Now what are you whining about? I thought I was being more civil; after all, I could have called you evolutionists mathematically incompetent nutbags and I used to call kjkent1 lita’ gator which really annoyed him.
I suppose if you don't have evidence to back you up, you can always revert to the ad hominems and strawmen attacks. Gotta go with what is available to you, right?
Correct, I will continue to rehash the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and the empirical evidence which supports it, now if only you evolutionists had something to rehash besides your tired old speculations and gross extrapolations.
You need to provide math that proves it first. You haven't gotten around to that yet.
If you have trouble finding his email address, I’ll provide it to you, after all, I discussed Dr Schneider’s model with him for several months via email before going public. I think you are going to find it difficult to get him to discuss his model publicly anymore.
Sure, let's see if you have a different one than I do.
Both rocketdodger and Adequate have proven to be complete incompetents in the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Adequate has show some intelligence by withdrawing from this thread because all he was able to do was show that he was ignorant and self contradictory, rocketdodger continues to be sophomoric. If you want to believe that the greater the number of selection pressures the faster the evolutionary process proceeds, remember this, it is this type of irrational and illogical evolutionist thinking that contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to mutation and selection.
Baseless speculation. Please provide evidence.
Not only is it a mathematical fact demonstrated by ev but it is also an empirical fact demonstrated by hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection I have already posted but will continue to post. You mathematically incompetent evolutionists have demonstrated nothing other than you have no idea how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You have an excuse, you are not a mathematician. People like Adequate who claim to be mathematicians have no excuse. Adequate’s stupid and contradictory assertions about how mutation and selection works set a Guinness record for stupidity.
Baseless speculation. Please provide evidence.
Get your facts straight Mister Earl. It is Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model, not mine and rocketdodger has shown nothing from his model other than assertions. Rocketdodger has presented no data from his model and no empirical examples which demonstrate his irrational and illogical claims.
Dr. Schneider's model also says it doesn't factor in a large number of parameters that would be required to simulate biological evolution. Of course, this makes your model look bad, so you ignore this part and try to distract us with pithy insults and strawmen.
Why don’t you run a case with 3 billion sticks and see how long it takes to accomplish anything. You evolutionists like to take these trivial sorting/optimization algorithms and say this is the mathematical proof for your theory. This is what happens when you make irrational and illogical extrapolations. Oh, ev allows for varying populations, multiple and varying selection pressures, variable mutation rates and so on and it shows that the number of selection pressures dominates the mathematics of this process.
Yet you ignore the part where it says in the study that population sizes weren't used, along with a large number of other parameters. You ignore this part, because cherry-picking data demands you ignore it.
You evolutionists besides being mathematically incompetent are a collection of whining crybabies. The mathematical proof I have is from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and I have posted (and will continue to post) hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates exactly what ev is showing, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
No, your interpretation proves it. In order to use your interpretation, we'd have to ignore the rest of the paper stating it didn't use a large number of parameters that would be required to simulate biological evolution.
If your framsticks algorithm properly models the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, do the parametric study of varying the number of sticks, selection conditions, mutation rate and so on and see what the effects of varying these parameters are. In the meantime, I’ll continue to post the results of Dr Schneider’s model which was based on real biological data.
I've already done so, as noted in my previous post. The stronger the selection pressures I use, the faster I get higher fitness values. If I keep them high and don't vary them, like in your "model", then I still get a higher fitness value than when I use one selection pressure. If I vary them during the course of the simulation, as would be expected during realistic conditions, then I get even higher fitness values.
I have asked him and he said he was busy with other things but that was more than a year ago.
It's all good. I'll contact him and see what he has to offer, if anything.
Maybe if you fed him a bit more he wouldn’t see you as a food source.
Just like you, Kleinman. Making observations and declaring it fact when you don't have enough data available to you. He bites with the intention of getting my intention, not for consuming human flesh. He does the same when he wants a bath. He flies to the sink, and yaps until I open the tap for him.
You don’t even agree with the data that ev produces. Until you evolutionists comprehend that the more complex the selection conditions are, the much, much slower the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process proceeds, we will never be in agreement on this topic. I have mathematical and empirical evidence of my claim and you have 10^500 alternative universes.
Slight correction. I don't agree with your interpretation of your results. The point where we differ is where I note that the paper itself says that EV isn't a good model for evolution, because for THAT PAPER, it didn't use a large number of variables that would be needed to simulate biological evolution. You ignore this part and all contradicting evidence. You always will, and I accept that. I'll sit here and watch like I have been doing, in the likely-vain hope that you'll see the flaws in your theory and decide to either patch them up, or do other testing to account for that.
