Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Articullet, take a bath and stop arousing yourself on this most serious matter.

SHAME ON YOU ARTICULLET!

This is some serious ****! Souls are at stake here - right kleinman?

I don’t know cyborg, is your soul at stake?

Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.

Adequate, you are my favorite annoyee but you sometimes disappoint me. You forgot to put a gif in your post as a demonstration of your skills as a mathematician.

 

[articulett]

The only proof I have are more than 200 different cases with a variety of different input parameters from ev against the Dr Schneider’s single published case and perhaps the hundred or so cases that you and Myriad have posted that show the same results that my cases show. I understand it is not a very strong case for evolutionarians but you have to play the hand you are dealt. Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory. I doubt it will but this little bit of unknown gives a reason to continue this discussion (aside from the joy I experience in annoying evolutionarians).

Does anyone share your reality? To me, you sound as deluded as those folks who are waiting for Jesus to rapture them up to heaven (not that there really is an "up" on a spherical planet.) You do realize that Darwin never even saw a chromosome, right? You do realize how amazing it was to find and begin to unravel the units of information he could only hypothesize about in regards to sexual selection? I take it that you accept some aspects of evolution...like Francis Collins--you just think that an "intelligent designer" must have had a part in it, right--? Or do you not accept any of it--believing that God "poofed" things into existence in their present species form. Are you one of those people who actually spread the misinformation that evolution is a dying theory? Is there any peer reviewed scientist in recent history who has understood evolution and then denied it's veracity? Because the journals I read only get more detailed regarding the subject. Evolution is accepted as fact.

How do you explain all the species that have died out in your theory? As a person who understands and accepts evolution, we just call those experiment that didn't work out--or didn't have what it takes to keep evolving as a species (Neanderthals, for example). How does your theory fit that data? What about deformities and suffering--how does your theory explain that? What do you imagine will happen in regards to evolution--we'll stop teaching it and take all the information that we've gathered and....what? Do you understand that paternity tests, forensics tests, and molecular genetics are all based on evolution--in which the similarity of the genomes is indicative of the most recent common ancestor between any two life forms?

What do you tell yourself as to why the Smithsonian, Scientific American, FAS, and all noted scientific institutions around the world seem to accept evolution as fact. Recently, molecular studies showed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal. Do you think the scientists who "discovered" this are mistaken--and misleading the public? Why do you only use point mutations in your theory when members on this forum have repeatedly told you that that there are many more ways for information in a genome to change, alter, grow, transform, etc.? Do you know that we can actually see the changes between us and chimps--that is, we can see what our common ancestors had and what changes took place along the way to becoming separate species? Inversions and translocations played a major role--but they are not a part of your equation. Also, promoter regions dictating when and where certain genes are expressed (make proteins) account for much of the difference between us and other primates--that is, the genes make the same proteins, but at different times and different parts of the body--particularly the brain. Point mutations aren't particularly relevant for these differences.

It seems like you know very much about your particular math equation because it supports a belief you want to have, but you know very little about actual genetics. Why do you think geneticists don't take your equation seriously? Why would you need to use the term "evolutionarian" to try and put science on the same level as faith--if the facts were truly in your favor?
In scientific history, the name calling usually comes from the losing side, you know. I don't think anyone who actually understands evolution thinks that the theory is on shaky ground--in fact, the more one knows and the more the data accumulates, the more profoundly prescient Darwin seems. Have you read Darwin? Dawkins? Where did you get your understanding of evolution from?--Your preacher? I think the only people taking you seriously are those desperate to believe their god is true. Your conviction just doesn't match the evidence. Is your ego prepared to find out you might be wrong? Do you have an actual alternative theory to evolution or is your whole theory that Evolution can't work according to your mathematics and therefore, some higher intelligence must have been involved? I mean, do you have actual evidence that supports an alternate theory?

You do understand that pointing to gaps in knowledge for one theory is not evidence for another theory. The theory of gravity and atoms was true long before we filled in the details--and so is evolution. It is that solid. You may have some wiggle room with abiogenesis or dualism because there are bigger gaps there--but the accumulating evidence is not in favor of your conclusions. You are deceiving yourself.

Your theory makes sense the way this makes sense: "the earth is obviously flat or the oceans would spill out! You guys are just pissed off sphere-earthians! You're crying because you know the round earth theory doesn't work unless you add more complicated things like spinning--which I've proven false by the fact that I get motion sickness very easily, and I would be the first to know if the earth was moving."

Really. That's how I perceive you. It seems that others on this forum perceive you similarly. So, how would you respond to the above? Would your response sound similar to the responses you've been getting? How do you see yourself as being different than that example?--why should anyone take your theory (or hypothesis) more seriously than the above.

In any case, you make for an interesting study.

 

[cyborg]

I don’t know cyborg, is your soul at stake?

Is this a betting game now?

I'll place 2 on evolution please.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Intelligent Design Question

Dr. Kleinman, do you believe that an intelligent creator designed the AIDS virus to punish homosexuals?

 

[kleinman]

Re: Intelligent Design question

Dr. Kleinman, do you believe that an intelligent creator designed the AIDS virus to punish homosexuals?

No.

 

[I less than three logic]

Finally, a question was answered instead of evaded. Perhaps everyone should stick to asking Kleinman yes/no questions.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So where does this discussion of Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection revolve at this time? Dr Schneider who has thrown down the gauntlet refuses to discuss the results from his model publicly. Paul is squirming around trying to parse my every word in order to find a way of extracting himself from this discussion and now is turning to magic to free himself from the results of the mathematical model he helped produce. Paul has been back peddling so quickly on his previous statements about ev, he should turn the seat on his bicycle around backwards. Myriad has written a very nice summary of the logic and theory behind Dr Schneider’s model but because he can’t find any way to produce the results he wants from the model spends his nights trying to find ways to discredit me, his latest diversion from the topic of discussion is about sexual gratification (he does do this respectfully). Joozb won’t tell us how ribose could be produced in the primordial world because I was so mean to him to suggest that as professor at a US engineering school he should be able to read and write English. He says it is because I won’t tell him what the mutation rate was in the primordial world, but it is the criticism of his unintelligible use of the English language that makes him angry. Adequate is preoccupied with fecal matter so much so that I think I’m going to start calling him scatequate. Kjkent1 is still trying to find the exit to his cubical. Perhaps he should have been given a road map with instructions but I doubt he would read them. Delphi complains that I am always moving the goal posts and kjkent1 complains that I keep repeating myself. This thread has a variety of other hooded evolutionarians who still haven’t figured out what I am saying but are too lazy to study Dr Schneider’s model to understand what I am saying. They would rather question whether I have lost contact with reality or am a mad man. They have all the courage of a poison pen letter author.

I’ll just keep reminding you that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible. The results from the model contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. And the preliminary data from the model shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to contradict either of my first two assertions (claims, declarations, statements, contentions). The mushy soft theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to be that way. Yes fishbob, I am getting this both ways.

 

[joobz]

Ev Debate current status: kleinman is wrong.

Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.

the following links represent clear flaws in your argument against ev and why you are wrong.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432


Please try again, but with a new hypothesis.
Evolution takes to long cause ev said so has been disproven.

BTW, John Hewitt, I have not had time to devote thought into the speculations but I will.

 

[fuelair]

Annoying creationists
is a really neat thing to do!!!
Annoy one today!!!

 

[kjkent1]

I’ll just keep reminding you that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible. The results from the model contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. And the preliminary data from the model shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to contradict either of my first two assertions (claims, declarations, statements, contentions). The mushy soft theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to be that way. Yes fishbob, I am getting this both ways.

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.

If you or anyone else has better info, please advise.

Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.

At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.

Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.

Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.

You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.

 

[Myriad]

Oh. Well then, that explains it. And for now, that's the explanation that fits the data best.

but wait...does that mean...that...ewww...I feel so dirty.

Exactly. Kleinman denies that the gratification is sexual, so perhaps I'm a bit off. But in any case, isn't his behavior eerily like those old experiments where the rat would continue to press the lever, over and over and over again, long after the reward was discontinued?

Speaking of data, Kleinman has posted some results of varying the site width, but only in ranges where Rcapacity remains greater than Rfrequency, where varying the site width has little effect. This is yet more deliberate deception.

Here are two series varying only the binding site width.

genome length 1024
number of binding sites 8
Rfrequency = 7
mutation rate 1/512 bases
weight width 5
population 64
site width / Rcapacity / generations to perfect creature
10 / 20 / 5,746
9 / 18 / 7,186
8 / 16 / 5,073
7 / 14 / 2,778
6 / 12 / 5,180
5 / 10 / 6,848
4 / 8 / 12,298
3 / 6 / no correct binding sites in >7,000,000 generations

genome length 4096
number of binding sites 8
Rfrequency = 9
mutation rate 1/512 bases
weight width 5
population 64
site width / Rcapacity / generations to perfect creature
10 / 20 / 14,459
9 / 18 / 19,907
8 / 16 / 18,228
7 / 14 / 18,390
6 / 12 / 16,396
5 / 10 / 75,384
4 / 8 / no correct binding sites in >550,000 generations

Notice that when Rcapacity is less than Rfrequency no binding sites evolve, and when it's close to (but greater than) Rfrequency the number of generations to evolve a perfect creature increases sharply.

Now imagine what would happen if you ran a series of trials with the site width fixed at 5 (and hence Rcapacity fixed at 10), the number of binding sites fixed at 8, with a series of increasing genome lengths. At length 1024 you'd see (from the data above, first series) 6,848 generations, and at length 4096 you'd see (from the data above, second series) 75,384 generations. Quadrupling the genome length appears to increase the generations to convergence elevenfold. You might conclude that the convergence rate slows down with genome length by a power of 2 or so, or perhaps even exponentially, especially once you see that the next fourfold increase in genome length (making Rfrequency exceed Rcapacity) fails to converge at all. You might conclude that, that is, until you realized your error of scaling up other parameters without suitably scaling up the binding site width. (Analogy: if you scale up a scale model train, but forget to scale up the wheels in proportion, it won't run very well.)

This is exactly what Kleinman did, though at different numbers (except for the part about realizing his error, though it was pointed out to him months ago). It's what his entire argument is based on. It was an understandable error at first, and I can see why he would be disappointed when he thought he'd found an interesting and important result and turned out to be wrong, but now he's just pushing the lever over and over and over.

I talk about his motives for making false claims because all his claims have been so thoroughly refuted that there's nothing else left to talk about. It is, however, an interesting topic. If there's no gratification involved, then perhaps it's because he believes in a religion, such as Discordianism, SubGenius, or certain branches of Satanism, in which lying is approved of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[John Hewitt]

BTW, John Hewitt, I have not had time to devote thought into the speculations but I will.

I shall look forward to that.

 

[Yahzi]

Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.

Only Dr. Adequate could turn:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

into the verbal feast that is the above post.



(dang it where are my little bowing angels?)

 

[articulett]

Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all? Recently molecular DNA studies revealed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal. What does Kleinman make of that? The scientists are mistaken? Even if point mutations were the only way DNA could evolve, that would still make the case for evolution, right? Only some "intelligent designer" would be needed to speed up the process. Does Kleinman agree with that much--or is he as impenetrable as Behe and his repeatedly disclaimed "irreducible complexity" argument. But even "that" isn't an argument against evolution--it's just an argument that implies, at best, that humans haven't explained how "x" could happen without divine interference. Kleinman isn't Kent Hovind crazy is he? --Does he believe species poofed into existence and that all this evidence is a trick of god (or satan) or evil scientists? I remember reading about this in college--I can't help but think this theory is at work in Kleinman's case.

"Leon Festinger's Theory

In studying this phenomena, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, 2 as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article, and will be later applied specifically to the Jehovah's Witness movement.

Festinger observes:

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. "

I shall give Kleinman the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's a liar or scam artist--I think he's just invested a lot in his belief and it would be too ego-damaging to be wrong. Also, he probably believes that having strong faith despite evidence can lead to salvation. He is a brilliant example at how very good humans are at self deception. Thankfully, science figure that information into the equation. Faiths never do.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all?

Aparently, kleinman is a halfwitted sociopath. I wouldn't have made my previous post if that wasn't true.

I like you, you're a nice person, please go and reason with someone amenable to such treatment.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.

This is one of the many areas where you don’t understand this debate. The only reason I get traction in this discussion is that this is an evolutionarian written peer reviewed and published mathematical model. If I were to write any mathematical model, I would be immediately labeled as a biased creationist researcher and the results would be shrugged off. You know what it is to shrug, don’t you? I like it when evolutionarian researchers write mathematical models, I can co-opt their work.

At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.

Again, you misunderstand the debate. I believe that Dr Schneider’s model is essentially correct. I think his selection process is unrealistic and accelerates the mutation/natural selection process but even with this advantage, it still doesn’t speed the process sufficiently to support the theory of evolution. Where Dr Schneider’s publication fails the scientific test was when he used the rate of information gain from a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to extrapolate the evolution of a human genome in a billion years. This estimate is off by at least 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. Even if you consider the other factors Dr Schneider raised when he made this estimate, no evolutionarian has shown how these other factors will accelerate the evolutionary process sufficiently to prove their case.

Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.

I look at this as more of squirt guns at 10 paces or like a snowball fight. Unfortunately for you evolutionarians, you don’t have much to squirt except for scatequate who has found something else to sling.

Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.

Then his task is simple, include any process he wants in his model and increase the performance of ev. I doubt there is any process he could include in his model that would increase the performance of ev.

You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.

Again your greedy nature reveals itself. You don’t understand the principle of doing something because it is the correct thing to do. It is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their own theory. Ev doesn’t do it, in fact, ev contradicts your theory.

This is exactly what Kleinman did, though at different numbers (except for the part about realizing his error, though it was pointed out to him months ago). It's what his entire argument is based on. It was an understandable error at first, and I can see why he would be disappointed when he thought he'd found an interesting and important result and turned out to be wrong, but now he's just pushing the lever over and over and over.

The data you have posted mirrors data that I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Since you have discovered my “error”, why don’t you post the data that contradicts my assertions? The only thing you have shown is that not only does ev converge very slowly, in some cases it won’t converge at all. That’s not much of an improvement in your case for ev.

Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all? Recently molecular DNA studies revealed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal.

I believe that microevolutionary processes occur. The concept of abiogenesis is complete nonsense and ev is demonstrating that random point mutations and natural selection if far too slow to accomplish macroevolutionary processes. You evolutionarians have only one set of observations that supports your theory. Different living things have some similarities in their genomes. The problem you have with your theory is that there are no known mechanisms which can morph the genome of one species like hippos to whales in the time available. This is becoming more apparent as the human and chimpanzee genomes are compared in more detail. This is an issue of bookkeeping and the audit of the theory of evolution is showing the fatal flaws in your theory.

 

[John Hewitt]

I shall give Kleinman the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's a liar or scam artist--I think he's just invested a lot in his belief and it would be too ego-damaging to be wrong. Also, he probably believes that having strong faith despite evidence can lead to salvation. He is a brilliant example at how very good humans are at self deception. Thankfully, science figure(s) that information into the equation. Faiths never do.

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

 

[kjkent1]

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

I don't "want" any of this info. It's your credibility that's at issue here -- if it's not important that you are as transparent as your opponent, Dr. Schneider, it's your problem, not mine.

Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.

This is one of the many areas where you don’t understand this debate. The only reason I get traction in this discussion is that this is an evolutionarian written peer reviewed and published mathematical model. If I were to write any mathematical model, I would be immediately labeled as a biased creationist researcher and the results would be shrugged off. You know what it is to shrug, don’t you? I like it when evolutionarian researchers write mathematical models, I can co-opt their work.

Well, you "are" a biased creationist researcher, aren't you? The reality is that you're annoyed that Dr. Schneider has dismissed your theory as irrelevant. Well, hike up your nuts and show him that you're David and he's Goliath. If you don't, you reject your own faith.

At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.

Again, you misunderstand the debate. I believe that Dr Schneider’s model is essentially correct. I think his selection process is unrealistic and accelerates the mutation/natural selection process but even with this advantage, it still doesn’t speed the process sufficiently to support the theory of evolution. Where Dr Schneider’s publication fails the scientific test was when he used the rate of information gain from a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to extrapolate the evolution of a human genome in a billion years. This estimate is off by at least 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. Even if you consider the other factors Dr Schneider raised when he made this estimate, no evolutionarian has shown how these other factors will accelerate the evolutionary process sufficiently to prove their case.

I understand the debate just fine. I also understand that you're too chicken to get in the ring and put the gloves on, because you prefer to spar with Schneider's partners, rather than go toe to toe with the current champ.

Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.

I look at this as more of squirt guns at 10 paces or like a snowball fight. Unfortunately for you evolutionarians, you don’t have much to squirt except for scatequate who has found something else to sling.

Well, that proves this count.

Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.

Then his task is simple, include any process he wants in his model and increase the performance of ev. I doubt there is any process he could include in his model that would increase the performance of ev.

You've got it reversed, Alan. Schneider's model is published, and you're the one who needs to advance the science so as to falsify it. If you have a Ph.D, then you know this fact. I think you're just afraid to actually put your reputation on the line.

You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.

Again your greedy nature reveals itself. You don’t understand the principle of doing something because it is the correct thing to do. It is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their own theory. Ev doesn’t do it, in fact, ev contradicts your theory.

Greed isn't a crime -- it's perfectly normal and reasonable behavior. As far as doing something because it's correct, I do ~250+ hours pro bono, per annum. I'll wager that's more than you, bub.

As for what EV does or doesn't do, that's your unsupported opinion at the moment -- and, based on your behavior, thus far, that's all it will ever be.

 

[Myriad]

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the theorems of probabilities in question. The following is the multiplicative rule.

• If E are independent events in a sample space S and the probabilities of events E are not equal to zero, then the total probability of events E occurring is the product of their individual probabilities.
• PTotal= (E)^n where E is the event and n is the number of independent events.

The addition rule for mutually exclusive events in a sample space S states that the probability of that event occurring is the sum of individual probabilities of each of the exclusive events.

If we apply these rules to the mutation and population case, the mutation is the event “E” and the population is the sample space. The probability of the event “E” must be 0>=P(E)>=1. You are confusing the probability of a particular event occurring which must have a value between 0 and 1 with probability that a particular event may occur by a series of mutually exclusive events which can have probabilities greater than 1.

An example of the correct use of the additive rule is: the probability of rolling any specific number on a die is 1/6. Therefore the probability of rolling a number that's 4 or less -- that is, rolling a 1, rolling a 2, rolling a 3, or rolling a 4 -- is 1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6 = 2/3. It works correctly in this case because on a single die, rolling a 1 is obviously mutually exclusive with rolling a 2, rolling a 3, etc.

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. The probability of throwing two 1’s in two rolls of a die is (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36. Random mutations are mutually exclusive events. The probability of having a particular mutation at a particular locus in two creatures is 1/G + 1/G = 2/G. The probability of having the same mutation in two creatures is (1/G)* (1/G) = (1/G^2)

(emphasis addedd)

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

Respectfully,
Myriad