Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

Simple enough Delphi, give us an example of multiple selection conditions that converges more quickly than a single selection condition. I expect to see that example about the same time you post the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

As linked to in my sig, you stupid whining liar.

 

[kjkent1]

Your challenge is simple Delphi, define three selection conditions that can evolve rapidly. I don’t think you or any other evolutionist can do this. The only BS in this thread is the theory of evolution and of course abiogenesis, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology.

If you had studied my experiment from several pages ago, you would have realized that your current challege was met and dismissed a long time ago.

But, I'll give you a new ev example:

Population: 64
Potential sites: 2048
Missed Sites: 100
Spurious Bindings within gene:100
Spurious Bindings outside gene: 100

All other settings use defaults.

Result: Rseq -> Rfreq: 35,468 generations

Same test as above, except:

Missed Sites: 1
Spurious Bindings within gene: 1
Spurious Bindings outside gene: 100


Result: Rseq -> Rfreq: 58,327 generations

Conclusion: One selective pressure maximized (spurious bindings outside gene) evolves slower than does all selective pressures maximized.

I trust that eating crow suits your palette, Alan, cause that's what's on the menu.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The first time you did it, it was a stupid halfwitted blunder.

Now it's a lie.

You may be crazy and stupid enough to think that a mere three routes would present a challenge to an evolutionary algorithm, when they can cope with millions.

But a mathematician has just explained the facts to you.

It's not a blunder any more, it's a stupid lie, you stupid liar.

Interestingly, Kleinman has become an example of how multiple selection pressures (the evolutionarians here) failed to produce any evolution of Kleinman's arguments, with the sole exception that he's accumulated a few insults like "string cheese" to toss about. I'm noticing that the points he's making now, after 3000+ generations with multiple selection pressures, are not noticably different than those at the abiogenesis of this thread. Astonishing. We are arguing with a person who must have been intelligent at some time in the past but now seems completely unable to learn.

Dr. Kleinman, think about this for more that two seconds: It is not valid to take a simulation (Ev) and use it for functions it does not thoroughly model (evolution) to extrapolate conclusions (that evolution is impossible). Your method is mathematically invalid and your understanding of computer science is pitifully lacking.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you had studied ...

Ay, there's the rub.

Kleinman just claimed that an evolutionary algorithm for optimising the TSP would have difficulty optimizing the problem when there were only three possible routes.

If he had studied --- oh, yeah, but he won't and he can't.

 

[Level]

Dr. Kleinman, think about this for more that two seconds: It is not valid to take a simulation (Ev) and use it for functions it does not thoroughly model (evolution) to extrapolate conclusions (that evolution is impossible).

Hey! I said that over 4 months ago:

So let me get this straight, Kleinman is saying evolution is bunk because it is incompatible with certain results of a simulation? That's rich.

Carry on..

 

[joobz]

Joobz, the James Randi resident alchemical engineer, when are you going to tell us how ribose forms nonenzymatically?

are you any closer to understanding Thermodyanmics?

That’s interesting, how many atoms do you model? Are you going to show us how abiogenesis occurs? Why don’t you show us how ribose forms nonezymatically? Feel free to use Lennard-Jones type potentials. And why don’t you apply this principle and show us the selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning?

I'm sorry. What is this gibberish?

Paul, joobz has solved your problem, all you need to do is put "Quantitative Network Signal Combinations Downstream of TCR Activation Can Predict IL-2 Production Response" into ev.

I don't understand this statement either. Is this a smart thing to say?

Joobz, ev is showing the exact opposite of what you propose, the treatment of HIV with three antiviral medications shows the exact opposite of what you propose, Wikipedia shows the exact opposite of what you propose and your own example shows the exact opposite of what you propose when you said the following:

Does this make sense to you? We use (and have used) triple antibiotics for decades. But we still seem to get infections, and we know have bacteria resistant to all three....
How does your game of three fit this observation?

The more complex a system gets the slower the sorting process becomes. This is a mathematical fact of life you evolutionists are in denial of. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, that and you have no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. The only science in abiogenesis is science fiction. The only problem I have with these two concepts is which one is dumb and which one is dumber.

You are right. To simulate big numbers of stuff, the computer code takes a really long time to run. Look at some of the quantum chemical simulations for reaction chemistry. As we add chemical species, this reaction occurs even slower.

So let me ask you then, If we had a mix of 3 reagents that can undergo 3 different reaction schemes, will nothing happen because there are too many chemicals? Too many reaction pathways?

 

[joobz]

Bad Mercutio!

What ????
Next you'll tell me that
dx /= DeltaX.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What ev is demonstrating that once the number of selection conditions (truck routes) becomes three or more, ...

Somehow I missed this gem. Are you seriously claiming that there is something magical about three conditions? I can disprove this instantly: What if I had combined the spurious binding mistake points into only one pressure? Then the magic number would have been two.

I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful)

You've got to be kidding me. I had the feeling that comprehension of the written word was not your strong suit based on the responses you have created to my queries, but this simply takes the cake. You are quoting me a passage that tells you that evolutionary optimization techniques work better if we have a problem that we can't solve easily when we have to sort through the problem one solution at a time because evolutionary optimization can solve the multiple problems all at the same time? You know, parallel processing? To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Joobz already answered this, why do you insist on making such a fool of yourself?

This applies to selection pressures that do not completely block reproduction.

Great. Then by that logic, evolution with multiple selection pressures that do not completely block reproduction (which is the usual state of affairs) is not slowed and should work mighty fine, mighty fine indeed, sir. This is precisely what I have been telling you for several pages. So you now agree?

the example of triple antiviral agents for the treatment of HIV demonstrates this.

Triple antiviral agents for HIV demonstrates that if you block replication, then there simply cannot be many offspring for the next generation. Triple therapy doesn't tell us anything about the number of selection pressures necessary to block replication in every organism, it tells us that strong selection pressures are strong. Three strong selection pressures are stronger as a selection pressure than one strong one if there is considerable variability in the organism. If the selection pressures are weak, however, as is the case most of the time in nature, then you have already signed onto the propostion that evolution works on each of those pressures at the same time to find a solution -- no slowing. That is what the fitness landscape shows.

Of course you are not playing the game, you can’t even see the goalposts.

We are discussing your analogy. Got it?

I’ve already explained to you two ways in which triple antiviral slow the evolution of drug resistant strains of HIV, but since you are having a difficult time understanding this concept, I’ll repeat these points again. The first way triple antiviral agents slow the evolution of drug resistant strains of HIV is that it requires at least three mutations to occur at appropriate loci for a fully resistant strain of the virus to appear. Even if one or two mutations occur at appropriate loci, the still effective third drug will continue to slow reproduction. Slowing reproduction reduces the fitness of the virus and three drugs slow reproduction more than a single drug and delay the appearance of drug resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works with multiple selection pressures.

Now you are simply making up stuff about me? And the reason being what? Look, I'm a physician if it hasn't already been made apparent to you. I have treated many patients with AIDS in my time. I know how these drugs work, and I have repeated the mechanisms several times in this very thread. Pleas stop wasting my and anyone else who is reading this' time and discuss the topic at hand -- your analogy. Triple therapy represents three attacks on a single gene (or two genes when the protease inhibitors are used). This is a very specific type of attack and is not like the typical selection pressures seen in the wild, or I would hope modelled in ev. The proper response to seeing the effect of triple therapy should never be "ooh, three selection pressures and that organism is out", but that strong selection pressures that virtually eliminate replication virtually eliminate replication. If three drugs were all it took to stop evolution, then why do we still have HIV? Why do people on triple therapy still die? And more to the point, how is it that tuberculosis not only still exists but is resurging? the answer is not solely por compliance, though that clearly plays into this. For HIV the situation is much more complex

Other species may reproduce to fill the niche left by the extinct species but you are not going to get the macroevolution of new species to fill the niche.

What?

There are no selection processes to do this and ev shows that the rate of generation of information is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve in the time available.

Even if that were the case, which seems to be wrong, but even if that were the case, you do not blame the modelling of the computer program? Are you suggesting that evolutionary change does not occur?

You neglect the host response to disease. Populations that have never been exposed to a particular disease to not mount good host responses to the disease.

OK, this has gone beyond silly, now. I have been harping on host response to disease. Death of the host is a host response to disease is it not? The population effect is the point. People die. When lots of people die the organism tends to die as well. The varieties that are less virulent tend to survive. This is not a matter of a population suddenly creating de novo an immune response, nor is it a matter of the immune response telling the whole story. Rapid death of hosts results in less virulent organisms over time. This has been observed again and again.

The only point you make here is that ineffective selective pressures do no slow reproduction very much.

Yeah, well, it's just blindingly obvious isn't it? Yes, dammit, that has been the whole friggin' point. The number of selection pressures is not the important issue, but the strength of selection pressure. How many times must I repeat the same thing? Weak selective pressures do, however, provide pressure and they elicit change -- that is the very definition of selection pressure.

What you don’t seem to understand that more than one, less severe selection pressures profoundly slows the evolutionary process.

It completely depends on the type of selection pressure. You cannot speak of selection pressures in unqualified terms (as you have been doing). I have never stated that multiple selection pressures do not slow the changes in a particular group, so stop accusing me of what I understand or do not understand. There is no particular reason, however, that there is any substantive change in speed of evolutionary change with multiple weak selection pressures -- see the fitness landscape again.

You and Dr Richard propose that there are thousands of selection pressures on the HIV virus. The mathematics of the fitness optimization of this case is outlandishly impossible. Nothing evolves under these circumstances.

Dr. Richard proposed thousands. I am more conservative in my claims, since I don't consider each immune response gene an independent selection pressure, but that is beside the point.

There were clearly multiple selection pressures on HIV before the introduction of triple therapy. Let's just take the simplest scenario for selection pressures that you have agreed to -- host response in the form of immune reaction, rapid death of host in the early years of the disease, AZT therapy. Yet, under those conditions -- three selection pressures (and I am leaving all the others out) -- the virus mutated and the mutations that got round those selections thrived. Yes, things do evolve under these conditions.

Multiple little effects confound the evolution process, that is what ev shows, that is what Wikipedia explains when talking about fitness landscapes.

No, it's not. How could you so thoroughly misread that passage?

The reason you think my analogy of the use of triple antiviral therapy for the treatment of HIV is inappropriate is that you have no understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection.

No, it's because your analogy is poor as I have shown you over and over.

People are much more likely to have HIV resistant to three drugs if they are treated with monotherapy.

And this matters how? That isn't the typical treatment now. You cannot shrug this off so easily. Drug resistance still occurs with triple therapy and in patients who are compliant with that therapy. It depends on the type of therapy, though -- more potent therapy provides less opportunity for drug resistance.

Both the mathematical simulation and the real case of the treatment of HIV show how three selection conditions profoundly slow evolution.

Again, no it doesn't. There are many more than three selection conditions working on HIV (repeated for the nth time) and the particular selection pressure represented by triple therapy is relatively unique (repeated for the nth time).

ETA

Does ev try to model multiple selection pressures on a single locus? If so, why? I guess it is an interesting intellectual exercise, but multiple selection pressures on one gene (one locus) is not like multiple selection pressures on one organism.

 

[Mercutio]

[latex]$\frac{1}{0}\neq \infty[/latex]

[latex]$\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} = \infty[/latex]

Bad Mercutio!

You have inverted my argument! Not 1/0, but 1/infinity! We do not approach infinity, but approach zero!

And it actually does appear to be Kleinman's belief--note that his "a gene is to evolve" defines the truck's route a priori, ignoring all the other possible routes. As he moves the goalposts to "from the beginning", the number of forks in the road have multiplied to the point where that particular a priori route is extraordinarily improbable. If he could move the goalpost far enough back, and specify the route finely enough, our 1/n probability of that particular route approaches zero!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm neither computer geek, nor mathematician, but why is this not merely an issue of serial vs parallel processing?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Simple enough Delphi, give us an example of multiple selection conditions that converges more quickly than a single selection condition.

Multiple selection conditions (three, just for you!):

There you go Paul, Delphi has solved your problem for you.

Your challenge is simple Delphi, define three selection conditions that can evolve rapidly. I don’t think you or any other evolutionist can do this. The only BS in this thread is the theory of evolution and of course abiogenesis, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology.

Potential sites: 2048

What you and other evolutionists are slow to understand is that you can only make the mathematics of three selection conditions work on unrealistically short genomes. Try your experiment on a realistic length genome and you will understand why your theory is mathematically impossible.

Dr. Kleinman, think about this for more that two seconds: It is not valid to take a simulation (Ev) and use it for functions it does not thoroughly model (evolution) to extrapolate conclusions (that evolution is impossible). Your method is mathematically invalid and your understanding of computer science is pitifully lacking.

Well, let’s see what Dr Schneider intended to use his model to study.

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.

So Mr Scott, the author of this peer reviewed and published computer model intended this model to be used precisely for this type of analysis. Of course, you know much more than the author and peer reviewers of this simulation. This simulation properly captures the mathematics of mutation and selection and shows that multiple selection conditions profoundly slow the evolutionary process proving your theory of evolution mathematically impossible. This type of mathematics is commonly seen in optimization and database sorting problems. The more complex the system the slower the process proceeds.

Dr. Kleinman, think about this for more that two seconds: It is not valid to take a simulation (Ev) and use it for functions it does not thoroughly model (evolution) to extrapolate conclusions (that evolution is impossible).

Hey! I said that over 4 months ago:

You were wrong about this 4 months ago and Mr Scott is wrong about this now. I am using Dr Schneider’s model exactly as he intended and it is showing the obvious, that is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Joobz, the James Randi resident alchemical engineer, when are you going to tell us how ribose forms nonenzymatically?

are you any closer to understanding Thermodyanmics?

I can explain thermodynamics far better than you can explain abiogenesis. You can’t even explain how ribose can form nonenzymatically. How is the RNA world going to come about without ribose? At least I know how to spell thermodynamics.

What ev is demonstrating that once the number of selection conditions (truck routes) becomes three or more, ...

Somehow I missed this gem. Are you seriously claiming that there is something magical about three conditions? I can disprove this instantly: What if I had combined the spurious binding mistake points into only one pressure? Then the magic number would have been two.

Paul, you miss a lot in this discussion. Combine the two spurious selection conditions and what you will find is that two selection conditions evolve more slowly than a single selection condition. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Multiple selection conditions profoundly slow the evolutionary process, your own computer simulation shows this. The treatment of HIV with triple antiviral agents shows this, Delphi’s Wikipedia description of fitness landscapes explains this, the mathematics of optimization shows similar behavior, the mathematics of database sorting show the analogous behavior. There is no mathematical phenomena where you sort or optimize on conditions and the process speeds up as you increase the number sorting or optimizing conditions. Yet you are under some delusion that evolution is not subject to this mathematical behavior. You have no scientific or mathematical basis for your conclusion.

Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one (it is easy to determine the driving time for a particular route of the delivery truck, but it is almost impossible to check all possible routes once the number of destinations grows to more than a handful)

You've got to be kidding me. I had the feeling that comprehension of the written word was not your strong suit based on the responses you have created to my queries, but this simply takes the cake. You are quoting me a passage that tells you that evolutionary optimization techniques work better if we have a problem that we can't solve easily when we have to sort through the problem one solution at a time because evolutionary optimization can solve the multiple problems all at the same time? You know, parallel processing? To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Hey Paul, your solution is parallel processing.

Joobz already answered this, why do you insist on making such a fool of yourself?

Oh yes, “multinodal cell signal modeling” and your “parallel processing” solves the problem that multiple selection conditions slow evolution as shown by ev. Paul, your fellow evolutionists have solved your problem with ev. Now if you put these features into ev we can get some data that shows your theory to be mathematically possible. I happen to think that kjkent1’s string cheese theory of evolution is much more sensible than Ichneumonwasp and joobz’s proposals.

And it actually does appear to be Kleinman's belief--note that his "a gene is to evolve" defines the truck's route a priori, ignoring all the other possible routes. As he moves the goalposts to "from the beginning", the number of forks in the road have multiplied to the point where that particular a priori route is extraordinarily improbable. If he could move the goalpost far enough back, and specify the route finely enough, our 1/n probability of that particular route approaches zero!

That’s what the theory of evolution requires. Unless you have only a single selection condition the number of forks in the road become multiplied as you increase the number of selection conditions. Each of the selection conditions are going to be pressing for a particular fork to be taken whether it is beneficial or not for other selection conditions. Even if you could define a selection condition that would evolve a gene from the beginning, other selection conditions are going to interfere with the evolution of this particular condition. This is what ev shows and this is what real examples of microevolution show. This is why it is mathematically impossible to accumulate a series of microevolutionary events to achieve macroevolution. Multiple selection pressures interfere with this process and you don’t have selection processes that evolve genes from the beginning. This mathematical principle is seen in many physical problems.

I'm neither computer geek, nor mathematician, but why is this not merely an issue of serial vs parallel processing?

The reason why this is not an issue of serial vs parallel processing is that you have to assume that life forms are only subject to single selection pressures and that somehow the results of these evolutionary events can somehow be combined to make more complex creatures. The analogy with ev is to take a single selection condition at a time, allow that condition to evolve and then allow the next condition to evolve. Life and selection do not work this way. Multiple selection conditions interfere with each other. This is what the mathematics of ev shows. This is what the example of triple antiviral agents for the treatment of HIV shows. This is how mutation and selection works. It is mathematically impossible for evolution to do what you evolutionists allege.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Lie #1.

Lie #5.[/SIZE]

Truth #1.

Truth #5.

Don't you have any new lies?

---

Amusingly, kleinman's babble shows exactly what happens if you have random mutations (i.e. the nutty stuff which he dreams up in his head) and no selection pressure (i.e. his inability to think).

 

[delphi_ote]

You have inverted my argument! Not 1/0, but 1/infinity! We do not approach infinity, but approach zero!

I just saw an excuse to practice Latex and ran with it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have inverted my argument! Not 1/0, but 1/infinity! We do not approach infinity, but approach zero!

Er, you still have to use a limit. 1/infinity is undefined.

[latex]$\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x} = 0$[/latex]

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you miss a lot in this discussion. Combine the two spurious selection conditions and what you will find is that two selection conditions evolve more slowly than a single selection condition. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Can you ever address the points being made? My point was that there is nothing special about three or more pressures. I was not commenting on the absurdity of your overall claim, just on the three or more aspect.

Hey Paul, your solution is parallel processing.

Yes, the population is an important factor, one that you constantly ignore.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

There you go Paul, Delphi has solved your problem for you.

The only problem here is your lack of comprehension, and it seems we still haven't solved it.

 

[joobz]

I can explain thermodynamics far better than you can explain abiogenesis.

Shall we revist our conversation on this ~2000posts ago? I would have to say your grasp of simple engineering is tenuous at best.

You can’t even explain how ribose can form nonenzymatically. How is the RNA world going to come about without ribose?

Got me, I couldn't. Reactions can occur to form them. This I've seen. But can I explain exactly how to would have occured billions of years ago? Nope. Wow, this must mean we chuck the whole theory... Oh wait.
Does the Gibb's Paradox mean we abandon classical Thermo?

At least I know how to spell thermodynamics.

that's the least of my grammar and spelling errors. I've noticed I also did an "Are" instead of "our" and omitted some "to be" verbs. But what does this have to do with the content?

Oh yes, “multinodal cell signal modeling” and your “parallel processing” solves the problem that multiple selection conditions slow evolution as shown by ev. .

This is my favorite of your abuses and lies.
Dismiss a clearly explained concept by quoting random words from said concept in a contemptable manner.

Let me try:
Kleinman, does the "issue of serial vs parallel processing" and "So Mr Scott, the author" prove god exits?

wait, I guess I still don't quite have the hang of it...

 

[Dr Adequate]

I suggest the following numbering system.

---

Lie #0: When we point out what a stupid liar he is, kleinman sometimes claims to be truthful.

Truth #0: His lies are so stupid and blatant that he's not fooling anyone.

Lie #1: Kleinman claims to have "proved" the impossibility of genetics "mathematically".

Truth #1: There is nothing even remotely resembling a mathematical proof of anything in his gibberish. Putting inaccurate figures into someone else's computer program is neither mathematics nor proof.

Lie #2: Kleinman claims to have put realistic figures into his proof.

Truth #2: And yet his figures for population are off by ... what? Quadrillions? Quintillions?

Lie #3: Kleinman claims that he is using ev as Dr Schneider intended.

Truth #3: Dr Schneider did not intend a whining halfwit to put garbage numbers into ev and then crow and preen himself when he successfully gets garbage out.

Lie #4: Kleinman claims that we cannot show him how a gene evolves "from the beginning".

Truth #4: We have shown him the de novo evolution, not just of genes, but of entire genomes.

Lie #5: Kleinman claims that a wikipedia article which says that evolutionary algorithms are particularly effective at solving a certain kind of optimization problem shows that they aren't. In particular, he claims that this process, which works when there are ... what? ... trillions, quadrillions, quintillions of routes? ... must fail when there are only three.

Truth #5: This is distilled essence of garbage. The wiki article says the very opposite of what he claims. If he'd sumitted his original garbage for peer review, it would have been rejected with a mild chuckle. If he submitted this for peer review, computer scientists would come round and throw rocks at his house.

---

Have I missed anything?

 

[kjkent1]

What you and other evolutionists are slow to understand is that you can only make the mathematics of three selection conditions work on unrealistically short genomes. Try your experiment on a realistic length genome and you will understand why your theory is mathematically impossible.

So, you are expecting the three mistakes test to eventually become slower than the spurious bindings test?

At what genome/potential sites length?