Annoying creationists

[Nogbad]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.

This is called having your cake and eating it. Dr Kleinman has a number of beliefs and tablets of stone, one of which is his sorting and strong combination pressures mantra (possibly his favourite) What this actually means in the real world is anyones guess as every other comment is vague evasive and backed up by nothing other than a model the author of which believes supports basic evolutionary principles.

So what do we have? 191 pages of tripe seems to be the reasonable summation (with some funny bits) although I daresay we will raise an eyebrow of interest if Dr Kleinman is called to give evidence at the next Dover School Board case (if there is one)

 

[Shalamar]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.

He now has claimed that evolutionists caused the Flu Pandemic in the early part of the 20th century, as well as the Sars outbreak. Mainly by refusing to admit their 'flaws' in the ToE, and thus causing all those people to die.

I guess he thinks we have a cure for the Flu, and Sars, and everything else, but the evil evolutionists are hiding it.

I vote that the thread be moved to conspiracy theories.

 

[rocketdodger]

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process.

I would say strong destructive pressures, because he hasn't shown us any data regarding combinations of pressures that don't act to kill off a population.

He claims all pressures are destructive, which is curious, since in his treasured ev population size is held constant. How he can simultaneously cling to an idea and yet base his theory on a program that violates it is beyond my understanding.

 

[Nogbad]

He now has claimed that evolutionists caused the Flu Pandemic in the early part of the 20th century, as well as the Sars outbreak. Mainly by refusing to admit their 'flaws' in the ToE, and thus causing all those people to die.

I guess he thinks we have a cure for the Flu, and Sars, and everything else, but the evil evolutionists are hiding it.

I vote that the thread be moved to conspiracy theories.

I must have missed that but given the daft nature of such claims is it not conceivable that he is merely trolling - quite successfully too given the length of the thread - and is no more a Creationist than any of the rest of us. (seems that way to me). That said, there has been some quite entertaining parts to this discussion.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

kleinman, you seem to be ignoring this citation:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...tract/88511241

Please explain how the HBV manages to avoid the multiple selection pressures by way of a "novel frame shift." This should be quite impossible, if your theory is correct, because, under multiple selection pressures were frame shifts to occur, they might accelerate evolution in a manner not modeled by "ev."

Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.

I often use Biblical methods for treating my patients. One of the most often used Biblical techniques I use is based on Exodus 34:1-2. I never use ridiculous evolutionist ideas in my medical practice.

Another blantant dodge. The passage has no bearing on the subject. You don't want an intellectual or scientific conversation, do you? We are really interested to know if you have enough faith in your creation-based theories to put them into practice. If you don't, it suggests you have no confidence in your own theories. If you do, then you should be proud to tell us what you've achieved. If you've used creation-based theories in your practice and refuse to report them, we'd really like to know why.

That’s no dodge, I often tell people to take two tablets and call me in the morning. That comes straight out of the Bible.

Sure we can have intellectual and scientific conversation. For example, you started a new thread the other day “Human DNA is >50% Virus DNA?!”, where your source is the New York Times and now claim that human DNA is made up of >50% viral DNA. Now, why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?

No, Kleinman. You tell me to look here, there, everywhere but where I can find an answer. You make strawman attacks on weathermen, math, wookies, but you NEVER give a straight answer. When I came here, I gave you the benefit of a doubt. I'm starting to think I was wrong for doing so. Stop being facecious, drop the arrogance long enough to type a post up with an actual ANSWER. If my example isn't evolution, by definition, then what is it? And where is your math that "proves" evolution isn't possible?

Mister Earl, it’s the same mathematics as your “biological simulation program” that you discussed earlier.

I've got a biological simulation program running at home. It started out with a two-dimentional stick and evolved it, through mutation and selection, into giant stick pyramids. I skewed the fitness requirement to give higher values for organism height. After I would up with those simulated organisms, I changed the fitness requirements towards mobility and lifespan. I gave them the ability to consume each other, and to generate slightly mutated offspring if a specific organism had eaten enough competitors. It'll be an interesting result when I get home, I fully expect to see fully ambulatory, cannibalistic, digital Ents. Anyway, I am familiar with the parameters set, I've tinkered with these programs myself, but not in any professional capacity. Call it a passing interest.

These sorting algorithms only work quickly with trivially simple sorting conditions. Mutation and selection is simply a sorting/optimization process. You need several features for evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process to work. Some of these features are, a population which does not reproduce perfectly, selection conditions which sort which reproductions are beneficial and which are detrimental, a trajectory on the fitness landscape which would allow evolution to a new local optimum and sufficient number of generations for the population to adapt to these selection conditions.

There are several deficiencies in the theory of evolution. The first is there are no selection conditions which would accomplish the massive transformations required such as metamorphosing reptiles into birds. The second is that mutation and selection can only quickly evolve single selection conditions which target single genes. The third is there are no trajectories on the fitness landscape that could accomplish these types of transformations. As soon as you subject a population to selection conditions that target more than a single gene, the ability of the population to sort for beneficial and detrimental mutations is markedly confounded. This is why combination therapy works on every population that has the capability of evolving by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Mutation and selection only works for a very narrow range of situations. Once you have more than a single sorting condition the sorting process is profoundly slowed unless the population is driven to extinction. All sorting problems are slowed when you impose more complex sorting conditions. This is what the mathematics of ev shows, this is what the real, measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection show. You may be able to evolve “digital Ents” with your trivial sorting conditions in your computer simulation, however you can not evolve real Ants with the selection conditions and time available in reality. It is mathematically and empirically impossible. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply does not work that way.

As far as I can see Dr Kleinman notes that strong combination pressures halt the mutation process. He then bemoans evil evolutionists not employing strong combination measures to prevent illness and the death of millions because if the intervention isn't strong enough agents like HIV mutate like buggery.

Weak selection pressures are profoundly slow at transforming populations. In addition all selection pressures interfere with each other when a population tries to traverse the fitness landscape. Weak selection pressures interfere with the evolution of strong selection pressures and slow the evolutionary process as well.

There was sufficient understanding 50 years ago that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. It took 5 years of monotherapy for evolutionists to relearn this lesson on HIV. The price for this ignorant evolutionist interpretation of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process was the introduction of huge number of resistant viruses in the HIV gene pool. We also have MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea… You evolutionists have done a completely incompetent job in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

This is called having your cake and eating it. Dr Kleinman has a number of beliefs and tablets of stone, one of which is his sorting and strong combination pressures mantra (possibly his favourite) What this actually means in the real world is anyones guess as every other comment is vague evasive and backed up by nothing other than a model the author of which believes supports basic evolutionary principles.

Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolution is a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.

So what do we have? 191 pages of tripe seems to be the reasonable summation (with some funny bits) although I daresay we will raise an eyebrow of interest if Dr Kleinman is called to give evidence at the next Dover School Board case (if there is one)

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades. The complete incompetence that evolutionists have demonstrated in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has left us with multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds… Mutation and selection simply does not work the way you evolutionists allege. Your irrational and illogical interpretation of this phenomenon has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That is the contribution evolutionists have made to science.

Yet again, I have to remind you of the civility rule. If you cannot be civil, you will be suspended or banned from this forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Nogbad]

]Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolution is a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.

Well I am a historian by academic training and accountant by profession and I don't think I have ever described myself as a working evolutionist. It is not an article of faith for me and I really couldn't care that much one way or another. As I said some time ago, ToE seems like a good working principle to hang what we know on but if something better comes along I'll listen - I have no emotional or professional vested interest in ToE. However, I have seen nothing here agin it that makes even the slightest bit of sense. If you have something then you are singularly failing in communicating it. To say "I am brilliant you are all simply too stupid to see it" is not a desperately convincing argument.

Personally, I think you are just having a laugh

 

[joobz]

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades.

Thank god we did. Otherwise we'd be at a loss to explain MRSAs.

 

[Shalamar]

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades. The complete incompetence that evolutionists have demonstrated in elucidating how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has left us with multi-drug resistant microbes, multi-pesticide resistant insects, multi-herbicide resistant weeds… Mutation and selection simply does not work the way you evolutionists allege. Your irrational and illogical interpretation of this phenomenon has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. That is the contribution evolutionists have made to science.[/SIZE][/FONT]

THIS is why I vote we move this thread to Conspiracy Theories. Klienman has finally moved away from Science, and has instead decided to move towards 'Evil evolutionists are KILLING us!'.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

]Nogbad, you are so completely engulfed in ignorance you can’t recognize the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which show that exactly what Dr Schneider’s model shows, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. You are just one more mathematically incompetent evolutionist in a long, long, long line of mathematically incompetent evolutionists.

Well I am a historian by academic training and accountant by profession and I don't think I have ever described myself as a working evolutionist. It is not an article of faith for me and I really couldn't care that much one way or another. As I said some time ago, ToE seems like a good working principle to hang what we know on but if something better comes along I'll listen - I have no emotional or professional vested interest in ToE. However, I have seen nothing here agin it that makes even the slightest bit of sense. If you have something then you are singularly failing in communicating it. To say "I am brilliant you are all simply too stupid to see it" is not a desperately convincing argument.

You are an accountant?!? The mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem is simply a bookkeeping problem. You should audit the books; you will find that the evolutionist’s books don’t balance. Perhaps these books are a little difficult for you to audit?

Hey, we have had to listen to the irrational and illogical nonsense you evolutionists have been putting out for decades.

Thank god we did. Otherwise we'd be at a loss to explain MRSAs.

Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.

 

[Nogbad]

Books are rarely difficult to audit - being innovative (and legal) in mitigating tax liability, now that can be tricky

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Books are rarely difficult to audit - being innovative (and legal) in mitigating tax liability, now that can be tricky

Dr Schneider’s bookkeeping model has shown that evolutionists have been caught with their fingers in the till. Their books don’t balance.

 

[joobz]

Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.


As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.

 

[Mr. Scott]

why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?

It happens by direct infection of a germ cell, like this:

 

[Mister Earl]

I second the motion to have this moved to the CT area. Kleinman is getting less and less rational as time goes on, here. First it is "Evolution doesn't exist, I have math to prove it", now it's "Evil evolutionists committing murder" and finally to "Wookie weathermen".

And Kleinman, *you* initially pointed to that model to make a point. I only used your own model to show your point wasn't valid. I didn't say, "Look at this model, it _proves_ evolution.", I said instead, "This selection in this reference you just used doesn't support your claim."

Let's be upfront, here, Kleinman. I want you to post your evidence here, written by your own hand. Prove to me and everyone else that evolution isn't possible. If it is so obvious, I shouldn't have to follow numerous links, looking for an obscure passage that only makes sense when it is taken out of context.

You claim evolution is bull, and that it's easy to prove that, so I'm only asking you to do what you claim you can. Make it happen, Kleinman.

 

[kjkent1]

Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.

kleinman, you are so full of crap, your eyes are brown!

Your argument in this thread is that neither ev nor any empirical evidence has shown that an organism can escape the effects of combination selective pressures. You stated that we should modify ev to use non-random-point mutations if we believed we could prove otherwise. You further stated that if someone posted just one counter-example that the thread would end.

Well, I've provided a peer-reviewed counter-example, in which HBV escapes combination therapies via a frame shift -- something which you claim is mathematically and empirically impossible.

The example clearly demonstrates how non-random-point mutation avoids the effects of combination selection pressures -- directly falsifying your conclusion.

The cite is a very clear black swan for your theory (as are many others, but this one is just blatantly so). So, you can post as many white swan examples as you wish, but it won't change reality -- which is that whatever the truth of evolutionary theory may be, that truth is definitely not encompassed by I shall now refer to going forward as the "kleinman doctrine," namely the false claim that "evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically and empirically impossible."

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Didn’t the weather do that? You know that if you have the right kind of weather, you can evolve anything, even a Wookie. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of evolutionary possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these adaptations to occur.

See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.

Joobz, the only thing you present on this thread are bizarre, irrational speculations. However, you were truthful on another thread when you said this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241

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

A rare example of a truthful statement from you but let’s hear what a PhD in alchemical engineering has to say about evolution.

As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Not only do strong combination selection pressures slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, weak selection pressures when combined with strong selection pressures slow the process. The only way you can accelerate the process is by having single strong selection pressures applied sequentially. Initially applying the strong selection pressure at less than totally lethal intensity, allow the population to recover then slowly increase the intensity of the single selection pressure until the population adapts to the selection pressure. Then apply the next strong selection pressure in the same manner and so on. You posted a citation a while back where these scientists did exactly that.

So let’s see what kind of myth you can make up which takes this very limited process and transforms reptiles into birds.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

We also need to remember that you believe that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously give life. It is raw speculation but you think it is possible despite not having a single shred of evidence.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:

Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.

There you go folks; that’s the evolutionist view of how reptiles transform into birds. Hey joobz, you forgot plate tectonics. Why don’t you put a little science into your irrational speculations and tell us what genes are targeted by your shopping list of environmental variables? Then you can peddle this nonsense to naïve school children and Shalamar and you all can celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day. You evolutionists think your speculations qualify as science but that argument only works when you are preaching to your fellow dogmatists. Keep your religion out of our public schools.

why don’t you explain to us how a viral infection in a somatic cell gets that genetic material into a germ cell so that it can be passed on?

It happens by direct infection of a germ cell, like this:

All these viruses passed on in germ cells. Seems like immunizations are such a waste since we have all these viruses already, so why when the parents get measles to we have to immunize the children? Or chicken pox, or rubella, or polio, or mumps…

Mr Scott, I do think that evolution by viral infection is a better argument than evolution by mutation and selection. After all, evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible. Now if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.

I second the motion to have this moved to the CT area. Kleinman is getting less and less rational as time goes on, here. First it is "Evolution doesn't exist, I have math to prove it", now it's "Evil evolutionists committing murder" and finally to "Wookie weathermen".

And Kleinman, *you* initially pointed to that model to make a point. I only used your own model to show your point wasn't valid. I didn't say, "Look at this model, it _proves_ evolution.", I said instead, "This selection in this reference you just used doesn't support your claim."

Let's be upfront, here, Kleinman. I want you to post your evidence here, written by your own hand. Prove to me and everyone else that evolution isn't possible. If it is so obvious, I shouldn't have to follow numerous links, looking for an obscure passage that only makes sense when it is taken out of context.

You claim evolution is bull, and that it's easy to prove that, so I'm only asking you to do what you claim you can. Make it happen, Kleinman.

You evolutionist speculators would like to close this thread because the mathematics and empirical behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is clear. It can not do what you evolutionists allege. You think just because you have simple stick models of mutation and selection that you can extrapolate the results to reptiles transforming into birds. If you want to understand what happens when selection conditions become complex in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, consider what happens in Dr Schneider’s model which show that combination selection pressure profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection.

This data was generated based on a G=16,384, all other parameters were left at the base line values Dr Schneider used in his published case. The generations required to satisfy all three selection conditions simultaneously was 6,894,433 generations. Now if you take this case and remove any two of the three selection, you get the following data.

missed site | spurious binding within gene | spurious binding outside gene
1 | 223 | 223

In order to satisfy all three selection conditions simultaneously it takes almost 7 million generations while satisfying any single selection condition takes at most 223 generations.

That finding is reflected in the hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which I have posted and will continue to post more examples. These citations demonstrates what happens to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process when you have more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene.

Why should I ignore this citation? We already know that frame shifts occur with HIV yet combination therapy still profoundly slows the evolution of this virus. So now you have a citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts yet combination therapy also has a profound slowing effect on the evolution of this virus as well. Do you want me to repost all the HBV citations which demonstrate this? Your citation is another empirical example which fills the gap left in the ev mathematical model which only simulates random point mutations. These empirical examples show that it is not the type of mutation which dominates the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; it is the number of selection pressures the population is subjected to that dominates this phenomenon.

Your argument in this thread is that neither ev nor any empirical evidence has shown that an organism can escape the effects of combination selective pressures. You stated that we should modify ev to use non-random-point mutations if we believed we could prove otherwise. You further stated that if someone posted just one counter-example that the thread would end.

Well, I've provided a peer-reviewed counter-example, in which HBV escapes combination therapies via a frame shift -- something which you claim is mathematically and empirically impossible.

Well legal beagle, here is a citation which shows that it doesn’t matter if HBV does from shifts. Combination selection pressures still profoundly slow the evolution of this virus.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3180.htm

Increasingly, combination therapy with more than one nucleoside or nucleotide analog is contemplated for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Combination therapy may be more effective than monotherapy in patients who have exhibited drug resistance. It remains to be determined whether combination therapy is appropriate for patients with chronic hepatitis B who are drug naive.

andhttp://www.cirquemeded.com/AGA/FCU2006/Kwo.pdf

221649: Evolution of Multi-Drug Resistant HBV: Implications on Rescue Therapy. Hyung Joon Yim, Munira Hussain, Stephen Wong, Ying Liu, Scott K Fung, Anna S Lok

Background: Multi-drug resistant HBV have been reported in patients who received sequential treatment with nucleoside monotherapy. In vitro studies showed that HBV constructs with mutations resistant to lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir (ADV) have marked reduction in sensitivity to combination of LAM+ADV, while constructs with mutations resistant to either drug remain sensitive to the other drug. Aims: To determine if mutations conferring resistance to multiple antiviral agents are present on the same HBV genome in vivo and to describe the evolution of these mutations. Methods: Sera from 6 patients found to have dual-resistant HBV mutations on direct sequencing were cloned after nested PCR, 18-20 clones from each sample were sequenced. Results: Mutations to both therapies were present on the same genome in 163/195 (84%) clones from 10 samples with dual-resistant mutations to LAM+ADV, LAM+HBIG, or LAM+entecavir (ETV) on direct sequencing, 32 (16%) clones had mutations to one drug. Evolution of mutations was examined in 3 patients. Patient 1 received LAM+ETV after LAM breakthrough, all 18 clones had L180M and M204V/I at month 0 (start of ETV), clonal analysis first detected ETV-resistant mutation (T184L) at month 20, 6 months earlier than direct sequencing. Both treatments were stopped at month 34 (T184L: 20/20 clones); 6 months later, T184L was detected in 12/20 clones while L180M and M204V/I remained detectable in 19/20 clones. Patient 2 was switched to ETV monotherapy after LAM breakthrough, all 20 clones had L180M+M204V at month 0. At month 36, ETV-resistant mutation I169T was detected in 15 and S202G in 4 clones. At month 41, S202G was present in 17 clones and I169T in 4 clones, LAM-resistant mutations remained detectable in all 20 clones. Patient 3 developed HBV recurrence after transplant despite receiving LAM+HBIG. All 18 clones had M204I and sG145R when HBV recurrence was diagnosed. ADV was added and LAM stopped 7 months later. ADV breakthrough occurred after 41 months of ADV when all 18 clones had ADV-resistant N236T. Four months after reintroduction of LAM, all 20 clones had L180M+M204V, 12 clones had additional V173L change. However, N236T was replaced by a different ADV-resistant mutation P237H. Conclusions: Our study showed that mutations conferring resistance to multiple antiviral agents are present on the same viral genome, suggesting that combination therapy directed against mutants resistant to each treatment may not be adequate in suppressing dual-resistant HBV. Sequential antiviral therapy leads to selection of multi-resistant HBV; mutations evolve during continued treatment resulting in mutants with increased replication fitness.

And
http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/smacsec2.pdf

Unusually among bacterial infections, Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections require treatment with combinations of three or four agents for at least 6 months. Monotherapy leads rapidly to resistance, by selecting spontaneous mutants. Even with combination therapy, resistance emerges when there is non-compliance by the patient, incorrect dosage by the physician or malabsorption.

and

Clinically, three key factors affect the likelihood (or not) of emergence of resistance, and their importance varies with the combination of virus and drug.

a) Mutation rate Resistance is caused by single or multiple mutations. As with bacteria, mutants exist within the individual’s viral population prior to therapy but a drug’s selective pressure encourages their expansion to become the majority population. RNA viruses (eg HIV), do not ‘proof-read’ genes during replication and so generate resistant mutants more rapidly than DNA viruses (eg the herpes family) which do proof-read. In addition, the risk of resistant mutants emerging depends on the total number of virus particles and on their replication rate. Chronic infections with rapid turnover, eg HIV, HCV and HBV are ideally suited to the development of resistance. Reduced immune function increases the viral load and replication rate, also increasing the risk of resistance.
b) Viral ‘fitness’ Viruses are exquisitely adapted to their hosts. Drug-selected mutants may initially have reduced fitness but, as with bacteria (see Section 13.2) there are now many examples of ‘compensatory’ mutations that allow these resistant mutants to regain their fitness.
c) Drug potency If a drug completely stops viral replication, resistance should not appear. In contrast, a drug with minimal potency will not exert sufficient selective pressure to generate resistance. The ideal circumstances in which resistance will occur arise where potent antiviral agents are used suboptimally, eg as monotherapy or dual therapy for HIV, or where there is poor drug compliance.

and
http://www.hepatitisbannual.org/article.asp?issn=0972-9747;year=2004;volume=1;issue=1;spage=153;epage=198;aulast=Khanna

Lamivudine Prophylaxis

Several studies have demonstrated that lamivudine monotherapy can decrease the rate of recurrent HBV infection after transplantation, but the efficacy diminishes over time due to the selection of drug-resistant mutants.[108] In the North American multicenter study, the overall 1- and 3-year post-transplantation recurrence rates were 32 and 41%, respectively.[108] However, patients with active HBV replication prior to treatment had a higher recurrence rate at 3 years than nonreplicators (60 versus 0%). These data confirm the strong association between recurrent hepatitis B after transplantation and the presence of detectable HBV replication before transplantation.[118]

HBIG Plus Lamivudine Prophylaxis

As the rate of breakthrough infection with lamivudine alone is high, most transplant centers use both high-dose HBIG and lamivudine prophylaxis.[119] In a retrospective analysis of 59 patients treated with high-dose HBIG plus lamivudine, none of the patients experienced HBV recurrence with a mean post-transplantation follow-up of 15 months.[119] In an attempt to reduce the costs, several investigators have also reported the use of lower doses of HBIG administered intramuscularly in combination with lamivudine.[120] In all of these studies, recurrence rates less than 10% have been reported.

These citations are only from the pool of most recent citations on HBV I have found. I have almost 2000 pages of notes with hundreds of other citations as well. And legal beagle, if you think you are correct about HBV, you better contact all these scientists and tell them they are wrong for using combination therapy. It’s useless, HBV does frame shifts. Legal beagle, you are chasing the wrong ambulance. On the other hand, perhaps you are shooting to be the defense lawyer in the suit.

 

[joobz]

Joobz, the only thing you present on this thread are bizarre, irrational speculations. However, you were truthful on another thread when you said this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3071566&postcount=241

A rare example of a truthful statement from you but let’s hear what a PhD in alchemical engineering has to say about evolution.

yawn. Your insults are boring.

Not only do strong combination selection pressures slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, weak selection pressures when combined with strong selection pressures slow the process. The only way you can accelerate the process is by having single strong selection pressures applied sequentially. Initially applying the strong selection pressure at less than totally lethal intensity, allow the population to recover then slowly increase the intensity of the single selection pressure until the population adapts to the selection pressure. Then apply the next strong selection pressure in the same manner and so on. You posted a citation a while back where these scientists did exactly that.

So let’s see what kind of myth you can make up which takes this very limited process and transforms reptiles into birds.

We also need to remember that you believe that chemicals cooperate to spontaneously give life. It is raw speculation but you think it is possible despite not having a single shred of evidence.

There you go folks; that’s the evolutionist view of how reptiles transform into birds. Hey joobz, you forgot plate tectonics. Why don’t you put a little science into your irrational speculations and tell us what genes are targeted by your shopping list of environmental variables? Then you can peddle this nonsense to naïve school children and Shalamar and you all can celebrate Happy Survival of the Fittest Day. You evolutionists think your speculations qualify as science but that argument only works when you are preaching to your fellow dogmatists. Keep your religion out of our public schools.

a lot of words that say absolutely nothing.

let's try again.

See, you are simply demonstrating your lack of understanding on the true nature of mutation and natural selection. It's understandable, since you seem to hate science and reason. But, I'm always willing to present the truth.


As you shown in your theory, when you have multiple selection pressures that are constant and strong, you greatly slow down the process of evolutionary emergence. However, when the pressures aren't constant, you actually result in an acceleration of evolutionary emergence. This is logical when you think about the survivors of the last strong pressure are given time to repopulate and exchange genes through recombination.

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

Weather is merely one catch all example of non-constant nature of evolution. I could break it down even further if you like and add other examples of natures non-constant behavior:
Night-to-day cyclic changes
herd migration patterns
tidal patterns
crop yields
wind directions
volcanic activity
forest fires
gulf stream directions
snow cap melting-riverflows
earthquakes
bee pollenation patterns
human cultivation and urban development


Now, any moment you feel like presenting examples of how each of those points is actually a constant variable, feel free to do so.

 

[rocketdodger]

I also favor moving this to conspiracy theories.

It is obvious that Kleinman has no scientific or mathematical arguments of his own. It is also obvious that he is now doing nothing more than claiming everyone in the scientific community is interpreting the results of numerous studies incorrectly and reaching the wrong conclusions. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now, all we need to remember is that nature isn't a constant environment and we see that evolution isn't just possible, it's real.

The only thing constant in this thread is your constant stream of speculations. You post a long shopping list of environmental variables and claim that is how you evolve birds from reptiles. This is the same type of speculation you posted about abiogenesis.

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.

Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold? Joobz, tell us how the environment evolves a Wookie.

 

[joobz]

I also favor moving this to conspiracy theories.

It is obvious that Kleinman has no scientific or mathematical arguments of his own. It is also obvious that he is now doing nothing more than claiming everyone in the scientific community is interpreting the results of numerous studies incorrectly and reaching the wrong conclusions. If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.

couple that with his arguments where he attempted to include anti-religious sentiments as a motivation for evolution, it is clear that his argument isn't scientific.