Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

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:

Rocketdodger posted his data?

 

[joobz]

Rocketdodger has only miscalculations.

If you believe so, prove it.

It is interesting that a mathematician on this forum came to the exact same conclusions as Rocketdodger. the burden of proof is on you to prove that their math is wrong. I'm certain that rocketdodger would be happy to provide you with any text to help you in your analysis.

 

[joobz]

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.

Well, I knew my statements would stand on thier own merits. the fact that he continues to use it as some sort of barb against me simply demonstrates his stupidity.

Much like when he posts Dr. Adequate's graph and drA's analysis of the graph. His mockery is blind admission that he knows nothing of what he talks about.

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.

That is his whole purpose. He has no interest in anything but being annoying. He knows he's wrong. He's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I just continue to post to see if he says anything interesting.
Unfortunately, no.
So, I think i'm done with this thread.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Rocketdodger has only miscalculations.

If you believe so, prove it.

It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:

I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.

And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself.

I’ll continue to work with Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. I’ve studied his mathematics and he got it right.

Now if you want to explain how the weather will evolve a wookie, I think everyone would like to hear that. That would be a good one.

 

[rocketdodger]

It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:

I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.

This illustrates two major differences between us, Kleinman.

1) When I don't understand something I ask for help and try to learn.

2) When presented with an argument, I examine the argument itself rather than whether the person presenting it was born with the knowledge or had to learn it. Most people are not a genius like you --we need to learn topics before we think we are ready to discuss them.

And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself. [/QUOTE]

I don't know what else I can do besides making the source code easily available to you, Kleinman. Do you want me to come to California and tape your eyes open, read the code aloud for you, and wipe your arse while I am at it?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It’s not my job to explain every stupid idea that comes across a computer screen. Rocketdodger still is trying to figure out how mutation and selection works. He started on this thread saying this:

I am eager to participate in this discussion but I don't know the mathematical details of the topic, only general ideas. Paul, is there a good introductory source (assuming I am fluent in mathematics) where I can learn what this equation you guys are talking about represents? All this Rseq~ and Rfreq~ stuff is lost on me.

This illustrates two major differences between us, Kleinman.

1) When I don't understand something I ask for help and try to learn.

2) When presented with an argument, I examine the argument itself rather than whether the person presenting it was born with the knowledge or had to learn it. Most people are not a genius like you --we need to learn topics before we think we are ready to discuss them.

So tell us what you have learned about ev.

And has gone downhill since. If rocketdodger thinks he can explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works with his model, I’m not censoring him, I’m not even trying to censor him, let him prove it himself.

I don't know what else I can do besides making the source code easily available to you, Kleinman. Do you want me to come to California and tape your eyes open, read the code aloud for you, and wipe your arse while I am at it?

It’s up to you to prove your code is a valid computation. You claim it shows that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the system evolves. While you are at it, give us some empirical examples of what you claim your code shows. Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model shows the exact opposite of what you claim and the empirical evidence substantiates it. The peer reviewed and published model and empirical evidence which substantiates it shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Here’s another empirical example which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.
http://www.imbim.uu.se/dokument/IMBIM-2004%20nr1.pdf

Several antimalarial drugs act on the folate metabolism, eventually affecting synthesis of DNA precursors, especially dTTP. Examples are Fansidar, which is a combination of pyrimethamine and sulfadoxine, and LapDap, which is a combination of chlorproguanil and dapsone. We still do not know exactly how these compounds interfere with the folate pathways, which include both de novo synthesis and salvage of folates from the host. To be an efficient antimalarial, a drug or drug combination should act on both pathways.

Prove your case and while we are waiting for you to do this, I will continue to post more and more and more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

 

[kjkent1]

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.

kleinman, you have finally convinced me that you're an idiot.

A scientific theory is falsified on the proof that just one example does not fit the hypothesis.

So, if your hypothesis is that mutation and selection cannot evolve novel traits due to the imposition of strong combination selection pressures, and I provide you with an experiment that does exactly that, then your hypothesis is falsified. P E R I O D !

The referenced study shows a "novel frame shift" which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures. Given enough of these novelties over time, and you will have an entirely different virus, or maybe not even a virus, because the mutations are novel and beneficial and they cause significantly more change than mere random-point mutations.

I don't need to show that combination therapy doesn't help slow down viral resistance to defeat the "kleinman doctrine." I only need to show one example where a virus does something other than random-point mutation and gains resistance.

And, that, my sorry little friend, I have done. So, you lose. Your theory is, as my father would say in Yiddish: "facocked!"

So, just keep on dreaming that evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. Because that's all it is, kleinman: a big fairytale dreeeeeaaaam!

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

A scientific theory is falsified on the proof that just one example does not fit the hypothesis.

Really? Then the theory of evolution has been proved false hundreds of times over on this thread alone. But your strategy to be defense lawyer on your losing case should bring you a fortune. Even the tobacco company lawyers made money on that one.

So, if your hypothesis is that mutation and selection cannot evolve novel traits due to the imposition of strong combination selection pressures, and I provide you with an experiment that does exactly that, then your hypothesis is falsified. P E R I O D !

That’s not my hypothesis but thank you for giving me another opportunity to present my hypothesis. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process only works quickly when you have a single selection condition targeting a single gene. As soon as two or more selection conditions are posted targeting two or more genes, the sorting process for beneficial and detrimental mutations is profoundly slowed. That is what Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations shows and that is what these hundreds of citations of real examples of mutation and selection shows. The only thing falsified on this thread is the irrational and illogical theory of evolution.

The referenced study shows a "novel frame shift" which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures. Given enough of these novelties over time, and you will have an entirely different virus, or maybe not even a virus, because the mutations are novel and beneficial and they cause significantly more change than mere random-point mutations.

Really again? Why don’t you post the quote from your article where it says that “a novel frame shift which causes the HBV to avoid destruction under multiple selective pressures? You wouldn’t be trying to fabricate your own evidence, would you legal beagle?

I don't need to show that combination therapy doesn't help slow down viral resistance to defeat the "kleinman doctrine." I only need to show one example where a virus does something other than random-point mutation and gains resistance.

I’ve never claimed that adaptation could only occur by random point mutations. I’ve only claimed that it doesn’t matter what type of mutation you have, what I have claimed is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Your HBV citation which shows that HBV can do frame shifts only confirms my hypothesis. It does not matter what type of mutation you have, combination therapy slows the evolution of HBV, HIV and what ever other population that is trying to adapt to a selection pressure by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. It is the number of selection pressures which dominate the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, not the type of mutation. I suggest you don’t try this argument at trial; it will lose because of the overwhelming contradictory evidence.

And, that, my sorry little friend, I have done. So, you lose. Your theory is, as my father would say in Yiddish: "facocked!"

A mentsh tracht und Gott lacht.

So while legal beagle is planning for his big payday, here is another example of how combination selection pressures affect a population.
http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/34_1_2/34_1_2Abstracts.shtml

We have investigated the modulated antitumor activity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by 1-leucovorin (LV) and recombinant human interferon a-2a (IFN) against human colon carcinoma xenograft (Co-4) serially transplanted into nude mice. 5-FU showed dose-dependent antitumor activity on Co-4 and a significant combination antitumor effect was obtained, when 200 mg of LV per kg was administered intraperitoneally on -1 and 0 hours before 5-FU (90 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) treatment. The modulated antitumor effect of 5-FU was dependent on the dose of LV and correlated with the increment of the thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibition. When IFN was administered subcutaneously in a schedule of qdx14 at doses of 6 x 10^3, 6 x 10^4 and 6 x 10^5 IU/mouse, IFN alone indicated the antitumor activity in a dose-dependent manner. The combination treatment of 5-FU (60 mg/kg intraperitoneal, q4dx3) and IFN (6 x 10^4 IU/mouse subcutaneously, qdx14) showed an additive antitumor effect on Co-4 without any changes of TS inhibition. These results showed that the modes of action of 5-FU modulator are diverse and a human tumor xenograftnude mouse system would be useful in evaluating these modes of action.

 

[Shalamar]

Kleinman, no-one here has EVER denied that multiple strong constant selections pressures on a population could slow down the populations evolution to the point of potential extinction.

What is denied, and has been proven wrong, many times on this thread, is that this claim disproves the Theory of Evolution. Your statement regarding multiple strong constant selection pressures is well within evolutionary theory, but it does not mean that evolution is impossible.

Now, Let us recap for the readers on Kleinmans claims.

Multiple Constant strong selection pressures profoundly slow down evolution.
Slow = Stop.
There is no variation of the amount of selection pressures in nature.
There is no variation in the strength of selection pressures in nature.
Neither a population nor an organism can adapt to multiple selection pressures.
Evolution is evil.
'Evolutionists' are evil.
'Evolutionists' kill people due to selection pressures.
Doctors, who only have access to 'evolutionist' writings, kill people due to selection pressures.
Creationism is the only conclusion.
Wookies are real.

Kleinman is not a scientist. Or rather, a very very bad one. He already has his conclusion, which is that Creationism is True. His source is a very very old book, that has been translated many many times.
Because his conclusion is creationism, he will only look at evidence that supports his claim. Since there is no evidence in favor of creationism, he has attempted to try and disprove evolution. He has found some evidence regarding selection pressures, but it seems he is placing his own interpretation upon these studies.
'
He flat out ignores ANY evidence that discounts his claim. He simply inserts a laughing dog.

When called out on his false claims, and his constant lying, he resorts to that time old debating technique, calling his opponents names, putting his great wit to changing peoples forum names to make them seem week, and unintelligent, making up bizzare and frankly stupid holidays, and when all that fails, flat out ignoring people.

He has been proven wrong. At least a decent scientist would consider the new evidence, and see how it impacts his hypothesis. Sadly, his reasoning is circular:

Creationism is True.
This means that Evolution is False.
If Evolution is False, then creationism is true.

Have I missed anything? (I will be ignoring anything from Mr. Kleinman, as he will simply call me names, or toss a laughing dog at me. He has nothing intelligent to say.)

 

[Henners]

toss a laughing dog at me

Oh, I see.

I always thought that the laughing dog was the man himself.

I was wondering how the Nobel Prize Committee was going to look handing over the prize to a laughing dog.

Well, presumably a serious dog, on the day, getting its paws on all that dosh.

Doggie chews for life, that.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Kleinman, no-one here has EVER denied that multiple strong constant selections pressures on a population could slow down the populations evolution to the point of potential extinction.

What is denied, and has been proven wrong, many times on this thread, is that this claim disproves the Theory of Evolution. Your statement regarding multiple strong constant selection pressures is well within evolutionary theory, but it does not mean that evolution is impossible.

Shalamar, you are wrong on several points here. Let’s start with your first point. Several evolutionists on this thread claim that simultaneous and sequential selection pressures evolve at the same rate and others have claimed that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process occurs.

These are fundamental blunders that you evolutionist make in the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. What you are failing to understand Shalamar is that weak selection pressures sort more slowly than strong selection pressures and that all selection pressures influence the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape.

Shalamar, there are no selection pressures (weak or strong) that work in harmony to sort mutations to achieve the massive changes required to accomplish common descent. It is a mathematical and empirical impossibility. The mutation and selection sorting optimization/sorting process simply can not and does not work that way. Evolutionists have done an atrocious job in teaching the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and it is reflected in your confused understanding of the process. But you are not alone; it took 5 years of monotherapy on HIV for David Ho to relearn the lesson that Nobel laureate Edward Tatum understood three decades before.

 

[Henners]

you are failing to understand Shalamar is that weak selection pressures sort more slowly than strong selection pressures and that all selection pressures influence the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape

Woo-oo, Woo-oo, Wee-ooo....

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Henners contribution to the understanding of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process:

Woo-oo, Woo-oo, Wee-ooo....

 

[Shalamar]

Lets add another claim in Kleinmans theory:

Evolution is Mathematically and empirically impossible.
But he never has to show the math to prove this claim.

Besides, Genetics, the fossil record alone show common descent.
But all he cares about are his claims. All other evidence is ignored.

Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.

 

[Nogbad]

Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.

When he is having so much fun?

I doubt it.

 

[Henners]

In that last post, kleinman, you seem to be shagging the carpet.

They'll never give you a Nobel prize if you blot your copybook like that.

Incidentally, your statment:

the trajectory that a population tries to take on a fitness landscape

...is not even a schoolboy error, but one of the most inane comments that I have ever seen. It would lose marks at university-entrance level in England because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution.

The description of populations pursuing a purposeful trajectory toward a predefined end-point is inconsistent with everything that is known about evolution.

You wouldn't be one of those moronic Wedge Strategists, would you, perchance?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Evolution is Mathematically and empirically impossible.

But he never has to show the math to prove this claim.

Not quite right on both points. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible and I all I have to do is show you Dr Schneider’s mathematics. Here’s how Dr Schneider’s mathematics works:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/evj/evj-guide.html

Shalamar, click on the link and read Dr Schneider’s description how the mathematics for his ev program works.

Some day, he may learn to look past his belief.

When he is having so much fun?

Of course I am having fun annoying all you evolutionists with the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. The best argument you have had for your theory so far is to censor anyone who doesn’t believe your irrational and illogical nonsense.

 

[rocketdodger]

So tell us what you have learned about ev.

What is Rfreq and Rseq?
Rfreq is a measure of the information required to locate a valid binding site in a genome.

Rseq is a measure of the information conserved in the binding site.

What is ev?

A program written to show that the naturally observed phenomonen of Rseq ~= Rfreq in real genomes is easily evolvable. The genes in the program represent proteins that can bind to DNA, thus controlling their (or other's) transcription -- similar to how known genetic control mechanisms work.

In the program, the fittest invididuals have the least mistakes, where a mistake is a) a gene that cannot control itself (its protein doesn't bind to its binding site), b) a gene whose protein binds somehwere other than its binding site.

Why can't the ev program be used for the purposes Kleinman contends it can?

-The population size in ev remains constant (every generation only half the population is killed off, and then the fittest reproduce to fill the gap back up) whereas in every single empirical example Kleinman has cited the population dies off in only a few generations.

-The three selection pressures in ev each target every single potential binding site in the genome (something Kleinman has repeatedly said to be impossible in reality, mind you), instead of individual genes / bases.

Why is Kleinman wrong with regards to the mistake count selection pressures?

There are three global selection pressures active in ev. First, mistakes are generated for missed sites, which is when a gene's protein doesn't bind to its own binding site. Second, there is spurious binding within gene, which is when a gene's protein binds to its own gene but not at the control site. Third, mistakes are generated for spurious binding outside gene, which is when a gene's protein binds to a site outside of the gene. In ev, users can assign a relative weight to how bad each of these mistake categories are. I will use vector notation, I.E. [1,1,1] meaning each has an equal weight of 1, [1,2,3] meaning missed sites have weight 1, spurious binding within gene has 2, etc.

Furthermore, there are two metrics one can use when determining when to stop the simulation. First, one can stop when a perfect creature is evolved, which is defined as an individual with no mistakes -- when all of its proteins can bind to their own binding sites. Second, one can stop when Rseq >= Rfreq, or when the control is nearly perfect. Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of ev is to research the latter and it was written with that in mind.

Now, Kleinman's contention is that ev supports his hypothesis because the number of generations it takes to evolve a perfect creature with weights [1,0,0] is much less than the number of generations it takes with weights [1,1,1], or in other words that the evolution under one global pressure is much faster than under three. Let us examine whether this claim has merit.

First, what is a perfect creature when the weights are [1,0,0]? By definition, it is a creature who's genes all produce proteins that bind to their own control sites. That is good. But it also has a myriad of proteins that bind in many other places (because no penalty is given to spurious bindings). This is bad. In fact, it would not happen in reality, for reasons that should be obvious. Already, we have shown that Kleinman is incorrect in this matter, but for the sake of completion, let us proceed.

Second, what about using Rseq >= Rfreq as the stopping point? It turns out that with weights [1,0,0] the simulation will never attain it, even with extremely small population and genome size. This should be a pretty good indicator that the program was not designed to run with weights [1,0,0].

Third, what about using other combinations, like [0,1,0] or [0,0,1]? Mathematically, if Kleinman wants to treat each of the three pressures similarly, then they should in fact be similar and thus lead to similar results when they are the only active pressure. This, however, is not the case. Both [0,1,0] and [0,0,1] evolve a perfect creature in only one generation, meaning that the garbage the genome is initialized with is in fact considered "perfect" under those weight distributions. This is quite different than [1,0,0] where, using the default parameters for instance, it takes 6 generations. Likewise, neither [0,1,0] or [0,0,1] ever stop on the Rseq >= Rfreq metric.

Thus, it is utterly ignorant to set any of the weights to zero. Note that none of the "peer reviewed" articles on, or even citing, ev make use of such weights.

What happens when we use ev as intended?

First, we have already gotten Kleinman to admit that in reality there is never a single selection pressure -- rather, there are instances of a single strong pressure against a background of many weak ones. So lets look into this by making one weight 100 times as high as the others. Using the default settings and stopping on a perfect creature, here are the generations required:

a) - [100,1,1] = 360 generations
b) - [1,100,1] = 1034 generations
c) - [1,1,100] = 889 generations
d) - [100,100,100] = 662 generations

Interesting. Applying all three strong pressures at once (d) resulted in not only a higher rate than only one pressure in two cases (b and c) but also a faster evolution. Furthermore, even using Kleinmans prized pressure, missed bindings, the rate under three pressures was higher (because if we applied the single pressure back to back it would take 360 x 3 = 1380 generations).

ETA: similar results follow if you use the Rseq >= Rfreq stopping point.

FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THIS AND EXPLAIN WHY I AM WRONG, KLEINMAN

It’s up to you to prove your code is a valid computation. You claim it shows that the greater the number of selection conditions the faster the system evolves.

Kleinman, it is code -- it is its own proof. All you have to do is look at the code.

Or are you saying that you don't know programming, and need help understanding the code? If that is the case, I would be happy to explain it, but.... well, then why do you insist you know the internals of ev if you can't even read code?

Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model shows the exact opposite of what you claim and the empirical evidence substantiates it.

No, it does not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It would lose marks at university-entrance level in England because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution.

It didn’t take very long for the English Empire to evaporate after the irrational beliefs of Darwin took hold. Maybe it was just survival of the fittest.

 

[Shalamar]

Good thing then that Evolution doesn't really talk about Survival of the Fittest.