Annoying creationists

[neon]

Notice this gem from Kleinman:

Evolutionists need to learn how to attend to the details.

............?

 

[delphi_ote]

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.

 

[kjkent1]

1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."

What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?

Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome.

kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.

2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.

Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.

Just look in the mirror, Alan. You are here. This scientifically proves you are wrong, because if you were right, then no life would exist, unless you believe in magic.

But, magic is the antithesis of science. If you believe in magic, then you are cannot be a scientist. Your entire theory of existence is based on a belief that God creates life from nothing by application of will alone, and you believe this, despite all of your scientific formalism. Do you not see the contradiction?

3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.

Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.

Your saying that I discredit Schneider’s model doesn’t make it true. I recognize that Schneider’s model does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, where as you refuse to recognize similarly, because if you do, then you can’t continue to claim evolution mathematically impossible. Correct? Of course it is. You just won't admit it.

4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.

You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem?

Yes, that’s exactly what I think. I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.

I think that you have all of these grand educational and governmental credentials and that you cannot understand why your peers in the scientific community do not take you seriously when you claim that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Now think for just a few seconds about why it may be that your peers think you’re irrational.

Okay, do you see it yet? I just explained it above in this post, but let me do it once more so you don’t miss it.

You are a Ph.D, M.E., M.D. who believes that magic rules the universe, and moreover, you believe that science proves that magic rules the universe.

Once more: science – magic. Scientific peers – kleinman. kleinman thinks all the other scientists are nuts if they accept evolutionary findings as reasonable, because they don’t believe as kleinman does that magic rules the universe, and that God blew life into Adam from dust.

 

[Mercutio]

All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.

I hereby apologize for posting my "goalposts" poem--it seems he is using it as a plan.

 

[Taffer]

This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse)...

Kleinman, are you honestly claiming I do not know the difference between mutation and recombination? Do you even know what recombination is? I certainly do. Recombination, nor mutation, has nothing to do with anything in the example I gave. It deals with, solely, selection and allele frequencies. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

...but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.

And here we have it folks. Finally, at long last, kleinman has said something which is exactly what I've been trying to explain to him. Kleinman, it could be one selection pressure (maleria), two (different actions on dominant and recessive homozygotes), or fifty five. The number of selection pressures is arbitrary and unimportant. That is why your ideas are bunk. Lets go back to your example of multiple antiretroviral agents in the control of HIV. You claim there are multiple selection pressures. But the entire situation can be modeled using only a single selection pressure which is a sum of all individual selective pressures acting on an organism. What matters in evolution is not how many selection pressures are acting, but how strongly all of selection is acting as a whole.

This can be seen from the equation I gave. There is no function of the number of selective pressures, because it is not needed to model selection. All that is required is the initial frequency of p, and the selection coefficients. The selection coefficient is a description of the total viability of the organism when considering all selection pressures acting upon it. Kleinman, can you not see that your statement of "multiple selection pressures stopping evolution" is simply wrong? What matters is not how many selection pressures there are, but how strongly the organism is being selected against!

Oh, and before you say that it's the same thing, and strong selective pressures stop evolution too, it doesn't. It speeds up evolution. Try using any selection model equation from evolutionary population genetics and comparing large values of the selection coefficient to low values. You will find that larger selection coefficients lead to a faster ratio of alleles. This is evolution.

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup...

This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. This is abiogenesis. If you have a problem with abiogenesis, go argue that in an abiogenesis thread.

...and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated...

We don't know yet. Lack of knowledge is not evidence the theory is wrong, kleinman. That's why science works.

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo...

How many times do we need to explain you are using "de novo" wrongly. Also, how many times do we need to provide examples of "de novo" gene formation?

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds...

We don't know yet. Lack of knowledge is not evidence the theory is wrong, kleinman. That's why science works.

Also, please note, even if all of evolutionary theory is wrong, there is so much evidence that birds and reptiles shared a common ancestor that to deny such is akin to denying atomic theory.

...and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures.

Please read above to see why this question makes no sense. Strong selection coefficients lead to faster evolution. It doesn't matter how many selection pressures there are.

Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

There are gaps in our knowledge, kleinman, and in the theory of evolution. However, lack of knowledge does not mean the theory is wrong. This is why science works.

Feel free to answer the above questions on any thread you like.

I will only answer questions relating to evolutionary theory, not abiogenesis.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Lying Creationists

I've been having discussions, inspired by the thread, "Why are Darwinists afraid to debate us?" about what word to use for lying creationists.

My first choice was "perennial" as in "creationists are perennial liars." This has been misinterpreted to mean "annual."

My Living Websters defines perennial as "Lasting or continuing througout the year, as a spring or a stream; lasting for an indefinitely long time; enduring; perpetual; everlasting; bot. continuing more than two years.

I do like the sound of, "creationists are perpetual liars."

A friend suggested "inveterate" for which his dictionary lists:

meaning #2: (Latin in + to make old)
1. established a long time; deep-rooted, as an inveterate hatred.
2. habitual; confirmed in some fixed habit; as, an inveterate smoker.
Obsolete: hostile, bitter, spiteful.

Any other suggestions? Anyone personally know of a creationist who is not an inveterate, perennial, or perpetual liar?

 

[cyborg]

Kleinman lies by machine proxy - he is a proxy liar.

 

[Thabiguy]

Kleinman, I do feel that you are beyond help, but I will still explain your misconception in simple terms:

Adding an n-th selection pressure means that a creature that has all n traits that are selected for, simultaneously, is less likely to occur than a creature that only has n-1 traits. But it doesn't mean that the emergence of any individual trait will be slowed down.

A foreigner can get the American green card in various ways; some of them are for example marrying an American or making a big investment. Adding another way to get a green card - say by winning the green card lottery - does not make it any harder to get the green card by preexisting ways. The number of people that will marry an American and make a big investment and win the lottery will of course be much smaller than the (already small) number of people that will only marry an American and make a big investment, but it won't get any harder to get a green card by marrying an American or by making a big investment.

When you breed dogs and you select for blue eyes and curly hair, and then you decide to select also for a long tail, it means that dogs that have all three characteristics will be rarer than dogs that only have two, but it won't slow down the emergence of any individual characteristic in the population, as long as the characteristics are independent. If blue eyes make it X-times as likely that the dog will reproduce, then there will be X-times more dogs with blue eyes among the group of dogs that do get to reproduce - regardless of whether those are only dogs with long tails or dogs with any length of tail.

Of course, in your world, it is impossible for a dog breed to have more than two characteristics.

 

[I less than three logic]

You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?

I couldn't care less about your goalposts. Your 600 posts provide more than enough evidence to show you're completely inept at using logical debate and reasoning to sway opinions. I'm not entirely convinced you even understand what moving the goalposts means, and while I'm sure you could quote the definition from some source, the progression of this thread tends to show you don't actually comprehend the meaning of those words.

No, what I'm interested in should be much more simple for you. Publish these mathematics you continually claim you possess. You already have them, right? Just pretend to play a real scientist for a bit, work out the proofs for those mathematics, and publish them for peer review in a mathematical journal. Perhaps in something like the Journal of Mathematical Biology. See, simple.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Revengeful Creationists

I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.

This is an excellent hypothesis. I think Kleinman is google-bashing: hoping that people who search for "Schneider Ev" will come across Kleinman's laughable misuse of the Ev model.

I'd been wondering why Kleinman was so venal in his remarks here. It just doesn't seem very christian to me, what with all the turning the other cheek and so forth. A christian would go on a rampage of revenge, but not, as I've heard, true christian...

...but an emotionally disturbed relative of the great apes would.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Notice this gem from Kleinman:

Evolutionists need to learn how to attend to the details.

Ah a new name to shed some light, oops, some gifs on this slugfest, oops, ticklefest. Welcome to evolutionland where your fantasies do not come true, but you will learn something about the mathematics of mutation of selection.

Certainly not the concocted stories that you evolutionist write to obtain tenure in your departments of evolution. Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures. Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.

Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.

You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one:
******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

1. His conclusion that random point mutation and natural selection evolution is too slow to account for the myriad of life forms which currently exist, is likely true. However, as random point mutation is not the only mutational device by which evolution occurs in nature, kleinman's conclusion is largely irrelevant. His experimental range is far too narrow to draw any conclusion about the "impossibility of evolution."

What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?

Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome.

Anyone care for red herring with their string cheese?

kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.

Let’s start with the word “homologous”. You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?

2. His conclusion that multiple selection pressures slow evolution is ambiguous, because he has not quantified his conclusion to show that it is the only possible result. He has presented no affirmative evidence to support that any and/or all interactions of natural selection pressures must necessarily slow down the totality of the evolutionary process.

Simple enough kjkent1, give us an example that disproves this conclusion.

Just look in the mirror, Alan. You are here. This scientifically proves you are wrong, because if you were right, then no life would exist, unless you believe in magic.

So impeccably powerful logic, how could I have ever doubted the evolutionist world view? I doubt it because it is mathematically impossible.

But, magic is the antithesis of science. If you believe in magic, then you are cannot be a scientist. Your entire theory of existence is based on a belief that God creates life from nothing by application of will alone, and you believe this, despite all of your scientific formalism. Do you not see the contradiction?

You are the one who believes in magic, you believe that horizontal gene transfers magically occur.

3. He is not objective in his search for scientific truth, because he refuses to acknowledge the reasonable findings of others, and he generally refuses to investigate any obvious research paths that would not support his theistic belief system.

Really? I’m the one who accepted and acknowledge Dr Schneider’s model. It is you evolutionists who are refusing to acknowledge his reasonable findings. You now discredit his model because it shows that your theory is mathematically impossible.

Your saying that I discredit Schneider’s model doesn’t make it true. I recognize that Schneider’s model does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, where as you refuse to recognize similarly, because if you do, then you can’t continue to claim evolution mathematically impossible. Correct? Of course it is. You just won't admit it.

Of course ev doesn’t model the entire evolutionary landscape, but it does model the part where it shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process profoundly.

4. He seems addicted to using internet forums such as this one to support his theories -- likely the result of his not being taken seriously by his peers in the scientific community. Note, that this is my lay opinion, and it is not meant to be malicious. Many people (perhaps me, as well), use internet forums as an outlet to raise their self esteem, when they perceive that their opinions are not sufficiently credited in the "real" world.

You evolutionists draw stranger and stranger conclusions. Do you think reading the comments of mathematically challenged evolutionists call me liar is my way of raising my self esteem?

Yes, that’s exactly what I think. I think that Dr. Schneider disrespected you in his blog and you are trying to get back at him by constantly raging against him in this forum.

We all know how you think. You believe there are 10^500 alternative universes out there some place. Do you think I am raging at Dr Schneider when I say that he properly modeled the mathematics of mutation and selection? Evolutionists discredit the model now. They go so far to attribute the mathematics of the model to me. Are they raging against Dr Schneider?

I think that you have all of these grand educational and governmental credentials and that you cannot understand why your peers in the scientific community do not take you seriously when you claim that evolution is mathematically impossible.

I claim it is mathematically impossible based on the results of an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of mutation and selection and have presented half a dozen real examples of this mathematics. Give it a little time kjkent1; my peers in the scientific community will get the point.

Now think for just a few seconds about why it may be that your peers think you’re irrational.

It must be my refusal to believe that there 10^500 alternative universes.

You are a Ph.D, M.E., M.D. who believes that magic rules the universe, and moreover, you believe that science proves that magic rules the universe.

How dare you classify me into a group of people like Einstein, Newton, Pascal, …

Once more: science – magic. Scientific peers – kleinman. kleinman thinks all the other scientists are nuts if they accept evolutionary findings as reasonable, because they don’t believe as kleinman does that magic rules the universe, and that God blew life into Adam from dust.

They are nuts if they think that the theory of evolution is mathematically possible.

All he's asking to be convinced is a blow by blow account of every molecule in the history of life, guys. This is a reasonable request, and I'm sure he had exactly the same standards of evidence when his pastor told him how a magical guy in the sky made everything. It's not like building a time machine is all that demanding, especially when you consider the fact that it would certainly change this one creationist's mind. Once you collected all this data, there's no way he'd move the goal post and complain about the Big Bang theory.

I hereby apologize for posting my "goalposts" poem--it seems he is using it as a plan.

I love co-opting evolutionist ideas; it’s kind of like making junk art.

This is an example of recombination and selection, not mutation and selection (something you evolutionists commonly confuse)...

Kleinman, are you honestly claiming I do not know the difference between mutation and recombination? Do you even know what recombination is? I certainly do. Recombination, nor mutation, has nothing to do with anything in the example I gave. It deals with, solely, selection and allele frequencies. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

Considering this is a thread about the mathematics of mutation and selection and you presented an example of recombination of selection, I’m not so sure you understand the difference.

...but let’s see what you are trying to say. Let’s consider a real example of this phenomenon, sickle cell anemia where the heterozygote is more fit in a particular environment. The selection pressure is due to the malaria parasite. I believe that is a single selection pressure.

And here we have it folks. Finally, at long last, kleinman has said something which is exactly what I've been trying to explain to him. Kleinman, it could be one selection pressure (maleria), two (different actions on dominant and recessive homozygotes), or fifty five. The number of selection pressures is arbitrary and unimportant. That is why your ideas are bunk. Lets go back to your example of multiple antiretroviral agents in the control of HIV. You claim there are multiple selection pressures. But the entire situation can be modeled using only a single selection pressure which is a sum of all individual selective pressures acting on an organism. What matters in evolution is not how many selection pressures are acting, but how strongly all of selection is acting as a whole.

Here is where you confuse the mathematics of mutation and selection and the mathematics of recombination and selection. There are far fewer genes and alleles than there are loci in a genome where random mutations occur. The selection process for recombination works very quickly. A hemoglobin S gene can form by mutation and the beneficial affect of this allele in certain environments can quickly propagate through the population by recombination and selection and give the results you describe. However, combination therapy of HIV is an example of mutation and selection alone without recombination. The individual selection pressures from the combination therapy are discrete selection pressures that act and particular points on enzyme systems for the virus and can not simply be summed up. The selective advantage for hemoglobin S heterozygote in certain malaria endemic environments occurs because homozygote hemoglobin S have sickle cell disease, homozygote normal hemoglobin get malaria and heterozygote hemoglobin S get neither because of only slightly defective hemoglobin.

You have not shown a case where multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than a single selection pressure.

Adding an n-th selection pressure means that a creature that has all n traits that are selected for, simultaneously, is less likely to occur than a creature that only has n-1 traits. But it doesn't mean that the emergence of any individual trait will be slowed down.

Another evolutionist flocks to this thread yet fails to read the thread. What you say here is contradicted by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and selection and numerous real examples of this phenomena. Perhaps you advocate the return to monotherapy for the treatment of HIV?

You aren’t going to complain that I am moving the goalposts?

No, what I'm interested in should be much more simple for you. Publish these mathematics you continually claim you possess. You already have them, right? Just pretend to play a real scientist for a bit, work out the proofs for those mathematics, and publish them for peer review in a mathematical journal. Perhaps in something like the Journal of Mathematical Biology. See, simple.

What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review? Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications. These results already have important clinical medical implications for the treatment of infectious diseases. These results suggest that monotherapy should never be used for the treatment of bacteria like Gonorrhea, MRSA and pseudomonas as well as confirming the use of combination therapy for HIV and TB. Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation that shows mathematically how mutation and selection works. The model refutes the theory of evolution but does show important principles of mutation and selection that will affect the way medicine will be practiced.

This is an excellent hypothesis. I think Kleinman is google-bashing: hoping that people who search for "Schneider Ev" will come across Kleinman's laughable misuse of the Ev model.

I'd been wondering why Kleinman was so venal in his remarks here. It just doesn't seem very christian to me, what with all the turning the other cheek and so forth. A christian would go on a rampage of revenge, but not, as I've heard, true christian...

Pussy cat, I think you have a fur ball.

 

[I less than three logic]

What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review?

I don't have anything against the forum. Dr. A, joobz, and the others have done a fine job thus far in exposing your ideas as nonsense.

Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications.

So you claim. I'll look for your publications, but I sure won't be holding my breath. All evidence suggests you're only interested in playing pretend scientist on web forums than in actual scientific inquiry.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What is it with you evolutionists? What do you have against the James Randi Educational forum? Don’t you think joobequate and adebz can do a peer review?

I don't have anything against the forum. Dr. A, joobz, and the others have done a fine job thus far in exposing your ideas as nonsense.

Their analysis is the evolutionist version of gif and awe. How can anyone withstand such a withering attack? Well, I’ll be a tickle me elmo, see me dancing on the grave of the theory of evolution.

Don’t be so impatient. If what I am saying is true (which it is), it will make it into the other scientific and mathematical publications.

So you claim. I'll look for your publications, but I sure won't be holding my breath. All evidence suggests you're only interested in playing pretend scientist on web forums than in actual scientific inquiry.

Hey, everything I have said is mathematically testable. Why don’t you pretend to be a mathematician and test them?

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.

Sorry. I was busy finishing my M.S.

You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one: ... Multiple Selection Pressures...

Great! Since we've already done that, I'll stop working on my time machine, since you're obviously convinced.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Delphi, I am so glad you were able to organize your sock drawer. I was worried you had more than three different colors and we would never hear from you again.

Sorry. I was busy finishing my M.S.

Congratulations!

You don’t have to fill all your gaps in your theory, just fill this one, you know the one: ... Multiple Selection Pressures...

Great! Since we've already done that, I'll stop working on my time machine, since you're obviously convinced.

It was your Wikipedia reference to fitness landscape that convinced me. Since you are stopping your work on your time machine, you have time for your PhD thesis topic, “How multiple selection pressures accelerate evolution”. Perhaps you better go back to working on your time machine.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So kleinman's returned to his vomit.

 

[kjkent1]

What makes you think that all the real examples of mutation and selection that demonstrate the results from ev are limited to random point mutations?

Peer reviewed articles such as this:

Mobile DNA in Old World monkeys: a glimpse through the rhesus macaque genome.

Anyone care for red herring with their string cheese?

And, so you prove my point. If anyone presents peer-reviewed research challenging your hypothesis of existence, you immediately dismiss that research as nonsense.

In the kleinman world, only evidence which supports the Christian bible is true – all other evidence is false. That’s not science. Science takes the evidence as either proven or not and if the evidence doesn’t support the current theory, then the theory must change to fit the evidence.

Your refusal to deal with the evidence is immediately demonstrated again in your next statement, below:

kleinman, what scientific proof do you have to show that events such as fusions and horizontal gene transfer don’t markedly increase the speed of evolutionary change? Ev doesn’t model these events, so you can’t use its behavior to support your argument.

Let’s start with the word "homologous". You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?

Different "species" successfully crossbreed, despite their lack of homologous DNA. See Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees.

Furthermore, retroviral insertions, fusions, deletions, additions, etc, do not necessarily prevent a mutation from being conserved in future generations of the same species.

Chanting a talisman like "homologous" as a means of voiding peer-reviewed research, does not render that research null. The research exists whether or not it supports the Biblical story of creation, and if you choose to accept Genesis in preference to the research, then that means you’re not a scientist, because Genesis is an appeal to magic – not science.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Posting a gif or jpeg does not qualify as mathematical skills.

They do not. However, mathematical skills count as mathematical skills.

That’s right the effect of increasing population on generations for convergence is non-linear. With small populations the effect of increasing population is much, much greater on the generations of convergence than with increases of large population. Of course if you had run a few cases with ev you would know this.

I do in fact know this. I explained it to you. You were too stupid to understand the explanation.

Let me explain something to you. You are an innumerate halfwit. When you try to patronise me, you look like a complete buffoon. Of course, it is possible that this is your objective.

Poor adebz, the reason why it is not useful for cases with many possible solutions is seen if you read a little further.

No it isn't, this is a halfwitted lie.

We've read the article, we all know that you're lying.

We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process.

I never said any such thing. This is a halfwitted lie.

Why do you lie so much, kleinman?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Let’s start with the word "homologous". You do know what that word means? How do you propose these horizontal transfers occur?

Different "species" successfully crossbreed, despite their lack of homologous DNA. See Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees.

Furthermore, retroviral insertions, fusions, deletions, additions, etc, do not necessarily prevent a mutation from being conserved in future generations of the same species.

What part of these bizarre speculations convinces you that theory of evolution has any truth?

Chanting a talisman like "homologous" as a means of voiding peer-reviewed research, does not render that research null. The research exists whether or not it supports the Biblical story of creation, and if you choose to accept Genesis in preference to the research, then that means you’re not a scientist, because Genesis is an appeal to magic – not science.

Well, we can add something to your string cheese theory of evolution. You think that genetic material flows back and fourth between living things like the sloshing of the primordial soup. Nothing stops that flow, not homology, nothing stops that flow. Where did all those genes arise from anyway?

We all understand you amathematical logic, evolution is more rapid when you have no direction to the process.

I never said any such thing.

So get beyond your gif and awe strategy and show us how it works, silly adebz. Multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, ev shows this, numerous real examples show this. If you think mutation and selection works differently than this, prove it and stop being so silly.

 

[Thabiguy]

Another evolutionist flocks to this thread yet fails to read the thread. What you say here is contradicted by an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and selection and numerous real examples of this phenomena. Perhaps you advocate the return to monotherapy for the treatment of HIV?

No, it is not. It's just that you're too obtuse to comprehend it.

When using multiple drugs to combat an illness, resistance is less likely to occur, because 1) the population is dramatically reduced, and so the chance of a favorable mutation occurring are reduced, 2) the selection pressure is not for the occurence of any individual trait, but for their combination. Because developping individual drug resistance no longer ensures survival, its individual selection pressure is effectively lowered.

That's akin to trying to breed dogs by getting a rifle and shooting all wolves you can find, unless they happen to be white, making white wolves more prevalent - and then wondering why, if you instead shoot wolves unless they look like a poodle, white wolves do not evolve quite so readily. You might conclude that it's because multiple selection pressures slow down evolution, and everyone else will correctly conclude that you are an idiot who knows nothing about breeding dogs.

Multiple selection pressures in the real world don't work by killing organisms left and right unless they acquire several traits simultaneously (sometimes that happens and species usually respond to it by going extinct). Having better teeth is a survival advantage and increases fitness - there is a selection pressure. Another selection pressure is added when having better eyes is also a survival advantage and also increases fitness. It does not mean that not having better eyes suddenly makes everyone die. Nor does it mean that having better teeth no longer increases fitness unless the creature simultaneously has better eyes.

You fail to comprehend this because in your distorted world, using another drug is adding another selection pressure. You ignore the fact that it is, first and foremost, global reduction of the fitness of all organisms in the population and that it is not independent, as it reduces selection pressures on other traits by no longer making them a significant survival advantage. That is not the case for multiple selection pressures in the real world that are actually independent.