• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annoying Creationists

Once again evolutionists assume that I don’t believe that evolution occurs. Once again I state that microevolution occurs but there is no mechanism that takes these microevolutionary processes and combines them to achieve macroevolutionary changes. If you want an example of what a macroevolutionary change, it would be a blizzard transforming lizards into buzzards with gizzards. Certainly genes evolve but it is an irrational and illogical extrapolation to say that lizards can be transformed into buzzards by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Mutation and selection does not work that way. It is a mathematical and empirical impossibility.

It has been a while since I asked you evolutionists this question and so far none have answered it. Tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo and describe the process to us.
 
Once again evolutionists assume that I don’t believe that evolution occurs. Once again I state that microevolution occurs but there is no mechanism that takes these microevolutionary processes and combines them to achieve macroevolutionary changes. SIZE]


So Kleinman, can you please explain at what SPECIFIC point micro evolution turns into macro evolution and hence becomes impossible.

If you could give a scientific definition that we could test that would be super.

Just a hint, 'lizards into buzzards with gizzards' is not generally considered a scientific definition.
 
Annoying Creationists

I guess we have another evolutionist who is not going to tell us how a gene evolves de novo. You can’t explain how genes initially appear, you can’t explain how life arose from inorganic molecules and you don’t understand how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, yet you claim your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is true. Why don’t you post some more of your fossil Rorschach tests?

Evolutionists take the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and claim that all life evolved by this mechanism. I have and will continue to show both mathematically and empirically that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can only evolve a tiny number of selection conditions targeting only a tiny number of genes simultaneously. Once you have more than two or three genes evolving simultaneously, the trajectory on the fitness landscape becomes extremely difficult for any population to traverse to the multiple local optima simultaneously. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. The concept that thousands of genes can evolve simultaneously by this process is mathematically and empirically impossible. This is shown mathematically with Dr Schneider’s ev computer model and here are more citations which show this empirically.
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2007/042007/systems_biology.shtml
Drug Combo Targets Resistant Bugs said:
Combining two different antibiotics has long been used as a way to prevent resistance.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/163/4/1237.pdf
Experimental Prediction of the Natural Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance said:
In addition to predicting the ways in which specific enzymes can evolve the ability to confer resistance to different antibiotics, pharmaceutical companies could also use this method to test the effectiveness of using different antibiotic combinations to inhibit the evolution of resistance. For example, while it is clear that selection for resistance to cefepime indirectly selects TEM alleles that confer high levels of resistance to aztreonam and ceftazadime, it is possible that the TEM enzymes are not capable of conferring high levels of resistance to cefepime and cefotaxime at the same time. Combination of those two antibiotics may increase the time required for resistance to those antibiotics to evolve.
The failure of evolutionists to comprehend and properly teach the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.
 
So Kleinman, can you please explain at what SPECIFIC point micro evolution turns into macro evolution and hence becomes impossible.

If you could give a scientific definition that we could test that would be super.

Just a hint, 'lizards into buzzards with gizzards' is not generally considered a scientific definition.

Bump for Kleinman, i think you must have forgotten to answer my simple question in your last post.
 
Kleinman said:
Once you have more than two or three genes evolving simultaneously, the trajectory on the fitness landscape becomes extremely difficult for any population to traverse to the multiple local optima simultaneously.
Then that would pretty much do it for microevolution, too. So you don't actually believe in any kind of evolution. Unless perhaps you believe in the microevolution of nongenes.

~~ Paul
 
Annoying Creationists

I’m not sure if you evolutionists are unable to comprehend this because of your biases or you simply don’t pay attention. Microevolutionary processes do occur. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process can transform a single gene fairly easily when a population is subjected to a single targeted selection pressure. Once you add additional simultaneous selection pressures, the sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. This is why combination therapy is effective for HIV, TB, HBV, HCV, cancer, weeds… So the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process otherwise is an extremely slow process for doing any kind of genetic transformation, far too slow to make common descent a mathematical possibility (in addition, you don’t have the selection conditions which would explain common descent). On the other hand, the recombination and selection microevolutionary process is a very rapid mechanism for transformation of a population. We see this in the large number of breeds of dogs, cats, cattle, horses,… You can obtain striking differences in the morphology of members of a population but genetically, dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats,…

The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is a very limited process. This is demonstrated by Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published ev model which show the combination selection pressures profoundly slow the sorting/optimization process and real measurable and repeatable examples of mutation and selection show the same thing. Here are more empirical examples which demonstrate how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ArtikelNr=95155&ProduktNr=224031
Evolution of Hepatitis C Virus Quasispecies during Ribavirin and Interferon-Alpha-2b Combination Therapy and Interferon-Alpha-2b Monotherapy said:
Objective: Ribavirin and interferon combination therapy is more effective than interferon monotherapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. To test the hypothesis that ribavirin induces nucleotide substitutions in the viral genome and reduces viral load by forcing it into error catastrophe in the combination therapy, we investigated the molecular evolution of HCV quasispecies in 3 patients who received combination therapy and 2 patients who received interferon monotherapy. Methods: The quasispecies were analyzed before and after therapy by sequencing at least 8 clones in five regions of the HCV genome; 5' untranslated region, EI, E2, NS5A and NS5B. Results: Marked genetic drift was observed in the NS5A and NS5B regions in patients treated with combination therapy. However, genetic distances between clones obtained after therapy were closer than those obtained before therapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the combination therapy modified HCV quasispecies, but that this did not reflect the induction of error catastrophe by ribavirin. Modification of quasispecies by this therapy requires further investigation in a larger number of patients to elucidate the possible mechanism of viral resistance against the combination therapy.
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/43/1/208.pdf
How Evolution of Mutations Conferring Drug Resistance Affects Viral Dynamics and Clinical Outcomes of Cytomegalovirus-Infected Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients said:
The clinical settings in which combination anti-CMV therapy should be used remain to be established. The observation of attenuated growth in viruses with resistant genotypes (such as the T838A and D588N pol mutations seen here) may help to explain the reported superior clinical efficacy of combination therapy compared with single-agent anti-CMV therapy (21), even when one of the agents appears to have lost its activity against CMV (29). Maintaining therapy with the drug to which resistance has developed could be beneficial if the drug selects for growth-impaired genotypes.
Perhaps in the evolutionist fantasy world, combination selection pressures evolve thousands of genes simultaneously but in Dr Schneider’s mathematical model it doesn’t work that way and in the measurable real world, it doesn’t work that way. The theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible and the failure of evolutionists to properly describe and teach how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process.
 
So Kleinman, can you please explain at what SPECIFIC point micro evolution turns into macro evolution and hence becomes impossible.

If you could give a scientific definition that we could test that would be super.

Just a hint, 'lizards into buzzards with gizzards' is not generally considered a scientific definition.

Bumped again for Kleinman.

You should probably be able to answer this question within 2 sentences max i would imagine.

It should be a lot faster for you to answer this simple question than your continued evasion of it.
 
I’m not sure if you creationists are unable to comprehend this because of your biases or you simply don’t pay attention.

Looks like both for Creationists. Remember the mantra for creationism: State that Evolution is false. THEN try to find any straw men you can grasp to that you can lie about evolution being false.

Remember folks, Mr. Klienman says that biology, geology, and astronomy are false!
 
I’m not sure if you creationists are unable to comprehend this because of your biases or you simply don’t pay attention.

Looks like both for Creationists. Remember the mantra for creationism: State that Evolution is false. THEN try to find any straw men you can grasp to that you can lie about evolution being false.

Remember folks, Mr. Klienman says that biology, geology, and astronomy are false!

And he believes he has the equation that proves it.


Jesus, however is true. No math needed per Kleinman.
 
Annoying Creationists

If you evolutionists didn’t have so much difficulty with the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you would realize that microevolution never becomes macroevolution. You don’t have the selection conditions that would transform lizards into birds and if you did, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is far too slow. The reason why the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is so slow is that combination selection pressures interfere with each other as the population tries to find a trajectory on the fitness landscape to these multiple optima. Now if you evolutionists think that multiple selection conditions evolve more quickly than single selection conditions, present the mathematics and empirical examples to prove it. On the other hand, I have and will continue to present hundreds of citations which show that multiple selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by mutation and selection. Here are a few more examples.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/424503_6
Effective Regimens for Experienced Patients said:
While we await the results of studies that will help define the best time to alter therapy, the guiding principle for selecting a new combination remains to switch as many drugs as possible, preferably including new drugs from two or more different classes of agents. Dr. Lawrence illustrated this point by discussing ACTG 364, a rollover study for patients who participated in ACTG 175 (the study that compared zidovudine monotherapy versus ddI monotherapy and ZDV + ddI and ZDV + ddC) then received a second nucleoside RTI regimen in ACTG 302/303 (a rollover study of ACTG 175)[12]. Thus, patients in ACTG 364 had experience with at least two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, but were NNRTI and PI naive. Patients were assigned to efavirenz (600 mg qd), nelfinavir (750 mg q8h), or a combination of the two drugs, in combination with two nucleoside RTIs (ideally those ones that the patient had not experienced). After 24 weeks of study, a greater proportion of patients on the four drug combination had viral loads less than 500 copies/mL than patients receiving triple therapy with either efavirenz or nelfinavir.
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_04_190207/sas10773_fm.html
Why do we not yet have combination chemotherapy for chronic hepatitis B? said:
Despite the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and previous success with combination therapy for other chronic viral infections, we are still using sequential monotherapy for chronic HBV infection.
and
Why do we not yet have combination chemotherapy for chronic hepatitis B? said:
Studies of combination therapy to date have used traditional endpoints — short-term reduction of HBV DNA levels and HBeAg seroconversion — rather than evolution of resistance.
and
Why do we not yet have combination chemotherapy for chronic hepatitis B? said:
There is now an emerging body of data suggesting that combination therapy can decrease antiviral resistance in HBV infection, the endpoint likely to be of greatest long-term importance, and, rather than adding or replacing an antiviral agent after resistance develops, it is likely to be more effective in treatment-naïve patients.
You evolutionists have plenty of irrational and illogical speculations and extrapolations to support you nonsensical theory, now where are your empirical examples? You evolutionists continue to teach your irrational nonsense of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works and this contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection process.
 
Have any evidence for your claims, Mr. Kleinman?

Too bad your citations all show strong evidence in favor of evolution.

So sorry. you fail. Go back and take remedial biology, m'kay?
 
Kleinman,
I hate to keep repeating myself, perhaps you have me on ignore and can't see my posts, but you STILL haven't answered my simple question.

You stated before that micro-evolution is possible but macro-evolution isn't.

Could you please give a clear, concise definition of each term and explain the specific point at which micro-evolution becomes marco-evolution and hence is no longer possible.
 
Annoying Creationists

Perhaps you evolutionists don’t get it, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have combination selection pressures. This is what Dr Schneider’s computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows and this is what real examples of mutation and selection shows. Let’s see if I have more empirical examples of this mathematical fact of life? Why yes I do and here they are.
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/5/1/48
A database of antimalarial drug resistance said:
Whenever drug treatment is required to control a pathogen, selection of drug resistance is inevitable [1]. The huge size of pathogen populations and their short generation times guarantee the outcome. Plasmodium falciparum is a prime example. In humans, an acute infection can produce a population as high as 10^11 haploid parasites, so that mutations have ample scope to occur [2]. In the obligate sexual cycle, reassortment and recombination can "reshuffle the deck" for rapid evolution of new resistant genotypes in each generation. Thus, favoured combinations of genes can arise fairly quickly, even if more than one mutant gene is required for resistance. These sets of genes can, of course, also be separated during the sexual cycle but under the strong selection that drugs can exert, even a multigenic, resistant genotype may become fixed in a population.
A database of antimalarial drug resistance said:

The impact of this strong selection has been revealed at many different levels. Most important, as the use of chloroquine increased, drug resistance evolved in parasite populations and childhood mortality from malaria increased, even as all-cause mortality in children decreased [3-5]. The sequence of the P. falciparum genome has recently been published [6] and this has made it possible to trace the ancestry of highly drug-resistant parasites. These studies show that parasites resistant to chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine have arisen relatively rarely, but they have spread widely from a few initial foci in "selective sweeps" of the parasite population [7-11]. This new view affects many of the assumptions that underlie models of the speed at which resistance evolves [12] and inform practical decisions about changes in drug policy. Parasites without borders make it absolutely essential that the emergence of drug resistant populations be "tracked" worldwide; a resistant parasite that arises in Southeast Asia may travel rapidly to East Africa.

This improved understanding of the evolution of drug resistance has come from a relatively simple situation. Until recently, the number of antimalaria drugs in common use was small: chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Africa and the Americas, with mefloquine and more recently, mefloquine-artesunate in Southeast Asia[13]. As chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine have lost their efficacy, combination drugs have been strongly endorsed as the most effective next step [14]. In response to this emphasis, many different combination drugs, most containing an artemisinin derivative are being used in various countries, especially in East Africa (Figure 1. Many of these combinations have shown excellent initial efficacy in drug trials [13], but only mefloquine/artesunate has a long enough history to allow a strong prediction of the useful therapeutic life of these combinations [15]. It is particularly important to establish a baseline for effectiveness of new drugs and combinations so that any subsequent changes can be seen. This complex situation underlines the importance of regional surveillance of drug use, efficacy and effectiveness as these new combinations are tried in a variety of demographic and ecological settings. What has worked well for a long time in Thailand may not be so long lived in Tanzania [16]!

Appropriately, the gold standard for drug efficacy has been the outcome of clinical treatment. When patients are treated with the drug, do they recover? The substantial expense and logistical difficulty to change the recommended drug treatment have led most countries to rely on a large increase in clinical treatment failure before initiating a change [17]. Systematic studies have shown repeatedly that assessment in vitro of drug efficacy in local parasite isolates can give an early warning of rising drug resistance in vivo [18-20]. In addition, when molecular correlates of drug resistance are known, the prevalence of resistant alleles can also give early warning of evolving resistance in the parasite population [21-23]. In all three approaches, the temporal and geographic patterns of resistance are most informative. When the in vitro tolerance of parasites to a drug is rising or when the prevalence or the geographic range of resistant alleles is increasing, clinical drug failure is likely to increase as well. Figure 2 shows a small example of the linkage among the three parameters. In this data set, the increase in the in vitro IC50 values and the increased prevalence of the triple mutant allele of P. falciparum dhfr preceded by several years the increase in sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine treatment failure among young children in Coastal Kenya. Similar studies will be needed to determine whether the lags between these parameters observed in Kilifi will be similar in other sites or for other drugs, but it is clear that the in vitro increase in IC50 values and the increase in the molecular marker can provide an early warning of the onset of clinical treatment failure. The community will need similar data sets in many different settings for all of the drugs in use to manage effectively the current drugs and any novel drugs that are introduced in the future.

http://www.retroconference.org/2007/Abstracts/30238.htm
Brief Exposure to Efavirenz Monotherapy Selects NNRTI-resistant Mutants and Compromises Virologic Reponse to Tenofovir said:
Background: HIV drug resistance is thought to have at least 2 origins: pre-existing resistant mutants at a low frequency that are selected by therapy; and suboptimal therapy that permits replication, evolution, and selection of resistant mutants. Studying the mechanisms and anatomic origins of HIV drug resistance in humans is constrained by limited blood or tissue sampling and ethical restrictions on therapy. Here we examined the impact of short-course efavirenz (EFV) monotherapy on the evolution of drug resistance in a macaque model of ART.
and
Brief Exposure to Efavirenz Monotherapy Selects NNRTI-resistant Mutants and Compromises Virologic Reponse to Tenofovir said:
Conclusions: Combination therapy with TDF+FTC+EFV was effective in suppressing RT-SHIV replication in macaques. Brief exposure to EFV monotherapy resulted in selection of NNRTI-resistant variants in 2 of 3 animals and early failure of triple drug therapy in 1 of 3 animals. The effect of interruption and re-initiation of therapy on the selection of resistance is being determined. This new animal model of ART has the flexibility to address many key questions about the selection, tissue origins and persistence of drug resistance that cannot be answered in human studies.
Only in your evolutionist dreams do multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures. The mathematical and empirical fact of life is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. And the failure of you evolutionists to comprehend the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process contributes to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
 
Is there a specific reason why your refusing to answer my question Kleinman?

If there is i'd love to know it.
 
The mathematical and empirical fact of life is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.

Have any evidence or math to back up your claim, Mr. Kleinman?

No?
 
Annoying Creationists

You evolutionist really don’t get it. You have been programmed for so long with evolutionist dogma that when you are presented with the mathematical and empirical evidence which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and that when you have more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene, it profoundly slows the ability of the population to evolve against these multiple selection pressures. It is not when hundreds of genes are targeted by selection conditions or even dozens of genes targeted by selection pressures; it is when more than a single gene is targeted by selection pressures that the sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.

Perhaps if we looked at it from the other perspective, what are the selection conditions required and the genes targeted that would transform a lizard population into a bird population? How do you take a sorting/optimization process which can transform only at most only a two or three genes at a time and get a sequence of microevolutionary processes that would turn a lizard population into a bird population. There is no answer to this because there are no sequence of selection pressures that would transform a lizard population into a bird population by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Even if you could envision a real sequence of selection conditions (and you can’t) that would cause such a transformation, it would be so profoundly slow that you simply do not have sufficient generations to carry out such a transformation. The concept of common descent is mathematically and empirically irrational. You do not have the selection conditions and you do not have sufficient number of generations to carry out these massive transformations required to transform a lizard population into a bird population.

I encourage you to study Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of random point mutations and natural selection so that you would get some understanding how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Then you would realize how nonsensical and irrational the evolutionist speculations are. These irrational speculations contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.
 
when you have more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene, it profoundly slows the ability of the population to evolve against these multiple selection pressures. SIZE]


So is this your definition of micro-evolution Kleinman?

Do you state that micro-evolution is when a single gene evolves in response to a single selection pressure?

Are you also then stating that anything other than this is macro-evolution and hence impossible?

Would you agree with the following statement ' 'it is impossible for more than a single gene to simultaneously evolve in any organism as this would constitute macro-evolution.'
 
And its been shown that the ev model doesn't actually show what Mr. Kleinman thinks it does.

And the chatbot can't answer questions to which it knows would prove its premises false.

Evolution is strong verifiable, and falsifiable science. But fundies like Mr. Kleinman can only accept what they are told by their religious leaders.
 
You evolutionist really don’t get it. You have been programmed for so long with evolutionist dogma that when you are presented with the mathematical and empirical evidence which shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and that when you have more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene, it profoundly slows the ability of the population to evolve against these multiple selection pressures. It is not when hundreds of genes are targeted by selection conditions or even dozens of genes targeted by selection pressures; it is when more than a single gene is targeted by selection pressures that the sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed.

Perhaps if we looked at it from the other perspective, what are the selection conditions required and the genes targeted that would transform a lizard population into a bird population? How do you take a sorting/optimization process which can transform only at most only a two or three genes at a time and get a sequence of microevolutionary processes that would turn a lizard population into a bird population. There is no answer to this because there are no sequence of selection pressures that would transform a lizard population into a bird population by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Even if you could envision a real sequence of selection conditions (and you can’t) that would cause such a transformation, it would be so profoundly slow that you simply do not have sufficient generations to carry out such a transformation. The concept of common descent is mathematically and empirically irrational. You do not have the selection conditions and you do not have sufficient number of generations to carry out these massive transformations required to transform a lizard population into a bird population.

I encourage you to study Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of random point mutations and natural selection so that you would get some understanding how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Then you would realize how nonsensical and irrational the evolutionist speculations are. These irrational speculations contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.

We fully intended this to happen. How else can our evil experiment work?

Oh Kleinman don't take in any stray cats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom