Annoying creationists

[articulett]

Welcome to the Kleinman method:
Dismiss a clearly explained concept by quoting random words from said concept in a contemptable manner.

ignorance and arrogance are directly proportional to one's level of faith.

Q.E.D.

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, when are you going to give an example (either real or mathematical) which shows that multiple selection pressures speeds up evolution?

As soon as you give me some notation you'll actually understand, as I already presented an example of this and it went right over your head.

 

[mijopaalmc]

There are no end to evolutionists’ ridiculous speculations. If you believe the formose reaction will produce ribose, produce the experiment that does this. If you take the time to study the physical properties of ribose, you will find out this is an unstable molecule. Even if you could design an experiment in which you could produce ribose non-enzymatically (which you can’t), the ribose produced would be unstable and have a half life of only a few years and also be a racemic mixture.

So are you saying that you think the RNA-World Hypothesis is the only prebiotic hypothesis you accept?

You ignored, as usual, the proposal of threose nucleic acid (TNA) as a precusor to RNA. It is also possible that the pre-biotic world was a peptide world, given that there are many small molecules (e.g., carbonyl sulfide) that can catalyze abiotic peptide bond formation. Having read a good portion of this thread, I see little use in continuing to argue with you, as you have already decided that "evolutionists" are deluded in thinking that abiogenesis has a naturalist explanation and no amount of evidence on a topic concerning evolution and abiogenesis will convince you otherwise. I therefore bow out of this discussion as I can see that not only is the point I am making is tangential to the topic at hand, which other are doing a much better job of explaining, but also that it is a waste of my time to discuss something with someone who will deny any validity in the evidence I present.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

This article was published in 2004 meaning the data are at least a couple years older. I have attended CME lectures on the topic within the last year and triple therapy with monitoring and sequencing of the virus for drug resistant strains is the standard of care. The reason this is done is so the virus can not easily walk the fitness landscape and evolve new resistant strains.

This is what the mathematics of mutation and selection shows and this is what the clinical response to these types of therapies show. Multiple selection pressures when applied simultaneously slow evolution.

How nice that you keep up. Now answer the issues reaised, please. You've not even attempted to do so. The standard of care is not the issue. The issue revolves around the mechanisms of drug resistance and the creation of resistant strains in patients who are not compliant.

And the issue you are in complete denial of is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is why multiple drug therapy is used with HIV and TB. You can still get drug resistant microbes with multiple drug therapy but the process is slowed.

If administered in combination with other medications, that resistance comes about more slowly because the virus has a more complex walk in the fitness landscape in order to develop the drug resistance.

Standard of care uses three drugs with monitoring for signs of resistance to any of the drugs. As soon as resistance to any one of the drugs is detected an attempt is made to substitute to a new drug.

OK, I think I get it now. You completely misregard any information with which you cannot deal and pretend that you are answering a challenge by posting competely unrelated material.

Ichneumonwasp, apparently you are unaware that this thread is about the mathematics of mutation and selection. In particular this discussion is a centered around the ev computer model of mutation and selection. This model shows that multiple selection process slow evolution. The real examples of the treatment of HIV and your very nice example of the treatment of TB are demonstrations of this phenomenon. Until you come to grips with this mathematical fact, you will have difficulty understanding how and why these treatment strategies are used.

My first impulse was correct. You guys have fun playing this silly game for the forseeable future. I have better things to do with my time.

If you want to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection, spend some time studying the ev computer model. Then you will be able to properly understand why multiple drug therapies are use to treat HIV, TB, and cancer. These multiple selection pressures suppress the evolution of resistant strains of any particular drug. Of course these examples of how mutation and selection actually work shows that your theory of evolution is bunk. You can not achieve macroevolution because multiple selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.

Delphi, when are you going to give an example (either real or mathematical) which shows that multiple selection pressures speeds up evolution?

As soon as you give me some notation you'll actually understand, as I already presented an example of this and it went right over your head.

You can use algebra and English; let me help you with the expression:
Let x = number of selection pressures.
If x > 1 then the number of examples where evolution proceeds more rapidly than when x = 1 is f.

There are no end to evolutionists’ ridiculous speculations. If you believe the formose reaction will produce ribose, produce the experiment that does this. If you take the time to study the physical properties of ribose, you will find out this is an unstable molecule. Even if you could design an experiment in which you could produce ribose non-enzymatically (which you can’t), the ribose produced would be unstable and have a half life of only a few years and also be a racemic mixture.

So are you saying that you think the RNA-World Hypothesis is the only prebiotic hypothesis you accept?

As I said, there is no end to evolutionists’ ridiculous speculations.

You ignored, as usual, the proposal of threose nucleic acid (TNA) as a precusor to RNA. It is also possible that the pre-biotic world was a peptide world, given that there are many small molecules (e.g., carbonyl sulfide) that can catalyze abiotic peptide bond formation. Having read a good portion of this thread, I see little use in continuing to argue with you, as you have already decided that "evolutionists" are deluded in thinking that abiogenesis has a naturalist explanation and no amount of evidence on a topic concerning evolution and abiogenesis will convince you otherwise. I therefore bow out of this discussion as I can see that not only is the point I am making is tangential to the topic at hand, which other are doing a much better job of explaining, but also that it is a waste of my time to discuss something with someone who will deny any validity in the evidence I present.

Oh, I see, you like to call your ridiculous speculations “proposals”.

Mijopaalmc, since you are new to this thread and are already preparing to depart, perhaps you would tell us what the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? Once you do that, would you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? In particular, could you tell us what helicase and gyrase were doing before there was DNA? There just doesn’t seem to be any evolutionists who can fill these gaps in your gap theory.

 

[delphi_ote]

Let x = number of selection pressures.
If x > 1 then the number of examples where evolution proceeds more rapidly than when x = 1 is f.

I cannot express a fitness function conveniently in algebra. You won't understand what I type. We need some way mathematically talking about functions of the type:

[latex]$f(x)=y[/latex]
[latex]y\in{\mathbb R}[/latex]
And x is a sequence of characters.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Let x = number of selection pressures.
If x > 1 then the number of examples where evolution proceeds more rapidly than when x = 1 is

f.

I cannot express a fitness function conveniently in algebra. You won't understand what I type. We need some way mathematically talking about functions of the type:

And x is a sequence of characters.

I understand functional notation. I also have some training and experience is solving multidimensional nonlinear functional equations. This is why when you presented the link to Wikipedia fitness landscapes, I immediately recognized the relationship and significance to the results from ev.

Your f(x)=y, where x is a vector in your multidimensional functional equation describing a fitness landscape. In this case, the vector x defines points on the surface of the fitness landscape and the selection pressures, x1, x2, x3,… to the number of selection pressures define a direction for the walk on the fitness landscape. y is the fitness of the creature to reproduce. The optimum solution to this equation represents a value y which gives optimum reproduction.

It is very easy to find an optimum if x is one dimensional. Finding this solution mathematically consists of computing points on the surface and using Newton-Raphson, secant method, interval halving or a variety of other methods for finding roots to this type of equation. However, mutation and selection does not look for this optimum systematically. What mutation and selection does is give random changes to a genome. If the change is beneficial that creature is more fit and is a better reproducer, if detrimental it is less fit and not as good a reproducer.

As you increase the number of dimensions to x (the number of selection pressures), this search for the optimum become more difficult. If done mathematically, it requires the evaluation of more points on the surface in order to find an appropriate search direction. If done by mutation and selection, the numbers of possible search directions confound the process. A random search is the slowest way of finding an optimum on the surface. This is why I continue to ask you for an example of a multiple selection pressure situation which would find an optimum more quickly than a fewer selection pressure situation. This condition does not make sense mathematically and is not what ev shows and I believe that Dr Schneider properly modeled mutation and selection. And it does not make sense when observing real world behavior of mutation and selection.

Multiple selection conditions confound the search for an optimum on the fitness surface. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

 

[BPScooter]

Although it has been claimed to be mathematically impossible, I continue to consider that life on Earth can be understood through Darwinian ideas and arguments.

 

[joobz]

I understand functional notation.

Of course you do. I've never doubted you were a smart man. That is why I consider you a dishonest liar. You are aware of the truth, but willfully ignore it.

I also have some training and experience is solving multidimensional nonlinear functional equations. This is why when you presented the link to Wikipedia fitness landscapes, I immediately recognized the relationship and significance to the results from ev.

Your f(x)=y, where x is a vector in your multidimensional functional equation describing a fitness landscape. In this case, the vector x defines points on the surface of the fitness landscape and the selection pressures, x1, x2, x3,… to the number of selection pressures define a direction for the walk on the fitness landscape. y is the fitness of the creature to reproduce. The optimum solution to this equation represents a value y which gives optimum reproduction.

It is very easy to find an optimum if x is one dimensional. Finding this solution mathematically consists of computing points on the surface and using Newton-Raphson, secant method, interval halving or a variety of other methods for finding roots to this type of equation. However, mutation and selection does not look for this optimum systematically. What mutation and selection does is give random changes to a genome. If the change is beneficial that creature is more fit and is a better reproducer, if detrimental it is less fit and not as good a reproducer.

As you increase the number of dimensions to x (the number of selection pressures), this search for the optimum become more difficult. If done mathematically, it requires the evaluation of more points on the surface in order to find an appropriate search direction. If done by mutation and selection, the numbers of possible search directions confound the process. A random search is the slowest way of finding an optimum on the surface. This is why I continue to ask you for an example of a multiple selection pressure situation which would find an optimum more quickly than a fewer selection pressure situation. This condition does not make sense mathematically and is not what ev shows and I believe that Dr Schneider properly modeled mutation and selection. And it does not make sense when observing real world behavior of mutation and selection.

Multiple selection conditions confound the search for an optimum on the fitness surface. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Very very good. you just described why poor adaptation to severe (multiple or single) pressure(s) results in extinctions.

Do you consider pooring bleach in a culture plate a single pressure or multiple? Do we ever expect to see an evolutionary adaptation to handle molar concentrations of sodium hypochlorite?

Now, how does this fit with your magic 3 pressures?
Why do the three pressures you select have only 1 fitness optimum?
Why is only random point mutation the only form of genetic variation?
Why does a simulation = takes too long mean evolution isn't possible?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, how does this fit with your magic 3 pressures?

As I mentioned above, if Kleinman got the magic number 3 from Ev, it's easy to refute. I can trivially change Ev so it only has 2 pressures.

~~ Paul

 

[Mr. Scott]

Well, if you read this thread carefully, A) you would find reference to my PhD thesis which is a computer simulation of a biological system, the results of which have been published. I have also published another computer simulation which pertained to the solution of a non-linear partial differential equation. I have also been paid for commercial work using and writing computer simulations and have taught at the university level both undergraduate and graduate level thermodynamics and heat transfer. Included in this teaching was the instruction of the writing and use of computer simulations.

How strange. You argue here as if you didn't understand computer simulations.

B) Are you sure it is not you who has had half of his gray matter disabled by a rust age theory

What is this rust age era you keep referring to?

Mr Scott, it does not matter what the mechanism of mutation is, it is the multiple selection conditions which interfere with evolution. This is the mathematical and real fact you have yet to come to grips with. No mechanism of mutation will change this fact.

How do you know the mechanism of mutation does not matter, particularly mechanisms not modeled by Ev?

Question for Paul: Has Ev been peer reviewed and verified as an accurate simulation in regards to its prediction of the absolute rate of real world evolution?

Question for Dr. Kleinman: Do you believe the Earth is closer to a few thousand years old or a few billion years old?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Although it has been claimed to be mathematically impossible, I continue to consider that life on Earth can be understood through Darwinian ideas and arguments.

You can do this but don’t claim it as science and don’t teach it to naïve children and tell them it is scientific fact.

I understand functional notation.

Of course you do. I've never doubted you were a smart man. That is why I consider you a dishonest liar. You are aware of the truth, but willfully ignore it.

Why don’t you put some mathematics to your alchemical engineering and prove your case? Or why don’t you give us some real examples of where multiple selection pressures speed up evolution? You think if you wave your hands really fast you prove your case. I give you mathematics and real examples to support my case. The only thing you are proving is that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer.

…As you increase the number of dimensions to x (the number of selection pressures), this search for the optimum become more difficult. If done mathematically, it requires the evaluation of more points on the surface in order to find an appropriate search direction. If done by mutation and selection, the numbers of possible search directions confound the process. A random search is the slowest way of finding an optimum on the surface. This is why I continue to ask you for an example of a multiple selection pressure situation which would find an optimum more quickly than a fewer selection pressure situation. This condition does not make sense mathematically and is not what ev shows and I believe that Dr Schneider properly modeled mutation and selection. And it does not make sense when observing real world behavior of mutation and selection.

Multiple selection conditions confound the search for an optimum on the fitness surface. This is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Very very good. you just described why poor adaptation to severe (multiple or single) pressure(s) results in extinctions.

Here once again you are proving that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer. Ev does not model poor adaptation to severe selection pressure(s). Do you think that the mathematics changes with the severity of the selection pressures? I’ll answer this one for you. The mathematics does not change. The only thing that changes is the rate of information acquisition. This rate of information acquisition goes from profoundly slow to impossibly slow with multiple selection pressures.

Do you consider pooring bleach in a culture plate a single pressure or multiple? Do we ever expect to see an evolutionary adaptation to handle molar concentrations of sodium hypochlorite?

I wonder if you ever considered what happens chemically when you use chemically active chlorine or iodine as a disinfectant. This is an example of large number of multiple selection pressures. Chlorine and iodine combine chemically to large number of sites on a wide variety of biological molecules including proteins, DNA and other crucial molecules necessary to support life. These chemical additions of these large chemically active groups change the conformation of huge number of biological molecules simultaneously which is why these chemicals are effective disinfectants.

Now, how does this fit with your magic 3 pressures?

There is no magic to three selection pressures; it is just slower converging than one or two selection pressures. If you did some cases with ev, you would understand this. Apparently alchemical engineers don’t run the numbers.

Why do the three pressures you select have only 1 fitness optimum?

I never said this and ev does not demonstrate this, there are more than one perfect creature in ev.

Why is only random point mutation the only form of genetic variation?

The mechanism of mutation does not affect the fundamental mathematics that multiple selection conditions slow the evolution process. If you think that other mutation mechanisms change this fundamental mathematical principle, put that mechanism in ev an produce some data and show this.

Why does a simulation = takes too long mean evolution isn't possible?

It is why the simulation takes so long that shows why evolution isn’t possible. Dr Schneider’s simulation of random point mutations and natural selection properly captures the affect of multiple selection conditions. We now have multiple real examples of this phenomenon and Delphi’s Wikipedia description of fitness landscape also explains this phenomenon. So, we have the ev simulation which shows how profoundly slow multiple selection condition are and real examples of this behavior which show why macroevolution is not possible.

Now, how does this fit with your magic 3 pressures?

As I mentioned above, if Kleinman got the magic number 3 from Ev, it's easy to refute. I can trivially change Ev so it only has 2 pressures.

You keep grabbing at this straw Paul but it won’t rescue your theory. It is easy to show with your computer model that 1 selection pressure converges much more rapidly than 2 selection pressures. Your own computer model shows this. Read Delphi’s link to the Wikipedia description of fitness landscape and understand why your computer model behaves like it does and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. We all know how much you like landscapes.

Well, if you read this thread carefully, A) you would find reference to my PhD thesis which is a computer simulation of a biological system, the results of which have been published. I have also published another computer simulation which pertained to the solution of a non-linear partial differential equation. I have also been paid for commercial work using and writing computer simulations and have taught at the university level both undergraduate and graduate level thermodynamics and heat transfer. Included in this teaching was the instruction of the writing and use of computer simulations.

How strange. You argue here as if you didn't understand computer simulations.

You argue here as if you hadn’t run any cases with ev.

B) Are you sure it is not you who has had half of his gray matter disabled by a rust age theory

What is this rust age era you keep referring to?

You mean you don’t know when the theory of evolution got its major impetus?

Mr Scott, it does not matter what the mechanism of mutation is, it is the multiple selection conditions which interfere with evolution. This is the mathematical and real fact you have yet to come to grips with. No mechanism of mutation will change this fact.

How do you know the mechanism of mutation does not matter, particularly mechanisms not modeled by Ev?

The search on the fitness landscape is done by random changes. It does not matter what kind of random changes there are. What drives the mathematics is the number of selection conditions.

Question for Paul: Has Ev been peer reviewed and verified as an accurate simulation in regards to its prediction of the absolute rate of real world evolution?

Yes Paul, let’s hear the answer to that question.

Question for Dr. Kleinman: Do you believe the Earth is closer to a few thousand years old or a few billion years old?

I have not done a scientific investigation into this question. For the sake of this debate, I have let evolutionists set the age of the earth.

 

[joobz]

Why don’t you put some mathematics to your alchemical engineering and prove your case?

Again, you speak gibberish. Running an ev simulation isn't running the "mathematics". I have run several simulations already and they are consistant with what has been presented here by several individuals.

Or why don’t you give us some real examples of where multiple selection pressures speed up evolution?

Delphi gave a rather nice demontration of multiple selection pressures having a faster convergence than a single pressure. Why should I bother giving you another one?

You think if you wave your hands really fast you prove your case. I give you mathematics and real examples to support my case.

The only thing you are proving is that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer.

Sure, If you say so.

Here once again you are proving that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer. Ev does not model poor adaptation to severe selection pressure(s). Do you think that the mathematics changes with the severity of the selection pressures?

again, this question is gibberish. Are you saying that
weak and strong single stresses don't change the rate of evolutionary response?

I’ll answer this one for you. The mathematics does not change. The only thing that changes is the rate of information acquisition. This rate of information acquisition goes from profoundly slow to impossibly slow with multiple selection pressures.

How accuate of values. Profoundly slow. hmm...This is a quantitative agrument? You accuse me of hand waving???

I wonder if you ever considered what happens chemically when you use chemically active chlorine or iodine as a disinfectant. This is an example of large number of multiple selection pressures. Chlorine and iodine combine chemically to large number of sites on a wide variety of biological molecules including proteins, DNA and other crucial molecules necessary to support life. These chemical additions of these large chemically active groups change the conformation of huge number of biological molecules simultaneously which is why these chemicals are effective disinfectants.

EXCELLENT!!!! you've recognized my example for what it is. According to you, magnitude doesn't matter. yet, high concentrations will kill, yet mild forms of this kind of stress generate stress risistant strains. According to you, we could never generate a strain resistant to stresses like freezing, oxidative injury, ethanol levels becuase each of these represent "Multiple selection pressures".

So, perhaps you can explain, then, how this group was able to evolve a yeast strain that was resistant to not only higher ethanol levels, but freezing and oxidative injury?

Cakar, ZP et. al. "Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae."FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Apr;5(6-7):569-78

You claim I have no math to back me up, but Reality seems to have abandoned you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why don’t you put some mathematics to your alchemical engineering and prove your case?

Again, you speak gibberish. Running an ev simulation isn't running the "mathematics". I have run several simulations already and they are consistant with what has been presented here by several individuals.

Oh yes, we have seen all the data you haven’t posted and all the chemistry you can’t explain that proves your point.

Or why don’t you give us some real examples of where multiple selection pressures speed up evolution?

Delphi gave a rather nice demontration of multiple selection pressures having a faster convergence than a single pressure. Why should I bother giving you another one?

Are you talking about Delphi’s code fragment that he hasn’t run in any simulation? I can see why that would impress you. It fits right in with your debating skills, which is not posting data and not explaining the chemistry of your theory.

You think if you wave your hands really fast you prove your case. I give you mathematics and real examples to support my case. The only thing you are proving is that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer.

Sure, If you say so.

You also demonstrate it so.

Here once again you are proving that you are a mathematically challenged alchemical engineer. Ev does not model poor adaptation to severe selection pressure(s). Do you think that the mathematics changes with the severity of the selection pressures?

again, this question is gibberish. Are you saying that
weak and strong single stresses don't change the rate of evolutionary response?

Of course the rates change if you have weak or strong stresses but that doesn’t change the underlying mathematics. Do you think changing the mass changes the underlying mathematics of F=ma?

I’ll answer this one for you. The mathematics does not change. The only thing that changes is the rate of information acquisition. This rate of information acquisition goes from profoundly slow to impossibly slow with multiple selection pressures.

How accuate of values. Profoundly slow. hmm...This is a quantitative agrument? You accuse me of hand waving???

There already is plenty of quantitative data posted on this thread and the Evolutionisdead forum. I’ll repost the data again if you have trouble finding it. You know what posting of data is? That is what you don’t do in order to prove your case.

I wonder if you ever considered what happens chemically when you use chemically active chlorine or iodine as a disinfectant. This is an example of large number of multiple selection pressures. Chlorine and iodine combine chemically to large number of sites on a wide variety of biological molecules including proteins, DNA and other crucial molecules necessary to support life. These chemical additions of these large chemically active groups change the conformation of huge number of biological molecules simultaneously which is why these chemicals are effective disinfectants.

EXCELLENT!!!! you've recognized my example for what it is. According to you, magnitude doesn't matter. yet, high concentrations will kill, yet mild forms of this kind of stress generate stress risistant strains. According to you, we could never generate a strain resistant to stresses like freezing, oxidative injury, ethanol levels becuase each of these represent "Multiple selection pressures".

What you are having a hard time recognizing is that mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process when you have multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. Do you think that polar bears adapted to the freezing weather my mutation and selection? Wrong! They adapted by recombination and natural selection. Recombination is the rapid way for living things to adapt. Mutation and selection is profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures.

So, perhaps you can explain, then, how this group was able to evolve a yeast strain that was resistant to not only higher ethanol levels, but freezing and oxidative injury?

Cakar, ZP et. al. "Evolutionary engineering of multiple-stress resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae."FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Apr;5(6-7):569-78

Your link doesn’t work.

You claim I have no math to back me up, but Reality seems to have abandoned you.

Your idea of a proof now is a non-functioning link.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Question for Paul: Has Ev been peer reviewed and verified as an accurate simulation in regards to its prediction of the absolute rate of real world evolution?

I can guarantee you it makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You keep grabbing at this straw Paul but it won’t rescue your theory. It is easy to show with your computer model that 1 selection pressure converges much more rapidly than 2 selection pressures.

I'm not trying to rescue any theory. I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing magic about three or more pressures.

EXCELLENT!!!! you've recognized my example for what it is. According to you, magnitude doesn't matter. yet, high concentrations will kill, yet mild forms of this kind of stress generate stress risistant strains. According to you, we could never generate a strain resistant to stresses like freezing, oxidative injury, ethanol levels becuase each of these represent "Multiple selection pressures".

Are you suggesting that Kleinman may have to move the goalpost yet again?

 

[joobz]

Are you talking about Delphi’s code fragment that he hasn’t run in any simulation? I can see why that would impress you. It fits right in with your debating skills, which is not posting data and not explaining the chemistry of your theory.

Your inability to understand his post isn't problem, it's your's.

Do you understand how the 1 selection pressure is much more difficult to obtain than the three given?

Of course the rates change if you have weak or strong stresses but that doesn’t change the underlying mathematics. Do you think changing the mass changes the underlying mathematics of F=ma?

gibberish again. Does F=ma hold out for infetessimally small values of m or infinity large values of a?

simple changes in magnitudes of kenimatic viscosity can change flow from turbulent to laminar. Will you claim that the simplications used to describe laminar flow hold in the turbulent regime?

I agee that if we have a perfect model for all of evolution, that model wouldn't change. But we are not there yet. We have currently simplifications of that model and when values used are outside the realm of that model, it is no longer valid.

What you are having a hard time recognizing is that mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process when you have multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. Do you think that polar bears adapted to the freezing weather my mutation and selection? Wrong! They adapted by recombination and natural selection. Recombination is the rapid way for living things to adapt. Mutation and selection is profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures.

Nice escape hatch. evolution is only allowed to occur by point mutation because you say so? All evidence of other mechanisms (that are known to be important) don't count?

There's a reason why your "solid well thought out" argument and mathematical evidence resides only in forum posts.

Your link doesn’t work.

Your idea of a proof now is a non-functioning link.

that was a copy/paste from pubmed.
I gave you the reference. look it up.

 

[kjkent1]

Nice escape hatch. evolution is only allowed to occur by point mutation because you say so? All evidence of other mechanisms (that are known to be important) don't count.

There's a reason why your "solid well thought out" argument and mathematical evidence resides only in forum posts.

This is the reoccuring theme with kleinman. He seems certain that only point mutation is real and all other mutations are illusory (or derivative). Ev doesn't model a translocation or large repeat, so, there's no way to measure what effect these mutations would have on the number of generations necessary for convergence of Rseq to Rfreq.

kleinman also seems unwilling to accept that the measurement of Rseq approaching Rfreq is an "average," not a genetic requirement. Ev simply measures genetic information gain, based on Rseq approaching Rfreq. It doesn't measure functionality, because the creatures have no function. We have no way to know what changes any particular mutation or genetic sequence imparts on its host.

For all we know, were we actually able to get some real world creature to start replicating according to the ev sequences, the results might show huge morphological changes well before Rseq approaches Rfreq.

kleinman's entire argument devolves to: evolution is impossible because ev's point mutation can't evolve a different genetic sequence within the same number of generations that would be required in the real world for a similar genetic sequence, without increasing the number of mutations per generation beyond the threshold where cancer and death prior to reproduction is most likely outcome.

Problem with this is that cancer is generally a somatic cell phenomenon. In a germ cell, a large number of mutations in any generation may stop reproduction, or, have a neutral effect, or produce a substantial change in the organism.

Ev can't model any of the above. Even if we turn up the number of mutations to a ridiculous level, many random point mutations are not the same as one large translocation, repeat, fusion, deletion, etc.

Ev shows information gain, which prior to ev, was the creationist bellwether for what's wrong with evolution. Having lost that position, the current argument is: too many combinations to reach a particular sequence in X number of trials makes evolution impossible.

The law of large numbers rejects this claim, because in order for a probability calculation to be valid in the first place, all outcomes leading to a probability p, must occur given a sufficient number of trials. There's no rule as to when a particular outcome must occur. No matter how unlikely an outcome may seem in advance, it could appear on any trial.

And, with evolution, no particular outcome is required. We're here because we're here because we're here -- not because we are an outcome which is required to occur. Homo sapien could have just as easily evolved to be 3 inches tall and look like a broccoli spear -- rather than a Shakespeare -- if you catch my genetic drift.

Sadly, the creationist mentality is that all outcomes are predetermined. Which is a remarkable paradox, considering that kleinman argues improbability makes evolution impossible. Because, if all outcomes are predetermined, then there is no such thing as improbability to make evolution impossible.

And, so on and so forth.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A bit of chit-chat on Rfrequency and Rsequence:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986/latex/node26.html

And some more:

http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/gcb01/poster/kim_et_al.html

And some real world discussion:

http://www.inb.uni-luebeck.de/research/bsad/

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

For your convienience, here's the publication I mentioned.

 

[Mr. Scott]

[the] ev computer model, a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows this mechanism of evolution is so profoundly slow when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve by this mechanism

I can guarantee you it [ev] makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident.

Kleinman, you're busted. The Ev model is not peer-reviewed as a model of the speed of evolution. Further repetition of your claim, that it is, constitutes willful intent to deceive. It fascinates me that deception is proven to be an integral strategy in creationists' playbooks (e.g. Dover trial testimony). It just doesn't seem very Christian.