Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Yes, Klein. Destroying a life tends to prevent it from passing on its genes.

That’s how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. Perhaps you could tell us about selection pressures that don’t work this way?

 

[joobz]

You evolutionists love to make the irrational and illogical extrapolation of these simple sorting problems to the massive and complex sorting required to transform reptiles into birds. Not only are the sorting conditions for these massive and complex transformation non-existent, even if they did exist, you do not have enough generations to accomplish such massive transformations. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works for tiny numbers of selection conditions targeted to small portion of the genome. That’s what your simulations above are describing

Didn’t you know that Dr Schneider has challenged creationists to debate the validity of ev?
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/williams/

and

Dr Schneider, I have taken up the gauntlet and have shown that your computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I will now show you where your error in understanding the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs. This error is demonstrated on your following page.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html

So far so good Dr Schneider.

I added the highlighting. Here is where you go wrong Dr Schneider. The amplification which you talk about only occurs when you have single selection conditions targeting a small area of the genome. When you have multiple selection conditions, this amplification effect is defeated. This is demonstrated by your own ev simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. Ev does not demonstrate that the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Dr Schneider, you have erred in your interpretation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. Your failure to correct this error is contributing to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. This includes people suffering from cancer, a disease which the governmental organization you work for, The National Cancer Institute is dedicated to find cures. You are using tax payer dollars to improperly teach how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. You are working against the cure for cancer by your erroneous teaching and interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Kjkent1, haven’t you noticed that Dr Schneider has stopped discussing his model publicly, something which he had done previously for years. I don’t discredit Dr Schneider's computer simulation, I agree with his mathematics. However, I discredit his illogical interpretation of a single case from his model. Dr Schneider has two options, he can publicly admit what his mathematical model shows or he can remain silent. He has chosen the latter option despite the fact that he has publicly challenged creationists to debate his model.

This should make sense to you since the mathematical and empirical data show exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

I’m not sure what you mean by “diverging but similar species”. What selection does is reduce variation. Selection pressures eliminate pheno-deviants which do not have the properties to survive. Only in environments with reduced selection pressures can you get increasing diversity in the population.

I have never said that evolution does not occur. What I have said is the ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible and the empirical evidence substantiates this mathematical finding. The concept of common descent is mathematically and empirically impossible. Common descent is the core belief of the theory of evolution and this belief is mathematically and empirically wrong, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply can not do what evolutionists allege. In fact evolutionist teaching of this belief interferes with understanding of how this process actually works..

It is obvious that you are still confused as to what your theory means.. As you so clearly have shown, when you have these multiple strong constant pressures, the rate of evolutionary emergence of adaption is greatly reduced. The moment you have variable pressures, the rate of emergence accelerates tremendously. This has been shown in the countless examples which you have presented. I thank you for all that information.

Now weather is merely one example of the variable environment that is nature. I see no reason to present the countless other examples of natural variation.

Your only hope to wish evolution away is to prove weather doesn't exist. Why do you start working on that math?


So Kleinman, Please tell us, Is weather real?

 

[rocketdodger]

I like to post the rigorous proofs of these evolutionist mythematicians. Here is rocketdodger’s rigourous proof.

See, this is the typical Kleinman lies and misinformation that I am talking about.

Every single time I bring up the program I wrote, Kleinman repeats ONLY this quote, which I made immediately after I wrote the first iteration of the simulation (which is an obsolete iteration anyway, begging the question as to why Kleinman thinks that quote is applicable at all):

I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was

What Kleinman does NOT quote is all the other statements I have made regarding my simulation, which include not only parameters used in a "parametric" study but also arguments showing why every concern Kleinman had with the simulation code was a non-issue. Among others, see:

The pressures are completely random, and each of them targets a single mutation. You can even

...snip...

Needless to say, even less than 200% is not "profoundly" slowed, and is certainly not what you describe here...

OK I updated my simulation program and made it more realistic and quite a bit faster. The source code is at www.jedi-arts.com/code/jev.cpp

...snip...

There is nothing else to say now. I did all the work of showing you, very clearly, that sorting/optimization problems are NOT always confounded by multiple sorting conditions. Particularly, when sorting happens in parallel, as it does in mutation and selection.

...snip...

Here it is, in short:

...snip...

They are randomly generated at initialization

...snip...

No Kleinman, I already did a parametric study of my program, which you would know if you read my earlier posts in full.

...snip...

I improved my program and now it generates results on par with what Dr. Adequate got.

...snip...

Merely a casual perusal of this thread should show any outside parties that Kleinman, regardless of the validity of his theory, is a lying, misinforming, childish scumbag. One simply can't accept anything he states without checking the sources due to his habitual lying and misquoting -- a very pathetic state of affairs to be in for someone desperately trying to get a message to people, as he seems to be.

 

[Shalamar]

Hmm.. I wonder what klienman says about all the other aspects of Evolutionary Theory, since he has no math (That he says he has).

If he really had the proof, as he claims, He would be able to submit his body of work, with all the evidence, and math to a respected peer reviewed journal. Alas, peer reviewed journals don't accept lies, misinformation, and outright attacks on people who poke holes in his hypothesis (Lets not call his errors a theory).

I now predict he will call us names, make personal attacks, and then spread more lies about how he has mathematical proof, without actually giving out any of his math.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I like to post the rigorous proofs of these evolutionist mythematicians. Here is rocketdodger’s rigourous proof.

See, this is the typical Kleinman lies and misinformation that I am talking about.

Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory.

Hmm.. I wonder what klienman says about all the other aspects of Evolutionary Theory, since he has no math (That he says he has).

Shalamar, I don’t have to say anything else about the irrational and illogical aspects of Evolutionary Theory since mutation and selection is the core principle of the theory and it doesn’t work in the way evolutionists allege.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory.SIZE]

First, the fact that you are a lying scumbag has nothing to do with our data -- it has only to do with the recurrent misrepresenting and misquoting done by you.

Second, we have never claimed the above -- yet another misrepresentational lie put forth by you in order to fool people. We claimed only that in our programs, the average rate of sorting[/i] increases as the number of sorting conditions increases. Your inability to understand even your own previous arguments illustrates just how utterly incompetent you are.

It is quite simple, Kleinman. You made the claim that all sorting/optimization problems are confounded by additional sorting/optimization problems. This claim is simply wrong -- we have produced two counterexamples, the source code of which are freely available to anyone who wishes to look, that clearly illustrates the fact that there are sorting/optimization problems that are not confounded by additional conditions.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Well then why don’t you post your data that shows that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the sorting of mutation proceeds. Then I’ll again post the data from Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that your model is wrong and irrational. And I’ll continue to post hundreds of more real examples of mutation and selection which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s model shows. Only an evolutionist would think that the more complex the sorting conditions become the faster the sorting process works. But that is fitting for those who believe in this irrational and illogical theory.

It is quite simple, Kleinman. You made the claim that all sorting/optimization problems are confounded by additional sorting/optimization problems. This claim is simply wrong -- we have produced two counterexamples, the source code of which are freely available to anyone who wishes to look, that clearly illustrates the fact that there are sorting/optimization problems that are not confounded by additional conditions.

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting. While you are demonstrating your incompetence in mathematical sorting problems, I’ll continue to post real empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works; it is not the way you mathematically incompetent evolutionists allege.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf

All the new approaches to cancer therapy are linked by the scientific finding that cancer is a disease resulting from the accumulation of genetic modifications within a cell. In delineating these new therapeutic strategies, the basic premise is to determine as many properties of cancer cells as possible and outline an effective biomedical action against them. It is very difficult to distinguish consistently between the different therapeutic approaches because they do not appear as clear cut methods, but rather as basic strategies or concepts that often follow the same paths and use the same tools. Almost all approaches focus on several different targets in the patient's body. Altering cancer cells (inside or outside the body, connected with delivery via gene therapy) and/or cancer-specific targets in combination with the activation or support of the patient's own immune system seems to yield a promising treatment. Nevertheless, it is still not fully understood which components of the immune system are best addressed by vaccine or antibody approaches.

Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.

Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

 

[Belz...]

Back to stupid insults, LIEman ?

 

[joobz]

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting. While you are demonstrating your incompetence in mathematical sorting problems, I’ll continue to post real empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works; it is not the way you mathematically incompetent evolutionists allege.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa178_en.pdf

Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

Thank you for that article. It further supports the point that resistence emergence is suppressed only when the multiple selection pressures are constant and strong.

Thus it is becoming evident that immunotherapy is potentially synergistic with other cancer
treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This potential for synergy
should allow cancer vaccines to become part of the standard treatment regimen for many
common tumours within the near future (Svane/Straten, expert opinion).​

You know why vaccines are so good in this regard? Yes, you are right, because they stimulate the immunosystem to generate a constant selection pressure. Unlike oral meds, which can be irregular due to patient compliance.

Now, if only we had proof that nature was a variable environment?​

 

[rocketdodger]

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.

I can't post that data, because no such data exists. I guess its a good thing, then, that this is not our claim, you scumbag liar, and that is why you can't quote us as saying so.

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting. Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you conveniently ignore any posts showing you to be wrong.

In fact, you replied to a post containing data with a request for the very data the post contained, you stupid illiterate fool:

What Kleinman does NOT quote is all the other statements I have made regarding my simulation, which include not only parameters used in a "parametric" study but also arguments showing why every concern Kleinman had with the simulation code was a non-issue. Among others, see:

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.

Hey rocket that fizzles, you better notify the European Parliament that their study is all wrong. Go tell them that the more genes you target, the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds.

Why should I tell them that, when I don't believe it myself? Yet another lie.

Are all graduates of the University of Arizona as incompetent in mathematics as you are?

You keep asserting that Adequate and I are incompetent in mathematics, yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up such a claim. Are you ready to show why our programs are incorrect in some way, Kleinman? Are you ready to show why any of our other arguments are incorrect? Are you ready to provide any of your own arguments?

 

[Shalamar]

Back to stupid insults, LIEman ?

Wow! My predician came true! Maybe I should get the Million from the jref challenge!

However, since Klienman STILL has NO math to show us, he continues to lie that he has mathematical proof against evolution, even as he continues to show more and more evidence in favour of the mutation and selection pressures.

Keep up the good work. Your understanding may be backward, and flawed Mr. Klienman, but your continued evidence for evolution is pretty good.

 

[kjkent1]

Dr Lambowitz forgot more than one critical step. For example how do you form ribose nonenzymatically in the primordial soup? And even if you could form ribose non-enzymatically, how do you form RNA bases in the primordial soup when ribose is an unstable molecule which quickly breaks down. It is these types of gross speculations which form the basis of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. I wonder if Dr Lambowitz understands the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? I doubt it.

Now kjkent1, you’ve claimed that there all kinds of “evolutionary opportunities” in the natural world. Tell us what the selection pressure is that formed this fungal protein discussed in your citation. I’ll help you with your explanation, it was a mushroom cloudy day that evolved this fungal protein, that is how the Wookie Weatherman explains evolution.

Stupid request. No one can identify the specific selective pressures which were in play at the moment of some past evolutionary event, anymore than they could identify in advance which cloud will be the next to produce rain in a storm.

Evolutionary change starts with a random mutation, which is inherently unpredictable, regardless of any selective pressure. Selection merely retains mutations that produce a benefit or are neutral. So, what you demand is impossible by any reasonable standard, because the first half of the evolutionary process is a crapshoot.

I know that as a mechanical engineer, the notion of unpredictability is anathema. But, Bohr and Einstein already had this debate 90 years ago, and Einstein lost.

So, it's time you get over this defeat for determinism, because stocastics is reality in this universe, whether you like it or not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now, if only we had proof that nature was a variable environment?

Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.

I can't post that data, because no such data exists.

Of course you can’t rocket with failure of ignition. You forgot what the parameters for your model are.

I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was

Your incompetence in the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is hilarious.

Dr Lambowitz forgot more than one critical step. For example how do you form ribose nonenzymatically in the primordial soup? And even if you could form ribose non-enzymatically, how do you form RNA bases in the primordial soup when ribose is an unstable molecule which quickly breaks down. It is these types of gross speculations which form the basis of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. I wonder if Dr Lambowitz understands the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process? I doubt it.

Now kjkent1, you’ve claimed that there all kinds of “evolutionary opportunities” in the natural world. Tell us what the selection pressure is that formed this fungal protein discussed in your citation. I’ll help you with your explanation, it was a mushroom cloudy day that evolved this fungal protein, that is how the Wookie Weatherman explains evolution.

Stupid request. No one can identify the specific selective pressures which were in play at the moment of some past evolutionary event, anymore than they could identify in advance which cloud will be the next to produce rain in a storm.

Ah yes, evolutionist ignorance, the ultimate proof that the theory of evolution is true.

Evolutionary change starts with a random mutation, which is inherently unpredictable, regardless of any selective pressure. Selection merely retains mutations that produce a benefit or are neutral. So, what you demand is impossible by any reasonable standard, because the first half of the evolutionary process is a crapshoot.

Come on now kjkent1, you evolutionists are good story tellers, make up something. You evolutionists will believe it. And by the way, the entire evolutionary process does not even qualify as a crapshoot, the entire story is mathematically impossible.

I know that as a mechanical engineer, the notion of unpredictability is anathema. But, Bohr and Einstein already had this debate 90 years ago, and Einstein lost.

I have no problem with Dr Schneider using a random number generator in his model. It does a good simulation of what happens in reality.

So, it's time you get over this defeat for determinism, because stocastics is reality in this universe, whether you like it or not.

Dr Schneider did a good job modeling the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process and it shows why the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization stochastic process is mathematically impossible. Sorting by multiple selection conditions stochastically is profoundly slow. This is why combination therapy for treating diseases subject to this type of mechanism is far more effective than monotherapy. Here’s another citation which discusses how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A535592

Combination therapy. Another method that has already been successfully employed - although again, bacteria have found ways around it. There are a class of molecules known that prevent the action of ß-lactamase enzymes. If such a drug (clavulanic acid is a well known example of this type of drug - a ß-lactamase inhibitor) is used in combination with a penicillin then the ß-lactamase inhibitor stops the ß-lactamase enzyme from destroying the penicillin which can then get on with its job of killing the bacterium freely. Unfortunately, some bacteria can simply pump out clavulanic acid and this means that the penicillin may be destroyed. Other combination therapies may also be of use however.

Let some antibiotics lie 'fallow'. It has been observed that when the selective pressure to become drug resistant is removed, some bacteria will lose the DNA that leads to drug resistance. In other words they return to a more native state. It has therefore been proposed that it might be possible to use a rotating regime of antibiotics. Some antibiotics will be used for a period of time whilst others are not used at all. Hopefully, the bacteria would become resistant to those in use but would lose their resistance to those not in use. One could then switch the therapy and the situation would reverse, the bacteria would gain resistance to the new drug but would lose it to the old one. The cycle could then start again. This is analogous to the old three-field system in farming.

The second method discussed in this citation is demonstrated by Dr Schneider’s computer model when selection is turned off.

This is another example for which ev demonstrates properly how mutation and selection works but what happens mathematically when selection is turn off.

You evolutionists should really study Dr Schneider’s computer simulation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You will learn how mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

 

[joobz]

Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.

there you go again. That's why you don't understand evolution. You think wookies are real. Perhaps you'd like to present evidence for a wookie while you are trying to prove that weather doesn't exist.

 

[rocketdodger]

I would like to take a minute and illustrate what a lying scumbag Kleinman really is and the level of rhetorical slime in which he wallows.

Consider the following dialogue:

So post the data rocket that fizzles. Show us how more complex sorting conditions lead to faster sorting.

I can't post that data, because no such data exists. I guess its a good thing, then, that this is not our claim, you scumbag liar, and that is why you can't quote us as saying so.

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting.

I can't post that data, because no such data exists.

Of course you can’t rocket with failure of ignition. You forgot what the parameters for your model are.

Is anyone else disgusted by how low Kleinman will go in order to avoid looking like a fool? Seriously, most of us would never act like this.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Of course there is a variable environment, that’s how Wookies evolved.

there you go again. That's why you don't understand evolution. You think wookies are real. Perhaps you'd like to present evidence for a wookie while you are trying to prove that weather doesn't exist.

So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve? I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these selection conditions to occur.

 

[kleinman]

On the other hand, we have posted plenty of data showing that in many sorting algorithms increasing the number of conditions increases the average rate of sorting.

 

[Nogbad]

 

[Shalamar]

Yup. Mr. Kleinman, without any math, or proof to back his claim.

He's also no scientist. A scientist wouldn't attempt to tear apart a theory like this. What DOES happen, is that a scientist will provide an algternate view, or theory that would be more likely than the current established one.

Failing that, he would post what is incorrect about the current theory, what needs to be done to fix it.

However, I do suggest we not insult the poor guy, as he has no idea what he's talking about. He can't see past his established conclusion to the point that he IGNORES all other evidence. He's been shown where he's wrong, and he just ignores it since it is outside of his established beliefs.

Now, He will claim the same about us. In answer to that, I say 'Really? Show us this math'. As I have asked for multiple multiple times. One can NOT prove something mathematically without the actual math.

 

[joobz]

So now you are trying to claim that a wookie couldn’t evolve even if you had the right weather conditions? Didn’t you know that if you had the correct weather conditions, anything could evolve? I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these selection conditions to occur.

Is your god a wookie? Is that why you think that's evolutions goal?
Does he make you say stupid things in some sort of worship?