Annoying creationists

[tsig]

Dr Schneider said the following about his model:

And
And

And

And

And

And


And for good measure:

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

Why Paul, this is mathematical proof from your own computer model that your soft theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible.

The only thing you have proved is that if you take a computer simulation and feed it unrealistic inputs you will get unrealistic outputs.

GIGO

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The only thing you have proved is that if you take a computer simulation and feed it unrealistic inputs you will get unrealistic outputs.

GIGO[/quote]

DHR, you are correct. Dr Schneider used unrealistic inputs to his model and then took the unrealistic outputs to predict the amount of time to evolve a human genome using random point mutations and natural selection. This sentence is for Myriad: Dr Schneider qualified is calculation with the following, "even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution." You better include intergalactic gene transfer if you are going to use realistic parameters in his model. His results are garbage out.

The question then becomes, does the model represent random point mutations and natural selection realistically when realistic parameters are used in the model? I say yes and that is why I say that the mathematics of ev contradicts the macroevolution portion of the theory of evolution.

If you wanted to perform a laboratory experiment to verify the results of ev, forget about the evolution of binding sites. Take the data available with HIV. Some of the specific mutations that confer drug resistance to this virus have been identified. Take the ev model, start with the initial wild strain HIV sequence for the population and then allow random point mutations at a known measured mutation rate for this virus and see how many generations it takes to get the appropriate drug resistant mutation. Then you can get something else useful out of ev other than it disproves the theory of evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population.

I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.

I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6.

Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152.

So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science.

This is the old view (the Modernist view). It's been replaced by a more sophisticated, and less hopeful, understanding of what role religion plays in people's lives.

Here's a paper I co-wrote opn the subject:

Religion and Public Policy

The summary is: religion is best considered similar to drugs and alcohol. Marx thought of religion as a tool to oppress the masses, the Modernists thought of it as a result of ignorance, but contemporary psychology recognizes there is an inherent human need to self-medicate our exposure to reality.

John Schumaker wrote a book on this, also: "The Corruption of Reality: a unified view of hypnosis, psychopathology, and religion."

 

[John Hewitt]

I actually think religion will go away--I wouldn't call it faith...but I would call it hope...I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science. People like Kleinman and Hammy and Thai will believe whatever it is they believe to their dying day. And if we get ghostly visits that say "I told you so", then we'll know they are right. But I don't see them convincing anyone but themselves. And young people are as not as likely to be so thoroughly meme infected and so religion is likely to be seen as something crotchity old men and ladies do...and nerds...and some white trash...etc. What neurology is increasingly showing quite clearly, is the sense of self is reliant on a working brain...there isn't an afterlife. Don't spend your money time or allegiances supporting ideas that are supposed to be about living happily ever after. I mean, I can't prove the hijackers don't have their virgins...but all speculation about what exists beyond are equally likely from an evidentiary perspective.

If there are nebulous areas in evolution, creations jump insert their favorite invisible and immeasurable entity and say that it's the solution. But it's a solution that goes nowhere. And know matter how nicely you explain or how often, if someone believes their eternity depends on them believing some story or another then you words fall on deaf ears. Science is refining our understanding in evolution at amazing speed. Creationists are so far behind in what we know and so dishonest in the questions they ask that it shouldn't be up to Dawkins or anyone else to give their wacky beliefs the time of day. As yourself how you think we should treat the Amish and Muslims and Scientologists...all of whom have a different creation story. Should we make nice? For what. The truth shouldn't be watered down to make it more palatable. New information will survive because it works...it's true...it's fact based...and it can be taught to anyone no matter what god they pray to or what language they speak. Science doesn't need religion. And the more we push superstitious thinking out of the public, the better for us all.

I find it crazy that Dawkins is supposed to bend over backwards to people who are both delusionlal and who show NO respect for him. They are liars who pretend that science is taking them seriously (not) when one of them dares to entertain their delusion. Let other people play the peacemaker.

You may be right about religion disappearing, though I think it would depend on the survival of what we now call civilization. I, myself, lost religious faith as a teenager but, rather hypocritically, I had my son attend Sunday school and, really, that hypocrisy speaks to my current views on religion.

I do feel that religion has had a very important historical place for our species and, Dawkins notwithstanding, it has an important current, social role. Religious ideas can become excessively dogmatic, but so can those of science - and Dawkins. I do not think that the achievements of religion or its current social roles should be demeaned by some nouveau dogmatism dressed up as science.

So far as evolution is concerned, the evidence for evolution as a historic fact is clearly overwhelming, at least when set against the lack of evidence for any of the religious ideas. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory, here distinguished from evolution, does have weaknesses, it is in need of improvement and more rational reconstruction. Only criticism of that theory will guide its improvement and those criticisms are coming more from the ID movement than from anywhere else; they are the only people who reject the dogmatism of evolution and are willing to find and point out the holes in evolutionary theory.

That is, so it seems to me, a real service to evolutionary theory. However Dawkins, and indeed most evolutionists, do not respond to the valid critiques by saying "yes, there is a problem there. How can we resolve it?" They respond by attacking the critic and we are left with this sterile confrontation of dogmas.

Anyway, just my £0.02 worth.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population.

I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.

Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random.

I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6.

Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct. I have done series where mutation rate was varied and the generations for convergence are not linear. Here is a typical series for G=1024, population=64, gamma=16 and site width=6:
mutations per generation/Generations
1/10108
2/6669
3/3432
4/2546
5/1268
6/1874
7/2147
8/3626
9/15351
10/81112
I haven’t done extensive series with realistic mutation rates but I do have the following values for Dr Schneider’s baseline G=256 case except using mutation rates of 10^-6, 10^-7, 1.7x10^-8 and got values of 3,993,646, 44,295,590, 948,952,092 generations for convergences respectively.

Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152.

So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve. Your curves are useful only for interpolation, not extrapolation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random.

Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

You're right, if you're talking free-living eukaryotes, then 10 million bases is the smallest I know of.

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.

Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

1 mutation per n bases, generations
1000000, 12845000
500000, 4678000
250000, 2161000
125000, 1501000
65000 853000
32000, 372000
16000, 273000
8000, 78000
4000, 58000
2000, 15000
1000, 8800
750, 7300
500, 7700
375, 2400
250, 2600
190, 1800

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve.

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

~~ Paul

This has been one of the most confounding things in his entire argument. He seems to say over and over "Only I can make assumptions and extrapolation! "

Just more and more trivial.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random.

Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

You're right, if you're talking free-living eukaryotes, then 10 million bases is the smallest I know of.

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic. A more realistic simulation would have an evolved genome in the non-binding site region and mutations in this portion that genome that cause fatal damage to a gene would cause that organism to be selected out no matter how evolved the binding site region is. This would give a more complex selection rule than used by Dr Schneider but would better simulate the real situation.

As for the smallest free-living eukaryotes having 10 million base pairs, this is 100 times larger than the genome length where we both have about the same estimates for the generations for convergence. That is your estimate of 200,000,000 generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome. If the generations for convergence is proportional to G^2, that would give over 50 billion generations to evolve the 16 binding sites. At one generation per day, that would take over 130 million years to evolve the 16 binding sites. Why don’t you check my arithmetic? How many billion years do you have to accomplish evolution to today’s life forms?

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.

Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

1 mutation per n bases, generations
1000000, 12845000
500000, 4678000
250000, 2161000
125000, 1501000
65000 853000
32000, 372000
16000, 273000
8000, 78000
4000, 58000
2000, 15000
1000, 8800
750, 7300
500, 7700
375, 2400
250, 2600
190, 1800

I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve.

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

Why Paul, I’m surprised you would ask such a question of why I would make such a claim about ev and macroevolution. You named this thread.

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.

 

[drkitten]

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.

You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

You're right that doubling the population size will not double the probability of a good mutation. But you're wrong if you think that it will not increase it.

Think of rolling dice. If I roll a single die, I have a 1/6 chance of getting an ace. if I roll two dice, I have 12/36 -- not 2/6 -- chance of getting at least one ace. But if I roll a hundred dice, I may not have a 100/6 probability of getting at least once ace, but I have as close to a dead cert as I can reasonably ask for -- and every additional die will make it that much closer to a dead cert.

You can think of it this way -- let's say that it takes X generations, on average, for a mutation to occur in a population of a given size. That's a stochastic result, and for any specific trial, it may take more or less than that.

If I have two identical populations, and I want to know how long it takes for the mutation to arise in either one, it will obviously happen at the time when the earlier mutation occurs. Think of two race cars -- the race is won when the first car crosses the line, which is faster than the average finish time. Each successive population doubling doubles the number of cars, which iwll make the winning time for the race that much faster.....

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

This has been one of the most confounding things in his entire argument. He seems to say over and over "Only I can make assumptions and extrapolation! "

Just more and more trivial.

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

Your smiley faces add a very nice touch to your post and show creativity that I didn’t know you had.

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.

You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

You're right that doubling the population size will not double the probability of a good mutation. But you're wrong if you think that it will not increase it.

I understood Myriad’s discussion, which is why I acknowledged my error about the additive effect of probabilities with increasing population.

If you read my post carefully, what I said is increasing population increases the probability of a good mutation at the proper locus at a less than additive amount. With small populations, you can approximate the increased probability of a good mutation at the proper locus due to an increase in population with the additive rule. This is shown in the data from the population series from ev. However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation. If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution. My computer can’t generate this data but when a system becomes available to me, I will generate the data if for no other reason than to annoy evolutionarians.

 

[drkitten]

If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution.

Er, all finite populations are "much smaller populations than infinity," so this is an easy task to meet.

If you want to see how much easier, simply plot the data on semi-log paper and see what the slope is.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic.

It can't mutate freely in Ev either! Mutations in the "junk" portion of the genome can result in bindings that increase the mistakes.

A more realistic simulation would have an evolved genome in the non-binding site region and mutations in this portion that genome that cause fatal damage to a gene would cause that organism to be selected out no matter how evolved the binding site region is.

Yes, that is more or less what happens.

As for the smallest free-living eukaryotes having 10 million base pairs, this is 100 times larger than the genome length where we both have about the same estimates for the generations for convergence. That is your estimate of 200,000,000 generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome. If the generations for convergence is proportional to G^2, that would give over 50 billion generations to evolve the 16 binding sites. At one generation per day, that would take over 130 million years to evolve the 16 binding sites. Why don’t you check my arithmetic? How many billion years do you have to accomplish evolution to today’s life forms?

About 4 billion, right? Do you think that the fundamental binding mechanism evolved in eukaryotes with large genomes?

I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.

I wouldn't be surprised if it never converged. There has to be a point where the mutation load is too heavy. But not to worry, because we would surely notice this problem if it occured in experiments where we use high mutation rates.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

What extrapolations are you talking about?

Regarding population, we have run experiments up to 1 million critters and the generations to perfection keep on dropping. You won't let me extrapolate past 1 million, so on what basis to you claim that increased populations won't result in lower generation counts?

Regarding genome size, I've run experiments up to 92K genomes with population 36 and 1 mutation per 512 bases. The generations to perfection fits [latex]$g = 7.8G^{.98}$[/latex]. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation.

Well, let's see. Using all my population vs. generations data (shown below), I get a fit to [latex]$12722p^{-.23}$[/latex]. Using just the data from a population of 32K upward, it fits [latex]$32835p^{-.31}$[/latex]. Using just the data from 92K upward, it fits [latex]$9387p^{-.21}$[/latex]. And using just the data from 262K upward, it fits [latex]$51432p^{-.34}$[/latex]. I'm not sure this is commensurate with the claim that the increases will get rapidly smaller.

~~ Paul

population, generations
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1770
8192, 1641
16384, 1144
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 718
110000, 856
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438

 

[joobz]

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

Seems like Paul disagrees. As would anyone following the thread.

But please, continue. Your repetitious, incorrect explanations are fascinating.

 

[delphi_ote]

It would be awesome if kleinman had the academic honesty and motivation to specifically run the test he thinks would demonstrate Paul's line fitting is incorrect. We might have something to discuss.

Instead, he's here with more of his usual name calling and attention whoring.

 

[Hawk one]

Think of rolling dice. If I roll a single die, I have a 1/6 chance of getting an ace. if I roll two dice, I have 12/36 -- not 2/6 -- chance of getting at least one ace. But if I roll a hundred dice, I may not have a 100/6 probability of getting at least once ace, but I have as close to a dead cert as I can reasonably ask for -- and every additional die will make it that much closer to a dead cert.

[pedantic sidetracking]
Actually, it's 11/36 chance of getting at least one ace when you throw two dice.

Why yes, I do like table-top roleplaying games with lots of dice, why do you ask?

 

[tsig]

It would be awesome if kleinman had the academic honesty and motivation to specifically run the test he thinks would demonstrate Paul's line fitting is incorrect. We might have something to discuss.

Instead, he's here with more of his usual name calling and attention whoring.

What else is there for them.

Facts are hard.

Rolling in your sweeet baby's arms of your god is soft.

Kleinbottle will not understand this.