Annoying creationists

[Shalamar]

I had a thought. Imagine of People who practiced Medicine, Doctors, treated patients the same way that creationists did science?

A patient would come in, and say he wasn't felling ill. The Doctor would immediately announce that the illness was 'X', and then would look for any symptoms that would confirm his limited 'diagnosis' while ignoring any symptoms that didn't point to declared illness. If the patient didn't get better, the doctor would say it was the patients fault for not believing him. And the patient may well die of a different illness, because the doctor would not diagnose AFTER looking at the symptoms.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It appears you evolutionists still haven’t figured out how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works either mathematically or empirically. You evolutionists fantasize that the small evolutionary changes due to identifiable selection conditions targeted at specific genes can be extrapolated to imaginary selection pressures targeting entire genomes such that lizards turn into birds. This is a mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical extrapolation that you evolutionists like to call science. It is clear that when you have identifiable selection pressures which target specific genes, the greater the number of selection conditions and corresponding genes targeted, the much, much, much slower the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. These real examples of mutation and selection don’t create new genes with new functions, these examples show that modification of genes and their corresponding enzymes by mutation and selection only change the conformation of enzymes so that the chemicals targeting them no longer bind to interfere with the enzymes.

Now you evolutionists irrationally speculate that mutation and selection will create thousands of genes with new functions when it has shown both mathematically and empirically that transforming the conformation of two or three genes and their corresponding enzymes to a new conformation (but still with the same function) due to two or three different selection pressures is profoundly slowed when compared to the evolution of a single gene and enzyme to a single targeted selection pressure. None of you evolutionists are willing to describe how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process will evolve a gene de novo. It wouldn’t have anything to do with you have no idea how such a thing could happen?

Now don’t get confused with cpu time and number of generations necessary to accomplish a mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. For example, running Dr Schneider’s model on a computer with a clock rate of 1GHz would take twice as much cpu time as a different computer with a clock rate of 2GHz. However, the number of generations to run Dr Schneider’s sorting/optimization algorithm to converge this case on either computer would be the same. Even Dr Schneider’s simple selection conditions take huge number of generations to do the sort/optimization when the search space is 4^17,000. I think the largest genome Paul has been able to converge in ev with the three selection conditions is only about G=100,000. This is still a factor of 5 smaller than the smallest genome for any free living creature. On the other hand, it takes a trivially small number of generations to sort and optimize any single selection condition in Dr Schneider’s model. So when we talk about generation time, it can be minutes for microbes and weeks, months or years for animals. Take the example of the evolutionist claim that lizards evolved into birds. What do you want to use for the generation time, 6 months, a year? How many years to you want for the transformation, 500,000,000 million? So you claim that a gigabase lizard genome is transformed into a gigabase bird genome in 500,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 generations? All those new genes to produce feathers, beaks, gizzards evolving de novo yet you have no selection pressures that would do this and the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is far to slow to do this when it is clearly seen mathematically and empirically that transform existing genes to adapt to multiple selection pressures is profoundly slow and in these cases, new function is not being evolved. Oh wait, you evolutionists claim that evolution occurs in parallel. One lizard population is evolving beaks, another lizard population is evolving feathers and a third lizard population is evolving gizzards and then all these populations get together to make a bird. Those lizards are an intelligent lot.

Well, you evolutionists think your fossil Rorschach tests override the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Post your fossil Rorschach tests and tell us what your imagination shows us. In the meantime, I’ll continue to post the real, measurable and repeatable evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and it works just like Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model works and that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Here are a few more examples.
http://newsarchive.asm.org/jan01/feature3.asp

Conceptually, a combination treatment regimen containing two or more drugs of different classes should require at least two resistance mutations for the pathogen to grow. Because the simultaneous development of two such mutations could be expected only in a bacterial population of much greater size than is normally present within any individual, combination therapy with two distinct antibiotic types provides a way to reduce mutant selection using moderate concentrations of compounds that may individually have very high MPCs.

The best examples of combination therapy are found with tuberculosis. Because the standard agents used for treating patients with this disease cannot be dosed at concentrations that exceed the respective MPCs of these drugs, resistance readily arises when any of the agents is used in monotherapy. Dual-drug and often multidrug therapies thus are used routinely to reduce the number of treatment failures. Currently cases of drug resistance developing among tuberculosis patients are generally associated with the failure of patients to comply fully with therapy regimens. In effect, sporadic compliance creates the equivalent of repeated monotherapy punctuated by periods of bacterial population expansion. To assure patient compliance, a major effort has been placed on directly observed therapy (DOT), which significantly lowers the incidence of resistance-associated treatment failure.

http://www.3dgenoscience.com/molecular_modeling/halfon_aucopy2.pdf

Development of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-resistant strains following nucleos(t)ide analogue treatment is a major concern. The A181V mutation within the reverse transcriptase (RT) of HBV has been shown to be associated with HBV resistance to adefovir dipivoxil (ADV), and its level of sensitivity to other nucleos(t)ide analogues is an important issue. This article reports two cases of chronically HBV infected patients who developed rtA181V HBV mutants following lamivudine (LAM) monotherapy. This was subsequently associated with virological breakthrough under LAM monotherapy or LAM/ADV bi-therapy, which were rescued by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment. These observations suggest that rtA181V mutation may unusually emerge under LAM monotherapy, and may be associated with cross resistance to LAM and ADV, but remains sensitive to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Moreover, they highlight that HBV sequence analysis is an essential tool to optimize therapeutic management of HBV chronic infection in clinical practice in order to choose the appropriate nucleos(t)ide analogues.

These examples once again demonstrate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. The greater the number of selection pressures, the much, much slower the evolutionary process proceeds, much too slow for common descent to be mathematically possible (that is if you had the selection conditions which would accomplish such a process and you don’t). It is this gross misinterpretation of the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process which evolutionists assert and teach which contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the principles of the mutation and selection phenomenon.

 

[articulett]

Yep... they have the "truth" they want... and they just jam facts, words, semantics, math, whatever can fit inside and ignore all the good filler like EVIDENCE.

They'd rather believe that have the truth than find out they've been wrong.

 

[Cardelitre]

I really think this man is insane.

And I'm beginning to think this is not even a man. It really looks like an out of control internet bot experiment... Not the slightest answer to any specific question, ever. Repeated mantra with few variations but not significantly different, with a selection of random quotes most of the time irrelevant and often clearly in support of evolution mecanisms.

No living man, even deeply insane, would be able to produce this crazy thing for so long. I just can't accept this idea.

 

[Shalamar]

Nah. Not a bit, Mr. Kleinman has made a point to mention the speed of the computer.

But, he still fails remedial science. If this is what medical schools are putting out, I fear for our health.

 

[Shalamar]

I also want to know where anywhere at alkl, Evolution says 'lizards turned into buzzards with gizzards'. Because of the Theory of Evolution says this anywhere, then Mr. Kleinman is lying.

But Mr. Kleinman lying is normal around here.

 

[joobz]

I'm still hoping for a repeat explanation on how proof of a newly evolved enzyme with wholly new function doesn't prove evolution.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You evolutionists seem to be having a little problem understanding how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So let me answer a few questions for you. First of all, blizzards don’t turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards, neither does hail turn fish with scales into snails with mail nor does fog turn logs into frogs in bogs. And unless the primordial soup was alphabet soup, you don’t get life spontaneously popping up just because the sun is shining on it. However, you can make sun tea.

So, how does the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process work in nature? It works exactly like Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model works. Combination selection conditions profoundly slow the sorting/optimization process. Can we find a real example of what Dr Schneider’s model shows? Let’s take a look.

Why yes indeed, we can find a real example which demonstrates that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Here’s one specifically for you evolutionists.

These reduced-risk insecticides offer a wide range of pest management options available to vegetable growers and should be used wisely or in rotation with one another to minimize selection for resistance to any one given material.

http://www.malariajournal.com/content/6/1/9

Combination therapy would also be advantageous if the required set of mutations was initially absent in the population, so that selection could not start to act.

I apologize, I said I was going to present one citation for you evolutionists but I inadvertently presented two. Will you forgive me and show us one of you fossil Rorschach tests instead? Or perhaps you would tell us how a gene evolves de novo by mutation and selection? Or perhaps one of you evolutionists could tell us how selection would transform inorganic chemicals into living creatures? Oh, wait, you did answer that one; you said chemicals cooperate; all they need is free energy.

 

[coops]

Can you give a yes or no answer to my question Kleinman?

I gave a summary of my understanding of your position. Can you respond by simply stating either -
a) yes, your summary is correct.
b) no, your summary is incorrect.

If the answer is b then please feel free to correct my statement accordingly.

Your above duplicate post really doesnt make it clear to me where you specifically draw the line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

And yet again, another bump for Kleinman.

Your last post seemed to indicate that my summary was correct but you seem determined not to answer me directly.

Why is that Kleinman? Why are you refusing to give a definate answer to a specific question?

 

[joobz]

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

So you won't make up any new stupid statements, but repeat the same old stupid statements?
Oh well.

 

[coops]

double post

 

[Shalamar]

You evolutionists seem to be having a little problem understanding how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. So let me answer a few questions for you. First of all, blizzards don’t turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards, neither does hail turn fish with scales into snails with mail nor does fog turn logs into frogs in bogs. And unless the primordial soup was alphabet soup, you don’t get life spontaneously popping up just because the sun is shining on it. However, you can make sun tea.

Ok. Mr. Kleinman has gone stark raving mad.

Kleinman.. do you seriously think that this is what The Theory of Evolution, a well established aspect of science SAYS? If so, you are among the most ill educated, and overtly indoctrinated people I know.

Also. to repeat, even though I know you will ignore it, the Theory of Evolution SAYS NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING about the creation of life! THAT is called abiogensis.


For the love of god, open up a frakking biology textbook, and READ.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

In answer to your question; none of you evolutionists have properly summarized my statements. What I am showing you is how the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. The ability of a population to evolve to more than a single selection condition targeting a single gene is markedly impaired. This is a mathematical and empirical fact of life. Selection conditions that target an entire genome have a huge search space fitness landscape (4^G) in order to traverse to a new local optimum. The path this population must take must always be of increasing fitness. There are no selection conditions or mathematically plausible way for a population to make such a huge transformation. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is simply far to slow and the selection conditions do not exist. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

Now did I say something stupid such as chemicals cooperate to make life spontaneously occur or that variation in weather cause blizzards to transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards?

What I have been saying is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. If you evolutionists understood this mathematical and empirical fact, HIV would not have been treated using monotherapy for years introducing huge numbers of resistant viruses into the gene pool. Let’s see if we can find a citation which shows this. Oh yes, here is one.
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/350/10/1023?ck=nck

The use of combinations of antiretroviral drugs has proven remarkably effective in controlling the progression of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and prolonging survival, 1 but these benefits can be compromised by the development of drug resistance. 2,3 Resistance is the consequence of mutations that emerge in the viral proteins targeted by antiretroviral agents. In the United States, as many as 50 percent of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy are infected with viruses that express resistance to at least one of the available antiretroviral drugs. 4 Consequently, the transmission of drug-resistant strains is also a growing concern. 5,6,7

The failure of evolutionists to properly elucidate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works has and will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, this includes people suffering from HIV. Despite the fact that Edward Tatum pointed out in his 1958 Nobel laureate speech how mutation and selection actually works, evolutionists are still in denial of how this phenomenon behaves either mathematically or empirically.

 

[Shalamar]

What I am showing you is how the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works.

You have NEVER shown the math you claim to have.

Show your math. Put up, or shut up.

The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible.

Show your evidence for this. Which you have never shown.

Now did I say something stupid such as chemicals cooperate to make life spontaneously occur or that variation in weather cause blizzards to transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards?

The first statement has nothing to do with Evolution. A fact which eludes your deluded mind. The second is the raving of a religiously indoctrinated idiot.

 

[coops]

In answer to your question; none of you evolutionists have properly summarized my statements. SIZE]

THANKYOU!!

Seriously, thankyou Kleinman for finally answering my question.

So if my summary was wrong could you please answer my original question to correct me.

Q - At what EXACT point does micro evolution become macro evolution and hence becomes impossible.

No need for a multiple paragraph answer Kleinman. One or two concise sentences should be able to summarise your answer without to much trouble.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

An evolutionist wants a concise statement. That’s hilarious. When was the last time an evolutionist made a concise statement? So let’s see if we can bracket the value when a microevolutionary process becomes a macroevolutionary process. In the human genome there are about 20,000 genes. So in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for humans, there are somewhere between 1 and 20,000 genes which have to be sorted and optimized. Do any of you evolutionists want to make a concise estimate for the number of genes which can evolve simultaneously by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process before a microevolutionary process becomes a macroevolutionary process?

While you are thinking about that, here is a citation which talks about how many genes can evolve simultaneously in the malaria parasite.
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/07/20/000016406_20050720164750/Rendered/INDEX/wps3670.txt

This study finds that a subsidy to ACTs is likely to slow the rate of emergence of resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs, even if such a subsidy were to increase the use of ACTs significantly. This conclusion is robust to alternative assumptions regarding the responsiveness of demand to the lower price for ACTs and a wide range of epidemiological and economic parameters. However, the simulation results show that a subsidy for two or more ACT combinations is likely to be much more cost-effective than a subsidy to a single ACT. The only consideration is that the drugs used as partners to artemisinin be unrelated to each other and to artemisinin in mechanism of action and in genetic bases of resistance, so that a single mutation cannot encode resistance to both components. Such a subsidy program for ACTs, administered globally, that reduces reliance on any single combination, and discourages monotherapy, not only of artemisinin but of any effective antimalarial that could potentially be used as partner drug with artemisinin, is likely to be effective (and cost-effective) both in buying time for ACTs and in saving lives.

These authors seem to think that targeting two genes with two different selection pressures will profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and that it will save lives. I wonder what would happen if three genes were targeted simultaneously?

 

[joobz]

An evolutionist wants a concise statement. That’s hilarious. When was the last time an evolutionist made a concise statement? So let’s see if we can bracket the value when a microevolutionary process becomes a macroevolutionary process. In the human genome there are about 20,000 genes. So in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process for humans, there are somewhere between 1 and 20,000 genes which have to be sorted and optimized. Do any of you evolutionists want to make a concise estimate for the number of genes which can evolve simultaneously by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process before a microevolutionary process becomes a macroevolutionary process?

And you know full well that evolution doesn't claim the formation of 20,000 gene simultaneously.

 

[coops]

Do any of you evolutionists want to make a concise estimate for the number of genes which can evolve simultaneously by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process before a microevolutionary process becomes a macroevolutionary process?SIZE]

I see you repeated my question but you didn't answer it Kleinman.

If you have no intention of answering a direct question I would prefer it if you just admitted it to me.

So what is YOUR opinion on the above question Kleinman?

Where do YOU draw the line EXACTLY between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

 

[X]

He's starting to sound like Dr. Seuss.

In the end, however, it all seems like much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[m_huber]

Well, you evolutionists think your fossil Rorschach tests override the mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Post your fossil Rorschach tests and tell us what your imagination shows us.

As you wish.

But first, a Rorschach test:



I think it kind of looks like a cat. Understand what a Rorschach test is:

In the strictest sense, the Rorschach Inkblot Test is a test or assessment of perception. It is designed to evaluate how someone approaches their environment, In other words, it asks the question, "How does someone view and organize the world around them?"

Through analyzing what someone sees, where they see it, and what about the blot makes what they saw look like whatever they saw, the psychologist is able to make various hypotheses about how that person views and organizes the world. Furthermore, the psychologist can compare the person's perceptions to a clinical or normative sample. From this analysis, the psychologist then makes inferences about the person's approach to the world (which is largely stable and described often as character or personality), insofar as, one's feelings, thoughts, stress tolerance, relationships, and self-perception shapes and influences how that person views and organizes their world.

(Source)

So, this test takes an abstract image and asks how someone makes it concrete. What about fossils? What are they? Do they qualify as Rorschach tests? Well, no. Fossils are not abstract images. If you think that they are, then you probably haven't seen many fossils. An example:


(Source)

Can you guess what that is? Does it look something like this:

(Source)

While fossils are not always so clear cut or complete as this shrimp, there is always a coherent argument for what various fossils represent. For instance, whale fossils are often identified by the tooth structure (which is unique amongst whales) and the inner ear structure (which is also unique). Because of this, only a small portion of the skull is needed for positive whale identification. Further, by analyzing the types of sediments around a fossil, we can learn about the type of environment the organism lived in. Sometimes, we don't even get a hard part:

(Source)

This is still considered a fossil, as it is completely enclosed in the rock. These are footprints, very similar to bird footprints found in mud on beaches, streams, or after a heavy rainstorm.

None of this says anything about evolution. All I have demonstrated is that fossils are not Rorschach tests. They can be definitely tied to very tangible organisms that are still alive today. A fossil bird is no more a Rorschach test than a modern bird.

When fossils start to tell us about evolution is when we find the organisms that cannot be tied to anything modern.



This fossil, named Hallucigenia, bears no resemblance to any modern living thing that we know of. There are not many fossils of it, but what we have is preserved well enough to show that this organism does not have anything that we can recognize as either a mouth or an anus.

This is only one example of an organism that is known from fossils but not from modern observation. There are tens of thousands of clear examples. The question, then, is, "where did they go?"

If fossils are in fact the preserved remains of once-living organisms, as they have every indication of being, then one is left to conclude that the majority of the life that has inhabited Earth has gone extinct. Without going further into what is observed in and around fossils, we can begin to ask significant questions. Did all of these organisms inhabit the Earth at the same time? Could all of these organisms coexist? What made some of these organisms go extinct, while others survived?

When we find fossils, we find them in clusters. Each cluster consists of a set of fossils that are always found together in the rocks. This proved to be consistent enough that, well before Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species", was used to make geologic maps of much of Europe and subsequently codified into the geologic time scale. This answers the first and second question: The organisms did not overlap in time because we never find fossils in the wrong cluster. Trilobites, for example, are not ever found after the Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary.

So what made them go extinct? We have found numerous mechanisms that cause extinction. Major impacts (represented by a strong body of evidence for both the impactor and the fallout from the impact; we can discuss this further if you like), possibly plate convergence in the example of the P-T Boundary, and possibly major volcanic eruptions have been associated with the major extinctions in the geologic record. However, these are recognized as major extinctions against a "background" extinction level.

This can be displayed graphically:
(Source)
(Notice the large "End P" spike)

There has been a near-continual extinction level (represented by the yellow line). The curious thing is that there are always organisms that replace those that go extinct. These are not limited to a handful of organisms, but instead are represented by organisms that range from large and exciting (like the dinosaurs and mammoths) to various marine worms.

Where do these organisms come from? Late 1800's theologians proposed that God had destroyed the Earth and rebuilt it numerous times, and the great Deluge of Noah was only the most recent event. However, the continual background extinction level and strong correlation of major extinction events to discernible major geologic upheavals strongly suggests that, in fact, the history of life is a continuum. The fossils seem to represent (even in the absence of "transitional forms" or well-defined evolutionary progression within a single species) the development of life. This happens in 3 basic stages: 1) extinction; 2) diversification and radiation of remaining organisms; 3) establishment of species and subsequent stasis until the next extinction event.

This argument is built on the basis of tangible evidence. Anyone can look at rocks and make interpretations about them, but through the three hundred years of detailed analysis, the geologic community has come to this consensus. There is much still debated in paleontological circles; what is not debated is the information I just presented.

Mathematics is a useful tool for understanding the world. It has shown us how the planets move, has been used to build impressive buildings, and generally has allowed our modern world to exist. However, mathematics must be viewed only within the realm that it effects. Newton's theory of Gravity does not say that things fall; rather, it says that a certain attraction exists between all bodies. So it is no surprise that things "float" in space. Similarly, the modern theory of Evolution says that organisms change; it is not particularly surprising or difficult that targeted drug therapy can eliminate viruses in a human body.