutation creates variation. Reproduction creates variation. Gene flow creates variation. Selection acts on this variation in the same way no matter whence that variation arose.

There is a deficiency in your understanding in the theory of evolution by mutation and selection. That is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. Ev shows this and now we have more than ten papers that show that this is how mutation and selection works. If you think that recombination and selection will change this fact, include this in ev and show us. Remember this though, we already have real examples of combination rodenticides slow the evolution of resistant strains of rodents and these creatures use recombination in their reproduction.

Ev only includes a single form of variation, which is why it does not model the entire phenomenon of evolution by natural selection.

What you still don’t understand about the mathematics of mutation and selection is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. If you think that other forms of variations will somehow changes this fact that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, you need to show how this works mathematically.

I don’t have to show that evolution is stopped; I only have to show that it is slowed down sufficiently that it is mathematically impossible to occur in the time available.

And you are wrong. but what's new.

I guess you evolutionists can increase the age of the earth to a squillion years.

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.

Look what two or three selection pressures do to the evolution of viruses and bacteria. What do you think will happen with millions of selection pressures on much more complex creatures? If you studied ev a little, you would have some idea of the answer to this question. The mathematics of mutation and selection shows something completely different than what evolutionists allege.

And Paul was making fun of you when he said that, unfortunately you were too foolish to realize. Let's see if I can explain this SLOWLY.

Hey Paul, is joobz a mind reader? Most of those selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures which reduce variation in the population.

You have those MILLONS of selection pressures ALL THE TIME. Yet we still see adaptation.

I wonder who is going to be the last person on this thread to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection, you or Adebz?

Transposition and recombination of genes or parts of genes is done all the time in immunocytes for the production of antibodies.

This is a completely different type of recombination then that which happenes during meiosis.

Occasionally, you can have non-homologous recombination during reproduction. Include whatever form of variation in ev you want and show us that it can overcome the effect that multiple selection pressures has on the mathematics of mutation (or variation) and selection.

We now have a horse race, who will be the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. Will it be Taffer, joobz or Adebz? The race has started, they are off and mumbling. Adebz lurches into the lead by posting a gif that temporarily puts us in awe, joobz lumbers up with “can’t everyone just cooperate and adapt”, and here comes Taffer stamping his hoof and whinnies recombination is variation! Stay tuned and find out who wins this race and becomes the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

You know that Paul said this and I agree with him:

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.

I'm glad you agree with my statement about what you said, otherwise you'd be disagreeing with yourself. And that would just be weird.

So you're saying that bacteria, for example, have never evolved?

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense. It is the evolutionists who make weird extrapolations. The thought that bacteria transformed into humans is lets say, a mathematically baseless extrapolation.

 

[Taffer]

Why even bother? You're so convinced you're right, that nothing we say will ever convince you. Kleinman, I've already shown mathematically how increased selection pressure speeds evolution. I've already shown why every single one of your 'supporting' papers do not support you. You have ignored both those posts. I have explained multiple times that you do not understand evolutionary theory, and that selection acts on variation, and it makes no difference where this variation comes from. I've already told you more times then I can remember that ev only models a single process, not all of evolution.

How about you respond to my previous posts, instead of your endless arm waving, shouting "evolution slows, so you're wrong!".

 

[joobz]

Hey Paul, is joobz a mind reader? Most of those selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures which reduce variation in the population.

ahh, they don't count because you say so. How scientific.

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense.

limited, interesting. Please explain this word. Many, slow, limited,... Your language has all the hallmarks of numeric accuracy. You must be using maths.

Again, what prevents evolution from going too far?
Do you consider bacteria and viruses that switch from being airborne communicable to contact communicable a "limited evolutionary change"? Do you conisder diseases that switch between species of infection a "limited evolutionary change"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense. It is the evolutionists who make weird extrapolations. The thought that bacteria transformed into humans is lets say, a mathematically baseless extrapolation.

Okay, so you do disagree with yourself.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Make sure you stamp your foot when you say this. If you are so sure that recombination makes new genes, add this feature to ev and show us how the theory of evolution works mathematically.

Hey, I’m not telling you to stop your blathering, I’m telling you to prove your blathering mathematically.

Really, you think that crossing over during meiosis does not occur at specific locations? If you think that non-homologous crossing over is the mutation process that drives the your theory of evolution, put the feature into ev and prove it mathematically.

There is a deficiency in your understanding in the theory of evolution by mutation and selection. That is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. Ev shows this and now we have more than ten papers that show that this is how mutation and selection works. If you think that recombination and selection will change this fact, include this in ev and show us. Remember this though, we already have real examples of combination rodenticides slow the evolution of resistant strains of rodents and these creatures use recombination in their reproduction.

What you still don’t understand about the mathematics of mutation and selection is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. If you think that other forms of variations will somehow changes this fact that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, you need to show how this works mathematically.

I guess you evolutionists can increase the age of the earth to a squillion years.

Hey Paul, is joobz a mind reader? Most of those selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures which reduce variation in the population.

I wonder who is going to be the last person on this thread to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection, you or Adebz?

Occasionally, you can have non-homologous recombination during reproduction. Include whatever form of variation in ev you want and show us that it can overcome the effect that multiple selection pressures has on the mathematics of mutation (or variation) and selection.

We now have a horse race, who will be the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. Will it be Taffer, joobz or Adebz? The race has started, they are off and mumbling. Adebz lurches into the lead by posting a gif that temporarily puts us in awe, joobz lumbers up with “can’t everyone just cooperate and adapt”, and here comes Taffer stamping his hoof and whinnies recombination is variation! Stay tuned and find out who wins this race and becomes the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense. It is the evolutionists who make weird extrapolations. The thought that bacteria transformed into humans is lets say, a mathematically baseless extrapolation.

So, you still haven't done any actual math?

Your lies, your gibberish, your tantrums, your magic words and your plaintive dreary whining about your betters are not a substitute.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why even bother? You're so convinced you're right, that nothing we say will ever convince you. Kleinman, I've already shown mathematically how increased selection pressure speeds evolution. I've already shown why every single one of your 'supporting' papers do not support you. You have ignored both those posts. I have explained multiple times that you do not understand evolutionary theory, and that selection acts on variation, and it makes no difference where this variation comes from. I've already told you more times then I can remember that ev only models a single process, not all of evolution.

I’m convinced that I understand how ev works and that it properly models the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. What it shows is that the dominant parameters in the model are the number of selection conditions and the length of the genome. You have not shown mathematically how increased selection pressure speeds up evolution. If you think you have, show how you did it to Paul. I think he would be thrilled to know how to speed up ev. Use anything you want with ev, recombination, indels, transpositions, whatever and show how this speeds up evolution. I have already listed ten or twelve references of real examples how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. These real examples are not limited to random point mutations.

How about you respond to my previous posts, instead of your endless arm waving, shouting "evolution slows, so you're wrong!".

I may be arm waving and shouting but I’ve also posted the data from a peer reviewed model of random point mutations and natural selection which substantiates my contention and numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures slowing evolution. I’m waiting for you to post data from your peer reviewed and published model of mutation and natural selection or real examples which show that multiple selection pressures speed evolution.

Hey Paul, is joobz a mind reader? Most of those selection pressures are stabilizing selection pressures which reduce variation in the population.

ahh, they don't count because you say so. How scientific.

How about if I give you a quote from my genetics text, Genetics in Medicine, by Thompson and Thompson.

Of the three types of selection, stabilizing selection appears to play the major role. It may be viewed as a tendency to maintain the status quo.

The three types of selection are stabilizing, directional and disruptive. I gave you the definitions earlier in the thread.

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense.

limited, interesting. Please explain this word. Many, slow, limited,... Your language has all the hallmarks of numeric accuracy. You must be using maths.

Bacteria can evolve resistance to drugs and other selection pressures, but bacteria certainly didn’t evolve into humans. Evolutionists like to use the term unlimited when talking about mutation and selection. That type of thinking has no hallmarks of numeric accuracy. They like to say that a series of microevolutionary steps leads to a macroevolutionary steps. This type of process is limited by the selection pressure(s), fitness landscape and time.

Again, what prevents evolution from going too far?

Selection pressure(s), fitness landscape and time.

Do you consider bacteria and viruses that switch from being airborne communicable to contact communicable a "limited evolutionary change"? Do you conisder diseases that switch between species of infection a "limited evolutionary change"?

I don’t know what you mean by this question. All infections agents require contact of some type with the host and a proper portal of entry.

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense. It is the evolutionists who make weird extrapolations. The thought that bacteria transformed into humans is lets say, a mathematically baseless extrapolation.

Okay, so you do disagree with yourself.

I do that occasionally. I then argue with both sides and then hopefully come to agreement with the one who is correct. Sometimes the answer is none of the above. However, whenever I think about bacteria evolving into humans--- nah.

I see that the James Randi Forum resident PhD in amathematics really wants to be the last evolutionist on this thread to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I’m convinced that I understand how ev works and that it properly models the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. What it shows is that the dominant parameters in the model are the number of selection conditions and the length of the genome. You have not shown mathematically how increased selection pressure speeds up evolution. If you think you have, show how you did it to Paul. I think he would be thrilled to know how to speed up ev. Use anything you want with ev, recombination, indels, transpositions, whatever and show how this speeds up evolution. I have already listed ten or twelve references of real examples how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. These real examples are not limited to random point mutations.

I may be arm waving and shouting but I’ve also posted the data from a peer reviewed model of random point mutations and natural selection which substantiates my contention and numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures slowing evolution. I’m waiting for you to post data from your peer reviewed and published model of mutation and natural selection or real examples which show that multiple selection pressures speed evolution.

How about if I give you a quote from my genetics text, Genetics in Medicine, by Thompson and Thompson.

The three types of selection are stabilizing, directional and disruptive. I gave you the definitions earlier in the thread.

Bacteria can evolve resistance to drugs and other selection pressures, but bacteria certainly didn’t evolve into humans. Evolutionists like to use the term unlimited when talking about mutation and selection. That type of thinking has no hallmarks of numeric accuracy. They like to say that a series of microevolutionary steps leads to a macroevolutionary steps. This type of process is limited by the selection pressure(s), fitness landscape and time.

Selection pressure(s), fitness landscape and time.

I don’t know what you mean by this question. All infections agents require contact of some type with the host and a proper portal of entry.

I do that occasionally. I then argue with both sides and then hopefully come to agreement with the one who is correct. Sometimes the answer is none of the above. However, whenever I think about bacteria evolving into humans--- nah.

So, you still haven't done any math.

Why do you keep whining about mathematics? You're just drawing attention to your deficiencies.

I see that the James Randi Forum resident PhD in amathematics really wants to be the last evolutionist on this thread to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

As I recall, when you use the phrase "understand the mathematics of mutation and selection" you mean "be fooled by kleinman's snivelling innumerate lies".

I think I can guarantee you that this will never happen to any of us.

But thanks for playing.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Here are some more references to combination selection pressures slowing evolution. The following reference can be found at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?JID990624PDF

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) drug resistance to lamivudine is always accompanied by mutations in the viral polymerase gene at position 550, termed group 1 (M550V with L526M) or group 2 (M550I) mutations. The latter mutation has not been associated with famciclovir resistance.

And

HBV resistance to lamivudine monotherapy

is associated with a complex mixture of variants that limit the efficacy of second-line nucleoside-analogue therapy. First-line potent combination therapy may reduce the emergence of HBV drug resistance.

Here is another reference from Wikipedia on combination retroviral therapy for HIV located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug

Combinations of antiretrovirals create multiple obstacles to HIV replication to keep the number of offspring low and reduce the possibility of a superior mutation. If a mutation arises that conveys resistance to one of the drugs being taken, the other drugs continue to suppress reproduction of that mutation. With rare exceptions, no individual antiretroviral drug has been demonstrated to suppress an HIV infection for long; these agents must be taken in combinations in order to have a lasting effect. As a result the standard of care is to use combinations of antiretroviral drugs. Combinations usually comprise two nucleoside-analogue RTIs and one non-nucleoside-analogue RTI or protease inhibitor.[2]

Here is another abstract on combination therapy for HIV located at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.365..451L

Reports of synergy17–19 and lack of cross-resistance between reverse transcriptase inhibitors (refs 7, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 18, 20, 21), plus the reversal of AZT resistance by mutations induced by ddl7 and NNRTIs14, have indicated that specific drug combinations directed at reverse transcriptase might curtail resistance. Chow et al.22 extended this concept in a report that specific multiple combinations of resistance mutations in the reverse transcriptase can significantly impair HIV-1 replication. They concluded that evolutionary limitations may exist to prevent the emergence of multidrug resistance to inhibitors of reverse transcriptase22. We report here that HIV-1 co-resistant to AZT, ddl and the NNRTI nevirapine23 can be readily selected in cell culture starting with dual AZT- and ddl-resistant virus. We found no evidence for 'replication incompatible' combinations of resistance mutations, although a mutation (M184-->V) conferring oxathiolane-cytosine nucleoside resistance in reverse transcriptase24,25 completely sup-pressed AZT resistance in a triple-resistant background. These in vitro observations suggest that triple drug combination therapy might ultimately result in co-resistant HIV-1, although they do not preclude assessment of such combinations for treatment of HIV-1 disease.

Here is a line from the abstract from a paper reporting on the treatment of malaria which is located at http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/68/5/608.pdf

Based on the results of this study and with the objective of slowing the development of resistance, the Peruvian Ministry of Health has decided to revise its malaria treatment policy and recommend combination therapy with MQ-AS as the new first-line treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in the Amazon region.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here are some more references to combination selection pressures slowing evolution. The following reference can be found at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?JID990624PDF

And

Here is another reference from Wikipedia on combination retroviral therapy for HIV located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug

Here is another abstract on combination therapy for HIV located at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.365..451L

Here is a line from the abstract from a paper reporting on the treatment of malaria which is located at http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/68/5/608.pdf

So, you're back to telling stupid lies about the meaning of papers you don't understand?

Still no math, I notice.

 

[joobz]

Of course bacteria evolve but only in a very limited sense. It is the evolutionists who make weird extrapolations. The thought that bacteria transformed into humans is lets say, a mathematically baseless extrapolation.

Do you consider bacteria and viruses that switch from being airborne communicable to contact communicable a "limited evolutionary change"? Do you conisder diseases that switch between species of infection a "limited evolutionary change"?

I don’t know what you mean by this question. All infections agents require contact of some type with the host and a proper portal of entry.

Think Bird Flu. What is the primary concern? That the virus can become transmissble to humans. This requires an evolutionary adaptation to occur. Do you consider such a minor change with HUGE implications a "Limited evolutionary change"?

 

[joobz]

How about if I give you a quote from my genetics text, Genetics in Medicine, by Thompson and Thompson.

The three types of selection are stabilizing, directional and disruptive. I gave you the definitions earlier in the thread.

If you honestly think this is a logical response to my post, there is nothing I can do for you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So, you're back to telling stupid lies about the meaning of papers you don't understand?

Let’s see if Adebz can tell us what the real meaning of these papers is. Then he might not win the race to be the last evolutionist to understand the real meaning of the mathematics of mutation and selection.

How about if I give you a quote from my genetics text, Genetics in Medicine, by Thompson and Thompson.

The three types of selection are stabilizing, directional and disruptive. I gave you the definitions earlier in the thread.

If you honestly think this is a logical response to my post, there is nothing I can do for you.

Of course my response to your post was logical. Evolutionists know that most selection pressures are stabilizing. That is why I quoted this line from an evolutionist written text on genetics. Now if evolutionists learn the mathematics of mutation and selection and come to understand that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, then we can finally lay the theory of evolution to rest. This is substantiated by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of random point mutation and natural selection, the Wikipedia reference on fitness landscape and numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures slowing evolution. I will continue looking for more real examples of how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. You evolutionists can look for examples of where multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution, which would spice up this discussion.

 

[joobz]

Of course my response to your post was logical. Evolutionists know that most selection pressures are stabilizing. That is why I quoted this line from an evolutionist written text on genetics. Now if evolutionists learn the mathematics of mutation and selection and come to understand that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, then we can finally lay the theory of evolution to rest. This is substantiated by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of random point mutation and natural selection, the Wikipedia reference on fitness landscape and numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures slowing evolution. I will continue looking for more real examples of how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. You evolutionists can look for examples of where multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution, which would spice up this discussion.

Yawn. You say a lot of words, but none address the challenge at your feet. Show how evolution is impossible mathematically. that's it.

All you have presented are generalities (limited, slow, multiple,...) and claimed this is math.

 

[Taffer]

Here are some more references to combination selection pressures slowing evolution. The following reference can be found at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?JID990624PDF

And

Here is another reference from Wikipedia on combination retroviral therapy for HIV located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug

Here is another abstract on combination therapy for HIV located at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.365..451L

Here is a line from the abstract from a paper reporting on the treatment of malaria which is located at http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/68/5/608.pdf

Emergence does not mean evolution, kleinman. I think it's about time you realised that.

 

[Taffer]

I’m convinced that I understand how ev works and that it properly models the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. What it shows is that the dominant parameters in the model are the number of selection conditions and the length of the genome. You have not shown mathematically how increased selection pressure speeds up evolution. If you think you have, show how you did it to Paul. I think he would be thrilled to know how to speed up ev. Use anything you want with ev, recombination, indels, transpositions, whatever and show how this speeds up evolution. I have already listed ten or twelve references of real examples how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. These real examples are not limited to random point mutations.

In every single one of your examples, kleinman, you misinterpret what they say. Emergence does not mean evolution.

Secondly, I have already shown how increased selection pressures speed up evolution. Please turn your attention to my mathematical model I posted earlier. An increase in selection pressure (i.e. an increase in the selection coefficient) leads to a faster change in allele frequency. What's that? Change in allele frequency is evolution? Oh dear, I think I've just proved you wrong...

I may be arm waving and shouting but I’ve also posted the data from a peer reviewed model of random point mutations and natural selection which substantiates my contention and numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures slowing evolution. I’m waiting for you to post data from your peer reviewed and published model of mutation and natural selection or real examples which show that multiple selection pressures speed evolution.

Every single one of those papers, kleinman, every single one, simply shows that killing off a population will lead to the emergence of antibacterial resistance at a later time. There is no-one denying that. By emergence is not evolution.

How about you use an example which isn't resistance to something? Can you show that evolution has slowed in another example?

How about if I give you a quote from my genetics text, Genetics in Medicine, by Thompson and Thompson.

The three types of selection are stabilizing, directional and disruptive. I gave you the definitions earlier in the thread.

Haven't I already explained to you what this means? Selection does not differ, then pattern of allele frequency changes. Selection is not a 'thing' which can change. It is a phenomenon.

Also, I notice you are still ignoring several of my posts. I would like a response to them.