Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

Ladies and Gentlemen: We interrupt our regularly schedule discussion for this important announcement. An evolutionator and his clones have time traveled from Skeptiwikiland to the here and now James Randi Educational Forum. It is their goal to evolutionate the annoying creationist. The evolutionator has accomplished this time travel by increasing the number of routes he can take, even though most of his routes lead to no where. He has accomplished this by increasing the speed of his space zeppelin to 40 furlongs per fortnight from its normal travel speed of 20 furlongs per fortnight. Not only has the evolutionator been able to increase his speed by increasing the number of routes, he has been reduce his fuel consumption by 1.3 gallons per furlong. Beware of the evolutionator! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, the funeral for the theory of evolution.

Here's some serious, honest advice. No joke.

Take the passage that I've just quoted and show it to a doctor. Tell him that over the last year you've felt compelled to write half-a-million words of this stuff.

Ask him for help.

What's going on in your head is not right. I don't feel good myself, because it's wrong to laugh at the mentally disturbed, which is what I've been doing for the past year while participating on this thread.

There is something very wrong with you. You need help. I don't think that I can go on taunting you any longer. If I advise you that, in all seriousness, you are mentally ill, I don't mean it as a jibe or an ad hominem attack.

You are mentally ill. You need help.

Of course, your opinion will be that I'm wrong. If so, you have nothing to lose by showing this to a doctor. If I am right, as I am, you have the most precious thing in the world to gain.

You never came close to your ambition of being "annoying". But you have become an object of terrible, desperate pity.

I don't know if I can try to help you any more. Please try to help yourself.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

While you wait for a real example of n+1 pressures evolving faster than n pressures (which we have shown you time and time again, by the way, you genius) we will be waiting for you to show us a real example of whatever it is you claim generated life as we know it.

Only in your dreams have you shown n+1 selection pressure evolving more rapidly than n selection pressures, rocketwhomissesthetarget.

Do you have a more probable explanation than evolution, Kleinman? We would all love to hear it. You see, the funny thing is, no matter how improbable you think you show the theory of evolution to be, it will still be more probable than whatever nonsense you claim should replace it.

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, let’s see you prove creationism mathematically impossible.

That’s the story of how mutation and selection works. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow a population’s ability to do the sort of beneficial and detrimental mutations. You have too many routes on the fitness landscape that lead to no where. Single selection conditions which target a single gene give relatively rapid sorting of beneficial and detrimental mutations but as soon as you have multiple selection conditions targeting multiple different genes, the sorting process is interfered with by the multiple different selection conditions. That is what ev shows and that is what the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection demonstrates.

No, no, and no. We have shown you over and over, in formal proofs and arguments, why you are wrong here. You have failed to counter even a single argument of ours.

You have made one argument that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures. This has been shown to be mathematically and empirically wrong. It is nonsense to think that a sorting problem speeds up by adding more sorting conditions.

I see kleinman is again attacking the stawman. I see you haven't justified your horribly wrong assumptions. Isn't it funny how you are unable to wish reality away?

It is true that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is made of straw, that is why is blown away by the mathematical and empirical evidence.

I didn’t discover the “mistakes points feature” in ev. Kjkent1 pointed it out for me, thank you kjkent1. What I was looking for was the parameter which was causing ev to evolve so slowly for all but the tiniest genomes. It was the “mistake point feature” which reveals why the sorting process becomes so profoundly slow with all but the tiniest genomes. Set two of the three selection conditions to zero and the remaining selection condition sorts very rapidly, even with small populations.

You're welcome, however you continue to misunderstand the effect of setting a mistake count to zero.

When a mistake count is disabled, the ev organisms do not evolve to the "perfect creature" contemplated by the software, even though the software reports a "perfect creature." This is because when all three mistake counts are non-zero, "perfect" means a creature absent any missing or spurious bindings -- whereas when either missing or spurious bindings are set to zero, the "perfect creature," contains these errors, because they are not selected against.

Kjkent1, Paul and Dr Schneider’s confusing terminology of calling a zero mistake condition for a given set of selection conditions a “perfect creature” has also confused you. Ev is simply a sorting algorithm. It is designed with three sorting conditions. It is these three combined sorting conditions that slow down the convergence of ev. Setting two of the three sorting conditions to zero demonstrates this fact nicely.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We interrupt our regularly schedule discussion for this important announcement. An evolutionator and his clones have time traveled from Skeptiwikiland to the here and now James Randi Educational Forum. It is their goal to evolutionate the annoying creationist. The evolutionator has accomplished this time travel by increasing the number of routes he can take, even though most of his routes lead to no where. He has accomplished this by increasing the speed of his space zeppelin to 40 furlongs per fortnight from its normal travel speed of 20 furlongs per fortnight. Not only has the evolutionator been able to increase his speed by increasing the number of routes, he has been reduce his fuel consumption by 1.3 gallons per furlong. Beware of the evolutionator! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, the funeral for the theory of evolution.

And then you wonder why people think that you're insane.

You are the mathematician who believes in a mathematically impossible belief system. Why would someone spend years studying mathematical logic then abandon it for the irrational and illogical? You are spending too much time in your space zeppelin.

Sure Adequate, I’m listening carefully. I love your quote above. And your use of font size and color are strikingly convincing. Hey Adequate, I was listening to CNN this weekend and they mentioned “an obscure Internet message board”. I wonder if you can guess which “obscure Internet message board” was mentioned?

I'm guessing that it's the same obscure Internet message board that I keep pointing out to you is an obscure Internet message board.

The obscure Internet message board on which you've spent an entire year and (at a conservative estimate) half-a-million words explaining your ideas to two dozen people.

See, you can figure out something. I like posting here because I enjoy talking with such an interesting conversationalist as you. You are irrational and illogical but interesting none the less. So what’s our standing? Are we still 1464th most popular forum on the internet? Perhaps we can exceed the “Big Foot” thread on this forum. I’m sure you will help to reach that goal.

 

[Belz...]

Ladies and Gentlemen: We interrupt our regularly schedule discussion for this important announcement. An evolutionator and his clones have time traveled from Skeptiwikiland to the here and now James Randi Educational Forum. It is their goal to evolutionate the annoying creationist. The evolutionator has accomplished this time travel by increasing the number of routes he can take, even though most of his routes lead to no where. He has accomplished this by increasing the speed of his space zeppelin to 40 furlongs per fortnight from its normal travel speed of 20 furlongs per fortnight. Not only has the evolutionator been able to increase his speed by increasing the number of routes, he has been reduce his fuel consumption by 1.3 gallons per furlong. Beware of the evolutionator! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, the funeral for the theory of evolution.

Translation: "Uh oh. I don't understand the difference, so I better come up with some clever insult, STAT."

 

[rocketdodger]

Only in your dreams have you shown n+1 selection pressure evolving more rapidly than n selection pressures, rocketwhomissesthetarget.

--bacteria in human body --> population under n selective pressures --> no evolution of penicillin resistance.
--bacteria in the same body after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1 selective pressures --> rapid evolution of penicllin resistance.

Remember, Kleinman? Apparently you have forgotten all of the convoluted twisting you performed to try to get out of the corner this example puts you in.

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, let’s see you prove creationism mathematically impossible.

You haven't been able to back up your own arguments, which merely suggest evolution is improbable, never mind show evolution to be outright impossible. You clearly know nothing about probability theory.

But just to humor you, lets suppose you are right and that evolution is mathematically impossible. That means that either a) creationism is true or b) the molecules of our solar system just spontaneously assembled into the world as we know it.

We can calculate the probability of b). It is very low but still nonzero. Can you calculate the probability of a)? Let me know when you are finished.

You have made one argument that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures.

We have made many such arguments, and none of them have been refuted in any way by you except by redefining selection pressure to be "relatively strong directional selection pressure that is one of the variables in a study I have cited."

This has been shown to be mathematically and empirically wrong.

By whom? Certainly not by you. Simply whining "no, thats not true" doesn't constitute a refutation, Kleinman.

It is nonsense to think that a sorting problem speeds up by adding more sorting conditions.

Really? Then surely you should be able to show Dr. Adequate and I why both of our algorithms are not sorting algorithms. Have you done this yet? No. Will you ever? I doubt it.

 

[Belz...]

You are the mathematician who believes in a mathematically impossible belief system. Why would someone spend years studying mathematical logic then abandon it for the irrational and illogical? You are spending too much time in your space zeppelin.

Klein, I think something broke in your mind around post 6614. I'm with Adequate. Get help.

 

[joobz]

It is true that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is made of straw, that is why is blown away by the mathematical and empirical evidence.

So no justification for your assumptions then? I know why you haven't presented any, it's becuase you have no justification. They are horribly horribly wrong. You know enough to know that. This is the reason why you evade my question.

It is for that reason why I do not agree with Dr. Adequate. I don't think you are mentally deranged. I simply think you enjoy the attention.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Only in your dreams have you shown n+1 selection pressure evolving more rapidly than n selection pressures, rocketwhomissesthetarget.

--bacteria in human body --> population under n selective pressures --> no evolution of penicillin resistance.

--bacteria in the same body after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1 selective pressures --> rapid evolution of penicllin resistance.

Remember, Kleinman? Apparently you have forgotten all of the convoluted twisting you performed to try to get out of the corner this example puts you in.

This is where you have gotten it confused rocketwhomisses the target. The correct mathematics for this example is:
--bacteria in human body --> population under n selective pressures --> no evolution of penicillin resistance.
--bacteria in the same body after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1 selective pressures --> rapid evolution of penicllin resistance
-bacteria in vitro after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1-m selective pressures --> more rapid evolution of penicllin resistance than with n+1 selection pressures. Rocketwhomisses the target, you need to learn how to keep track of the number of selection pressures. This example show that when evolving a single strong selection pressure on the background of weak selection pressures, it only slows the evolution of that single strong selection pressure. Remove some of the weak selection pressures and that single strong selection pressure will evolve more quickly. Add a second strong selection pressure and you profoundly slow the evolution of both strong selection pressures.

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, let’s see you prove creationism mathematically impossible.

You haven't been able to back up your own arguments, which merely suggest evolution is improbable, never mind show evolution to be outright impossible. You clearly know nothing about probability theory.

But just to humor you, lets suppose you are right and that evolution is mathematically impossible. That means that either a) creationism is true or b) the molecules of our solar system just spontaneously assembled into the world as we know it.

We can calculate the probability of b). It is very low but still nonzero. Can you calculate the probability of a)? Let me know when you are finished.

Let’s see, I’ve used a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection, all which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Rocketdodger, give us an estimate of the number of atoms in the earth. Then compute the probability that you can pick randomly one particular atom. The probably that the theory of evolution is true is hundreds of orders of magnitude less than that.

Rocketdodger, you always humor me. You whine quite a bit but I overlook this. I’ve already proved your theory is mathematically impossible, it’s your turn to prove my theory impossible.

You have made one argument that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures.

We have made many such arguments, and none of them have been refuted in any way by you except by redefining selection pressure to be "relatively strong directional selection pressure that is one of the variables in a study I have cited."

You can make up a story that you have written a model which shows that you sort mutations to n+1 selection conditions more rapidly than to n selection conditions but “I also found a set of parameters that brought it down to be lower than for a singly applied pressure but I forgot what it was” doesn’t cut it.

This has been shown to be mathematically and empirically wrong.

By whom? Certainly not by you. Simply whining "no, thats not true" doesn't constitute a refutation, Kleinman.

Sure it does when you back it up with the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which shows the same thing. Now if you could post a real example where n+1 selection pressures sort mutations faster than n selection pressures then you would have a real counter argument, but of course, you don’t have any real examples of this.

It is nonsense to think that a sorting problem speeds up by adding more sorting conditions.

Really? Then surely you should be able to show Dr. Adequate and I why both of our algorithms are not sorting algorithms. Have you done this yet? No. Will you ever? I doubt it.

Adequate has posted a silly graph and the only parametric study you have presented is this one:

I also found a set of parameters that brought it down to be lower than for a singly applied pressure but I forgot what it was.

You are the mathematician who believes in a mathematically impossible belief system. Why would someone spend years studying mathematical logic then abandon it for the irrational and illogical? You are spending too much time in your space zeppelin.

Klein, I think something broke in your mind around post 6614. I'm with Adequate. Get help.

I think you have confused me with joobz. Joobz is the one who can’t brain. And I get lots of help from you evolutionists. Dr Schneider and Paul helped with their model of random point mutation and natural selection and then there is Delphi’s reference to Wikipedia fitness landscape and then there was kjkent1 pointing out the weights feature in ev and then there are the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection I have been posting. It wouldn’t surprise me that many of the authors would call themselves evolutionists. Of course once they realize what combination selection pressures do to the mutation and selection process they would understand that common descent is a mathematical impossibility. I appreciate all the help you evolutionists give in this discussion. All I have to do is point out the mathematical and empirical facts of life of how mutation and selection actually works from the mathematical and empirical data you evolutionists so kindly produce.

It is for that reason why I do not agree with Dr. Adequate. I don't think you are mentally deranged. I simply think you enjoy the attention.

So what if I enjoy the attention. What does that make you since you have posted three times as many as I have? You evolutionists have failed at accurately describing how mutation and selection works. Dr Schneider’s model shows how mutation and selection works and so do the hundreds of citations which I have posted. That is why I am getting attention. You crybabies whine and complain about it but the mathematical and empirical evidence is there which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. You can’t evolve the thousands of genes simultaneously necessary to transform reptiles into birds. You don’t have the selection pressures and you can’t transform all these genes simultaneously if you did. Common descent is a myth.

 

[Shalamar]

Please provide proof of Creationism.

 

[joobz]

So what if I enjoy the attention.

Nothing. I didn't say there was anything wrong with being an attention seeker.

What does that make you since you have posted three times as many as I have?

My interests in this forum extend beyond you.

You evolutionists have failed at accurately describing how mutation and selection works. Dr Schneider’s model shows how mutation and selection works and so do the hundreds of citations which I have posted. That is why I am getting attention. You crybabies whine and complain about it but the mathematical and empirical evidence is there which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. You can’t evolve the thousands of genes simultaneously necessary to transform reptiles into birds. You don’t have the selection pressures and you can’t transform all these genes simultaneously if you did. Common descent is a myth.

That's a lot of words used to evade my question. It would have been much simpler to say, "I have no justification for my assumptions."

 

[sol invictus]

I propose a bet

Ladies and Gentlemen: We interrupt our regularly schedule discussion for this important announcement. An evolutionator and his clones have time traveled from Skeptiwikiland to the here and now James Randi Educational Forum. It is their goal to evolutionate the annoying creationist. The evolutionator has accomplished this time travel by increasing the number of routes he can take, even though most of his routes lead to no where. He has accomplished this by increasing the speed of his space zeppelin to 40 furlongs per fortnight from its normal travel speed of 20 furlongs per fortnight. Not only has the evolutionator been able to increase his speed by increasing the number of routes, he has been reduce his fuel consumption by 1.3 gallons per furlong. Beware of the evolutionator! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, the funeral for the theory of evolution.

You really don't get it, do you?

Kleinman, will you actually put your money where your mouth is, or are you as much of a whining chicken**** as you sound? I'd like to make a bet with you, for real money. I'm tired of this BS nonsense you keep spouting.

Here are the rules: we have ten standard six-sided dice. On the first trial we roll all ten dice (that counts as one roll). Any die that comes up a 6 is removed and set aside and not rolled again, and then we roll the remaining dice (that counts as another roll). Again, any dice that read 6 are set aside with the others, and repeat until all the dice have come up 6 and been set aside. We keep track of how many rolls we had to make before all 10 dice read six. Let's call that number N₁₀.

Now we do the same thing with 20 dice. Again, we keep track of how many rolls it takes before all 20 read 6 and have been set aside. Let's call that N₂₀.

Now, I claim that the rate at which 6's come up will be faster for the case with 20 dice than for the case with 10. Specifically, I claim that 20/N₂₀>10/N₁₀. You have stated repeatedly that this is false. Therefore I propose we make this a bet.

You name the amount of money, up to $10,000 (if you want to bet more, I'm sure others will happily join). You and I perform this experiment, in the presence of observers. To avoid problems with statistical fluctuations one way or the other we can perform the experiment as many times as you like, and make the bet contingent on the average rates. Or we can do it only once - I'll take that risk. Or we can increase the number of dice, and compare the 100/N₁₀₀ to 10/N₁₀.

Do you accept?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP, KLEINMAN.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What does that make you since you have posted three times as many as I have?

My interests in this forum extend beyond you.

Just because you have an interest in mutation and selection doesn’t mean you have any understanding of the process. You have admitted that.

If there was a "sticky" thread on drug delivery, biomaterials or polymer chemistry, I'd be there instantly. But evolution isn't my field.

I wonder how much you really understand about biomaterials when you post this kind of speculation.

Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.

And then I wonder how much understanding of PDEs you have when you state that you can find irregularities in my PhD thesis yet won’t take me up on the $10,000 wager that you can’t find any mathematical or empirical irregularities. Let’s see where your interests take you.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We interrupt our regularly schedule discussion for this important announcement. An evolutionator and his clones have time traveled from Skeptiwikiland to the here and now James Randi Educational Forum. It is their goal to evolutionate the annoying creationist. The evolutionator has accomplished this time travel by increasing the number of routes he can take, even though most of his routes lead to no where. He has accomplished this by increasing the speed of his space zeppelin to 40 furlongs per fortnight from its normal travel speed of 20 furlongs per fortnight. Not only has the evolutionator been able to increase his speed by increasing the number of routes, he has been reduce his fuel consumption by 1.3 gallons per furlong. Beware of the evolutionator! Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, the funeral for the theory of evolution.

You really don't get it, do you?

Sure I do, you evolutionists have no idea how mutation and selection actually works. This is why you can’t find a single citation which show that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures. Now I see you want to do a little wagering.

Here are the rules: we have ten standard six-sided dice. On the first trial we roll all ten dice (that counts as one roll). Any die that comes up a 6 is removed and set aside and not rolled again, and then we roll the remaining dice (that counts as another roll). Again, any dice that read 6 are set aside with the others, and repeat until all the dice have come up 6 and been set aside. We keep track of how many rolls we had to make before all 10 dice read six. Let's call that number N10.

Don’t be silly sol. If you want to make a wager, let’s see you prove the theory of evolution is mathematically possible using probability theory. Lot’s of people have tried it. Let’s see if you can do it. Now that we know how mutation and selection actually works, probability theory alone is useless. Why don’t you tell us what the selection pressure was that evolved the first gene de novo? Or tell us what the selection pressure would be that would evolve any gene de novo. Tell us what the probability is for a 500 base gene to form by random additions of bases? There is where the wager is sol.

 

[joobz]

Just because you have an interest in mutation and selection doesn’t mean you have any understanding of the process. You have admitted that.

I wonder how much you really understand about biomaterials when you post this kind of speculation.

trying to change the subject again? Remember the question is can you justify ANY of your assumptions that make your theory plausible. I state again, the reason you avoid this is becuase you know better and that you understand what I ask kills your entire argument.

And then I wonder how much understanding of PDEs you have when you state that you can find irregularities in my PhD thesis yet won’t take me up on the $10,000 wager that you can’t find any mathematical or empirical irregularities. Let’s see where your interests take you.

Why do you make me repeat the embarrassing facts of your PhD? You had only two publications. Each with a different advisor and both were barely cited. This is the irregularity to which I spoke of. Everyone knows this is what I was refering to. Everyone here is capable of reading and understanding this point.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is where you have gotten it confused rocketwhomisses the target. The correct mathematics for this example is:
--bacteria in human body --> population under n selective pressures --> no evolution of penicillin resistance.
--bacteria in the same body after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1 selective pressures --> rapid evolution of penicllin resistance
-bacteria in vitro after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1-m selective pressures --> more rapid evolution of penicllin resistance than with n+1 selection pressures.

So adding selection pressures can both increase the rate of evolution or decrease the rate of evolution, depending on what those pressures are and how strong their relative magnitude is. Congratulations on disproving your own theory, you genius, and finally realizing what we have been trying to tell you.

Let’s see, I’ve used a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection, all which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.

I am no longer going to argue with you about your interpretation of these studies because you are incapable of discussing them intelligently. I am only going to argue with you about simple mathematics that can be demonstrated beyond a doubt. To that end, I am still waiting for you to show me why the algorithm I use in my simulation is not a sorting algorithm.

Rocketdodger, give us an estimate of the number of atoms in the earth. Then compute the probability that you can pick randomly one particular atom. The probably that the theory of evolution is true is hundreds of orders of magnitude less than that.

Fine. Lets say, to make sure we err conservatively, that this probability is 1.0 x 10^-999999999. Now tell me what the probability of creationism being true is.

Rocketdodger, you always humor me. You whine quite a bit but I overlook this. I’ve already proved your theory is mathematically impossible, it’s your turn to prove my theory impossible.

When did you prove my theory impossible? Did you refute any of my code, or even the general algorithm I used? The only thing you have said regarding my simulation, in fact, is that you agree it uses a true sorting algorithm. So if anything you proved your own theory wrong, you genius.

You can make up a story that you have written a model which shows that you sort mutations to n+1 selection conditions more rapidly than to n selection conditions but “I also found a set of parameters that brought it down to be lower than for a singly applied pressure but I forgot what it was” doesn’t cut it.

You sad, pathetic, little liar. You know full well I have provided much more information than that -- look at post #6401.

But of course you know that, and you also know that my algorithm (and Dr. Adequates) shows your claim about sorting algorithms to be simply wrong. So instead of trying to find errors in our methods, which you know is futile, you try to smokescreen everyone away from the issue at hand. If this is an incorrect assessment of your tactics, prove me wrong. Show me why my algorithm is wrong and your claim is correct..

Sure it does when you back it up with the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which shows the same thing. Now if you could post a real example where n+1 selection pressures sort mutations faster than n selection pressures then you would have a real counter argument, but of course, you don’t have any real examples of this.

Except for all of the studies you cite, which are predicated on the fact that organisms develop rapid resistance to human methods of eradicating them once those methods are introduced.

Adequate has posted a silly graph and the only parametric study you have presented is this one:

Who do you think you are foolling, you pathetic liar? I addressed this claim of yours regarding my parametric studies in post #6516 and post #6568. Don't you realize that lying about a person's prior posts doesn't work when the posts are in full view for everyone to see?

 

[kjkent1]

Kjkent1, Paul and Dr Schneider’s confusing terminology of calling a zero mistake condition for a given set of selection conditions a “perfect creature” has also confused you. Ev is simply a sorting algorithm. It is designed with three sorting conditions. It is these three combined sorting conditions that slow down the convergence of ev. Setting two of the three sorting conditions to zero demonstrates this fact nicely.

Sure it's a sorting algorithm. But, when there is a condition set to zero, it sorts incorrectly.

It would be no different than if you had a program that sorted a random deck of cards back to its original order, and one of the sorting options was to disable the ability to distinguish suits. The program would still sort, but the suits would be incorrectly sorted, except by random accident.

You have it wrong, and you have had it wrong for 100s of pages in this thread. Being unwilling to admit error and learn from it is a huge defect for a scientist. But, you're wrong anyway, and everyone can see that you're not wearing any clothes.

 

[rocketdodger]

I wonder how much you really understand about biomaterials when you post this kind of speculation

Obviously more than you, Kleinman. It is not just speculation, it is fact. If your credentials weren't false, you would have taken organic chemistry in college, and would know this.

In chemistry, any reaction that can happen does happen, and the results are governed by the rules of chemical equilibrium and reaction kinetics. Don't you remember all of this Kleinman? Don't you remember how thermodynamically unfavorable reactions can be driven by applying Le Chatelier's principle and removing the products (such as through PRECIPITATION like joobz mentioned)? Don't you remember how chemical synthesis usually involves many such sub-reactions before the final product is reached?


Of course you don't remember, because you are a fraud and never learned it to begin with.

 

[sol invictus]

This is why you can’t find a single citation which show that n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures.

Then let's bet on it.

Put your money where your mouth is or shut it and stop lying, Kleinman. Or are you a hypocrite?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Before I looked at Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s model, I didn’t understand how mutation and selection worked.

(snip)

I have always been skeptical of the interpretation of the evidence presented by evolutionists but this is the first time I have done my own analysis of the evidence and it shows that evolutionists have the concept of mutation and selection backwards.

Precisely why were you skeptical of the interpretation of the evidence presented by evolutionarians before you looked at Dr. Schneider's and Paul's model?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

And then I wonder how much understanding of PDEs you have when you state that you can find irregularities in my PhD thesis yet won’t take me up on the $10,000 wager that you can’t find any mathematical or empirical irregularities. Let’s see where your interests take you.

Why do you make me repeat the embarrassing facts of your PhD? You had only two publications. Each with a different advisor and both were barely cited. This is the irregularity to which I spoke of. Everyone knows this is what I was refering to. Everyone here is capable of reading and understanding this point.

You are as poor at doing your literature searches as you are in the mathematics of mutation and selection. You don’t know who my thesis advisor was and who wasn’t. You are simply a big mouth coward; everyone here is capable of reading and understanding this point.

This is where you have gotten it confused rocketwhomisses the target. The correct mathematics for this example is:

--bacteria in human body --> population under n selective pressures --> no evolution of penicillin resistance.
--bacteria in the same body after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1 selective pressures --> rapid evolution of penicllin resistance
-bacteria in vitro after penicillin is taken --> population under n+1-m selective pressures --> more rapid evolution of penicllin resistance than with n+1 selection pressures.

So adding selection pressures can both increase the rate of evolution or decrease the rate of evolution, depending on what those pressures are and how strong their relative magnitude is. Congratulations on disproving your own theory, you genius, and finally realizing what we have been trying to tell you.

Wrong rocketdodger, adding selection pressures slows down the mutation and selection process, removing selection pressures speed up the mutation and selection process. Each additional selection pressure you add on to a population increases the difficulty of the population to sort beneficial and detrimental mutations. Sorting beneficial and detrimental mutations on a population with n weak selection pressures and a single strong selection pressure give a slower evolutionary process than the same population if subjected to n-m weak selection pressures and the same single strong selection pressure. The weak selection pressures serves to slow the evolution of the strong selection pressure.

Let’s see, I’ve used a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection, all which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.

I am no longer going to argue with you about your interpretation of these studies because you are incapable of discussing them intelligently. I am only going to argue with you about simple mathematics that can be demonstrated beyond a doubt. To that end, I am still waiting for you to show me why the algorithm I use in my simulation is not a sorting algorithm.

How could you argue about the results from ev. You don’t understand the model and you’ve never run a case. With respects to your model, you have yet to post a systematic study of your model. There is nothing to argue about your model.

Rocketdodger, give us an estimate of the number of atoms in the earth. Then compute the probability that you can pick randomly one particular atom. The probably that the theory of evolution is true is hundreds of orders of magnitude less than that.

Fine. Lets say, to make sure we err conservatively, that this probability is 1.0 x 10^-999999999. Now tell me what the probability of creationism being true is.

Since there are only two possibilities how we got here, either abiogenesis and evolution or we were created, the probability that we were created is:
1 – (1.0 x 10^-999999999) ≈ 1

Rocketdodger, you always humor me. You whine quite a bit but I overlook this. I’ve already proved your theory is mathematically impossible, it’s your turn to prove my theory impossible.

When did you prove my theory impossible? Did you refute any of my code, or even the general algorithm I used? The only thing you have said regarding my simulation, in fact, is that you agree it uses a true sorting algorithm. So if anything you proved your own theory wrong, you genius.

I proved your theory wrong when I showed you how mutation and selection actually works, both mathematically with Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection and empirically with the hundred of real examples of mutation and selection which I have cited. I then used your own estimate of the probability that the theory of evolution is true to show you that the probability that we were created is ≈ 1. How many different ways do I have to show you that we were created? You just won’t accept the mathematical and empirical facts. That’s why you can’t find a single real example of n+1 selection pressures evolving more rapidly than n selection pressures. It just doesn’t happen.

 

[joobz]

You are as poor at doing your literature searches as you are in the mathematics of mutation and selection. You don’t know who my thesis advisor was and who wasn’t. You are simply a big mouth coward; everyone here is capable of reading and understanding this point.

You have 2 publications listed on web of science, which typically ignores conference proceedings/abstracts. Why do you get so angry with me, when it was you who raised this issue in the first place. If you are embarrassed by your track record, why do you mention it?

You would save yourself much frustration and humiliation if you simply stuck to the topic at hand. I've asked 3 times now, what are your justifications for your model assumption?

You have never answered this question. Indeed, you failed to answer any question that clearly demonstrates your poorly conceived theory for what it is.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That’s a fitting “backstory” for the theory of evolution since ev converges to a local optimum, it just doesn’t happen to be a “perfect creature” local optimum for longer genomes.

It's not simply "longer genomes," now is it? We can run one experiment with a longish genome that converges (Rcapacity >= Rfrequency), and another with the same length genome that does not (Rcapacity < Rfrequency). Therefore, obviously, there is another factor at work.

~~ Paul