Annoying creationists

[joobz]

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.
[/color]
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold? Joobz, tell us how the environment evolves a Wookie.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

I put forth a scientific argument based upon facts. You respond with non sequitor insults.


this thread should be moved either to abandon all hope or the conspricy theory forum. It is clear that Kleinman has abandoned any pretense of making a scientific claim.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Joobz, presents a scientific argument:

I acknowledge this is complete speculation

 

[rocketdodger]

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?

 

[Henners]

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?

Why not just wait until the man gets his Nobel for overturning all of the science of Biology, and then apologise to him.

Or, hang on, if somebody came up to you in the street and claimed to be Napoleon, would you try to convince them otherwise, or just point and laugh?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So how do we petition to get it moved to CT?

Should we send PMs to a moderator or something?

How could we forget rocketdodger’s scientific proof:

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

Hey buzz bomb, having a little trouble coming up with a valid argument so you thought you’d try censorship instead. That very evolutionary of you.

 

[Mister Earl]

"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."

There you go again, claiming you've proved something you haven't. We've asked you to post the math a hundred times now. You can't, because it is meaningless speculation on your part. It's an opinion of yours, not fact. That's why this should go to the CT forums. This thread has de-evolved into a sideshow.

 

[joobz]

Joobz, presents a scientific argument:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

Actually, When I say something is based upon speculation, I mean it.

When I say something is based upon evidence and facts, I mean it.

You should be wise and not attempt to quote mine me. Indeed, all you have done is present evidence that I admit honestly when my posts are speculations or when they are facts:

So, For the record.

This is 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.

this is scientifically supported fact

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

Your attempts to blur between the two do not help your case and only further proves that you don't actually believe in what you say. If you did, you would actually attempt to critique the science of my second argument.


As for moving the thread, Paul can at any time. I'm certain that he avoids doing so to prevent kleinman from having the satisfaction of pretending an "annoying victory".

Obviously, if this was a moderated debate, Kleinman wouldn't have lasted an afternoon. But being an open forum, he's allowed to annoy at his lesuire.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

"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."

Dr Schneider’s model is peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press journal Nucleic Acids Research. Here is what Dr Schneider has to say about his model:

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.

Dr Schneider’s model has all the essential variables properly modeled in order to study how the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. And it doesn’t work the way evolutionists allege. What Dr Schneider’s model shows and what the empirical evidence demonstrates is that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is dominated by the complexity of the selection conditions. Only a single selection condition targeted at a single gene can evolve quickly. As soon as you target selection conditions at more than a single gene, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.

There you go again, claiming you've proved something you haven't. We've asked you to post the math a hundred times now. You can't, because it is meaningless speculation on your part. It's an opinion of yours, not fact. That's why this should go to the CT forums. This thread has de-evolved into a sideshow.

I have posted Dr Schneider’s computer model, his URLs which describe how the mathematics of his model are applied, numerous real examples of how the mutation and selection process works in reality and still you either haven’t read and studied these references, you simply don’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics or you are in denial. Perhaps if I gave you a picture from Dr Schneider’s web site which explains how his model works.
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html

That’s for all of you evolutionists who graduated from Mathishard University and can’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics is all about. And that sorting process that Dr Schneider is talking about with his jpg is profoundly slowed when you have any selection condition that targets more than a single gene. That’s the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are slow to understand.

 

[Mister Earl]

" have posted Dr Schneider’s computer model, his URLs which describe how the mathematics of his model are applied, numerous real examples of how the mutation and selection process works in reality and still you either haven’t read and studied these references, you simply don’t understand what Dr Schneider’s mathematics or you are in denial. Perhaps if I gave you a picture from Dr Schneider’s web site which explains how his model works."

I guess you keep ignoring the parts about the factors left out, or "multiple stressors" being transitory, not continual. No, Kleinman, I'm not "In denial". If that single paper is the basis of your entire argument, then I strongly suggest you find a new line of work.

The fact that you steadfastly ignore every single item that doesn't agree with your point of view is plenty enough for me to consider you a lost cause. If you are, in reality, a doctor, then I am seriously concerned for the welfare of your patients.

Either way, I'm done here. I've heard your point of view.

 

[Mr. Scott]

if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.

Remember, Kleinman, that every time you move the goalposts, we have a round of beer. Thanks! May I also remind you that every time a creationist moves the goal posts, a reptile gets its wings.

The serious answer is: by mutation and natural selection, as if you didn't know.

 

[rocketdodger]

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

Hey buzz bomb, having a little trouble coming up with a valid argument so you thought you’d try censorship instead. That very evolutionary of you.

Oh I see, you repeatedly quote the same statement in exclusion of everything else I have said on the topic, and you accuse me of attempting censorship.

Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

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

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I guess you keep ignoring the parts about the factors left out, or "multiple stressors" being transitory, not continual. No, Kleinman, I'm not "In denial". If that single paper is the basis of your entire argument, then I strongly suggest you find a new line of work.

It’s not that single paper Mister Earl, it is a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have presented hundreds of empirical examples which demonstrate what Dr Schneider’s model shows mathematically. Now if you want to join joobz in his speculations that reptiles evolved into birds one gene at a time because of variations in the weather, feel free to jump on his band wagon without wheels. Just don’t teach this asinine speculation to naïve school children.

The fact that you steadfastly ignore every single item that doesn't agree with your point of view is plenty enough for me to consider you a lost cause. If you are, in reality, a doctor, then I am seriously concerned for the welfare of your patients.

Of course I ignore irrational and illogical evolutionist speculations. I examine the mathematics and empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. I’m still waiting for you evolutionists to post either.

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence:

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

Oh yes, and here is joobz’s evidence for 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.

If you are going to teach children evolutionism, you might as well train them to be mathematically incompetent idiots. Look what it has done to joobz and rocketdodger.

Either way, I'm done here. I've heard your point of view.

You go back and play with your stick model and wonder what would happen if you were trying to sort 3 billion sticks. You might need a little more computer time to do that one.

if you could only explain how all those viruses appeared.

Remember, Kleinman, that every time you move the goalposts, we have a round of beer. Thanks! May I also remind you that every time a creationist moves the goal posts, a reptile gets its wings.

The serious answer is: by mutation and natural selection, as if you didn't know.

Are you whining about goalposts again? One evolutionist whines that I repeat myself and another one whines that I move the goal posts.

I’m sure your theory of evolution seems much more plausible when you are snockered. Are you ever going to tell us what the lies your atheist parent told you? What did they give you on Survival of the Fittest Day when you were young Master Scott.

Here are a couple more empirical examples of how mutation and selection actually works.
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/11/3173.pdf

Beginning with observational data, the clearest difference between genotypes is in their susceptibility to treatment with IFN monotherapy or IFN/ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy. Typically, only 10–20 and 40–50% of individuals infected chronically with genotype 1 HCV on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively, exhibit complete and permanent clearance of virus infection.

http://cardenjennings.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,16;journal,35,67;linkingpublicationresults,1:106944,1

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a stem cell disorder caused by a constitutively activated tyrosine kinase, the Bcr-Abl oncoprotein. An inhibitor of this tyrosine kinase, imatinib mesylate, is rapidly becoming the first-line therapy for CML. However, the development of resistance to this drug is a frequent setback, particularly in patients in advanced phases of the disease. Several mechanisms of resistance have been described, the most frequent of which are amplification and/or mutations of the BCR-ABL gene. To overcome resistance, several approaches have been studied in vitro and in vivo. They include dose escalation of imatinib, combination of imatinib with chemotherapeutic drugs, alternative Bcr-Abl inhibitors, inhibitors of kinases downstream of Bcr-Abl, farnesyl and geranylgeranyl transferase inhibitors, histone deacetylase, proteasome and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, arsenic trioxide, hypomethylating agents, troxacitabine, targeting Bcr-Abl messenger RNA, and immunomodulatory strategies. It is important to understand that these approaches differ in efficiency, which is often dependent on the mechanisms of resistance. Further investigations into the molecular mechanisms of disease and how to specifically target the abnormal processes will guide the design of new treatment modalities in future clinical trials. Int J Hematol. 2004;79:420-433.

These are for you Mister Earl as you head back into the ether to play with your stick models.

You know there is an old saying, “visits always bring pleasure, either in the coming or in the going”.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence:

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

I guess I will just use the same reply...

Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Are you whining about goalposts again? One evolutionist whines that I repeat myself and another one whines that I move the goal posts.

If we had a round of beer every time you lied, like the lie above, we'd have all died of alcohol poisoning by now. No whining was involved, just a gleeful observation.

Here's a serious question: You've stated that population size doesn't matter in the progress of evolution. I'm not trying to straw man, that's just what I recall. This seems to me to be quite unintuitive. If, for example, there's a one in a billion chance of a specific adaptive mutation happening in a bacterium in a day, the a population of a billion would be expected to achieve this mutation, on the everage, once a day. Double the population, and you expect to see a similar mutation twice a day. Seems obvious to me. The vast populations even in something like a serious HIV infection would seem to be beyond the scope of a limited program like Ev.

So please convince me of your claim that population size has no bearing on the progress of evolution. I'm willing to listen.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh wait a minute, rocketdodger posted some mathematical evidence:

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

Why don't you tell everyone here, Kleinman, why you repeatedly quote only that statement instead of any of the numerous posts I have made regarding my program since then?

Could it be because you are a lying, misinforming, and misrepresenting scumbag who relies on unfair debate tactics to avoid looking like a fool?

You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.

 

[joobz]

You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.

your quoting of Rocketdodger's post demonstrates his ability to admit limitations in his argument. this only strengthens his credibility on the subject.

Your continual attempt to use his temporary admission as proof of him being wrong is just further proof that you aren't intersted in science, mathemetics, medicine, or technology. As such, you do not belong in this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to address his model? or would you like to admit defeat?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You have a better chance finding a Wookie on this thread than you have in finding any data from rocketdodger’s miscalculations.

Rocket who blows up on the launch pad, you really should stick with censorship, that’s the best your theory of evolution has to offer.

your quoting of Rocketdodger's post demonstrates his ability to admit limitations in his argument. this only strengthens his credibility on the subject.

Your continual attempt to use his temporary admission as proof of him being wrong is just further proof that you aren't intersted in science, mathemetics, medicine, or technology. As such, you do not belong in this forum.

Rocketdodger had a “temporary admission”? The only thing that rocketdodger admitted was he forgot his parameters and then never posted them. Rocketdodger has posted nothing from his miscalculations just like Adequate admitted he had no real examples of his silly graph. It is irrational and illogical to think that the more complex the sorting conditions the faster the sorting process will proceed. That is what both rocketdodger and Adequate have posted.

The only thing you evolutionists have going for your theory is censorship. You have no mathematical or empirical evidence that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process will do what you claim so you resort to censorship.

Perhaps you'd like to address his model? or would you like to admit defeat?

Rocketdodger has only miscalculations. I would much rather discuss the peer reviewed and published mathematical model that was written by Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute but all you evolutionists would much rather talk about something else, like censorship. I told Dr Schneider that evolutionists would discredit his model as soon as evolutionists had any idea what his model really showed.

 

[rocketdodger]

I might add that the quote of yours, joobz, that he is in love with has also been vindicated at least three times by me, yet Kleinman keeps repeating it.

I have told him over and over that your speculation is in fact an observed phenomenon and is used in the synthesis of organic chemicals. Actually, its nothing more than repeated applications of equilibrium driven reactions that rely on Le`Chatelier's principle.

Of course, he only ever quotes your initial post, and none of the responses we have made showing you to be fairly on target.

You know, I don't mind much. I don't even care when people attack me personally in arguments. But misrepresenting things we have said, and selectively quoting in order to do so, is something that really pisses me off. Of course, this kind of behavior seems to be what caused Paul to start this thread in the first place.

 

[rocketdodger]

Rocketdodger had a “temporary admission”? The only thing that rocketdodger admitted was he forgot his parameters and then never posted them.

Why do you try to be such a lying scumbag on a forum, Kleinman, where people can just scroll up to see what was actually said? Or perhaps you missed all of the pertinent posts, although I somehow doubt it -- take a look at this post if you have forgotten:

See...

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point. If you continue to treat kleinman this way after his suspension, you will be suspended.

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

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You know, I don't mind much. I don't even care when people attack me personally in arguments. But misrepresenting things we have said, and selectively quoting in order to do so, is something that really pisses me off. Of course, this kind of behavior seems to be what caused Paul to start this thread in the first place.

Hey rocketdodger, I haven’t tried to censor you. You are free to say whatever you want and you do. If you understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works tell us but all I’ve seen from you are miscalculation and whining. So far the only thing you have proven is that you are a graduate of the University of Nomathzona.

Paul should be pissed off, his own mathematical model discredits his irrational and illogical theory and the empirical evidence verifies what his mathematical model shows.