Annoying creationists

[Mr. Scott]

Interspecies Bacterial Conjugation

What??????? How do different species “share notes” via sexual congress?

If you google search for the keywords "Interspecies bacterial conjugation" you will see some nice articles about it.

One I'm reading now is Interspecies Bacterial Conjugation by Plasmids from Marine Environments

Here’s the nomenclature: Horizontal and Vertical gene exchange. It's reasonable to surmise that evolution proceeded quite slowly vertically (for a billion years or so) until microbial conjugation commenced, at which point horizontal genetic promulgation was added to vertical promulgation. In this process, many, many beneficial mutations that occur in parallel will combine for the benefit of subsequent generations. It's no wonder that, in higher animals, such horizontal transmission of DNA is almost universal. Evolution probably could not have proceeded at its post-sexual pace without it.

I presume Ev does not include anything like horizontal transmission of DNA. Am I right, Paul? That would seem to me to impale Alan Kleinman's basic assertion with yet another fatal wound.

From Transgenic plants:

 

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Alan Kleinman's Motivations

I am under no obligation to answer every stupid question raised by you evolutionists. However, in an attempt to stop your incessant whining, I will answer your stupid question. I have not been paid; I will not be paid and do not expect to be paid for revealing the truth about your dumb ass theory of evolution. One reason I do this thread is because I enjoy annoying thin skinned, whining, crybaby evolutionists by using their own mathematical model to prove your theory is hogwash. This is not my primary reason though for doing this thread. That reason is none of your business.

I just wanted to eliminate the possibility that you were paid to undermine evolution.

Based on that and the other cues in the above statement, I'm concluding that it's a vendetta. I suspect evolutionists harmed your career -- perhaps forcing you into retirement.

Your enjoyment at annoying evolutionists is a sign you are angry, and anger always has pain at its source. When I sense someone's pain, I back off.

When one has been wronged, if one must indulge in revenge, one should focus on the individual/s who wronged him, and not blast away at all individuals of the same demographic. The evolutionists you want to annoy did nothing to harm Dr. Alan Kleinman, and don't deserve to be targets of your rage. Revenge doesn't seem to be a very Christian behaviour -- especially against individuals who didn't harm you.

Is this really how you want to live your retirement? In an unending, scattershot quest for revenge?

 

[joobz]

If you google search for the keywords "Interspecies bacterial conjugation" you will see some nice articles about it.

One I'm reading now is Interspecies Bacterial Conjugation by Plasmids from Marine Environments

Here’s the nomenclature: Horizontal and Vertical gene exchange. It's reasonable to surmise that evolution proceeded quite slowly vertically (for a billion years or so) until microbial conjugation commenced, at which point horizontal genetic promulgation was added to vertical promulgation. In this process, many, many beneficial mutations that occur in parallel will combine for the benefit of subsequent generations. It's no wonder that, in higher animals, such horizontal transmission of DNA is almost universal. Evolution probably could not have proceeded at its post-sexual pace without it.

I presume Ev does not include anything like horizontal transmission of DNA. Am I right, Paul? That would seem to me to impale Alan Kleinman's basic assertion with yet another fatal wound.

From Transgenic plants:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/673646261ea21597a.jpg

Not only can cells exchange DNA, They also exchange organelles. This to me is completely amazing.

Yup, life is rather cool. I wished Kleinman could see the wonder that is really there. The wonder that is reality. Instead of creating a wall of lies to hide himself in.

Dr. Kleinman, I noticed you haven't answered anything I and posted? Is it an admission of errors? Do you now see how we have at least 3 examples of multiple stress evolution?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You are using an excuse so as not to set two of the three selection conditions to zero because this demonstrates the crucial behavior of the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Kleinman, I don't need an advantage to beat you in an argument.

You are currently arguing that my data is false because I exclude zero mistake weights. Okay, well what about the case where all mistake weights are set to zero. Ev reports a perfect creature in the first generation, every time, and regardless of the genome length.

On this issue, you have neither advantage nor argument. Without selection you have no evolution. You are also under a misconception if you think that changing the weight factors is equivalent to changing the intensity of a selection pressure. In order for you to learn why changing the weight factors does not represent changing the intensity of a selection pressure, take any one of your cases where you have a weight factor of 100 for all three selection conditions and run an identical case with all the weight factors set to 1. Then compare the generations for convergence. After you do this, answer the following question. Should increasing selection pressures by 100 fold affect the rate of evolution? Once you answer this question, consider this. Why does ev give these generations for convergence despite increasing the weight factors by 100 fold?

If Paul was attempting to model the intensity of selection pressures by his weight factors scheme, he missed modeling reality in this case. It is going to take a little more sophisticated mathematics and programming to capture the effects of varying the intensity of selection pressures.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, bubba! If mistake weights of zero are valid, then ev proves that a completely random genome can produce a viable life form without selection in the first generation.

Don’t be silly.

And, that is the EXACT definition of your "gene from the beginning."

A “gene from the beginning” is the initial formation and appearance of a gene. There is no selection process than can select for something that doesn’t exist. Natural selection can only act on existing genes.

So, make up your mind. Or is zero selection pressures a "special case," that you get to proclaim as unviable, because it doesn't fit with your personal belief system?

A zero selection weight in ev is equivalent to removing that selective pressure. However, varying nonzero selection weights is not equivalent to varying the intensity of the selection pressure. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, these are mathematical facts that we are dealing with.

I am happy for Adequate because he seems to have found a purpose in life.

Yes. That's more fun than it sounds, by the way, you should try it some time.

Why I have a purpose in life Adequate, it is to annoy you. It’s not much of a challenge but you do what you are called to do. It’s nice that you have found a jpeg to spice up your otherwise dull and boring posts.

I haven't read the rest, but this caught my eye passing through quickly:

That’s obvious. If you had read this thread thoroughly and the thread on the Evolutionisdead forum and Dr Schneider’s web site on ev with its associate publications you might have some idea on the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Why do you continue to lie and misrepresent my arguments, Dr. Alan Kleinman? Please answer why you continue to do this?

I am not misrepresenting your argument. You are confusing the number of selection pressures and the intensity of selection pressures. These are independent variables in the mathematics of mutation and selection. If you had some understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection, this would be readily apparent to you.

What I have been arguing is that increasing the number of selection pressures slows evolution.

Well, except when you were arguing that it stopped evolution.

Why Paul, multiple selection pressures can and does stop evolution. It is called extinction.

I’m not lying you silly jack ass. You’ve been whining for pages that I’ve been moving the goalposts when my argument from the very beginning has been that ev shows your theory to be mathematically impossible.

That's the claim, not the goalpost.

Ev sure does a good job supporting my claim. I really like your programming skills. Hey, maybe you would tell us if changing the weights on the selection conditions in ev is equivalent to changing the intensity of selection pressures.

Alan Kleinman should stop referring to a "perfect creature" in his arguments, since we all agree that is a misleading term when one or more mistake counts are set to zero. Then he would have to explain exactly what is happening when one or more mistake counts are set to zero and a creature evolves with zero mistakes.

I can’t help that you use confusing terminology. What you mean by a “perfect creature” is a genome which has evolved satisfying all three selection conditions in your model. Setting weight factors to zero is simply turning off selection for that condition. Setting all three weight factors to zero is mathematically equivalent to turning off selection in the model

I am not mischaracterizing your position; you just continue to miss the most important point. That point is that multiple selection conditions applied simultaneously slows evolution. This is clearly seen with the use of multiple drug therapy for the treatment of HIV. If you use monotherapy, resistance to that single drug quickly occurs.

So, there you go again, Dr. Kleinman, mischaracterizing my position. Since I have not only stated repeatedly that increasing selection pressure slows evolution and have, in fact, provided repeat posting of the relevant passages from previous posts to show you that I have said exactly that, why do you persist, Dr. Kleinman, in arguing that I am saying the opposite? Why do persist in this behavior, Dr. Kleinman?

The reason why I persist in this behavior is that I am engaged in a discussion with someone who does not have any understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection. In order to try to explain something to you of this mathematics, I will persist in telling you that there is a difference between the number of selection pressures and the intensity of selection pressures. These are different independent variables in the mathematics of mutation and selection. Once you acknowledge this, then we can start talking about what ev demonstrates based on the number of selection pressures. The effect of the intensity of selection pressures is going to be more difficult to discuss since ev does not have the capability to vary the intensity of selection pressures at this time.

Certainly as Mr Scott has suggested there may be a “sweet spot” where evolution can be accelerated. You have suggested that this curve may be parabolic. However, this rate of evolution will never be as rapid as when a single selection pressure is applied. You have two ways of establishing the rates of evolution. You can collect data in real situations such as the treatment of HIV or you can look at mathematical models to establish this behavior. You are trying to take a single data point on the fitness landscape for HIV to support your argument.

So, now you agree that multiple selection pressures do not stop evolution? OK< then the argument is at an end.

Of course multiple selection pressures can stop evolution, it is called extinction. It is dependent on the intensity of the selection pressures as well as the type of selection pressures. This is a highly nonlinear mathematical relationship which if you want to understand this is going to require some study on your part.

What??????? How do different species “share notes” via sexual congress?

If you google search for the keywords "Interspecies bacterial conjugation" you will see some nice articles about it.

I understand this mechanism of gene transfer but you said:

Even pandas and people can combine adptatations to varying selective pressures via sexual congress, thus speeding evolution far beyond what Ev currently models.

I think you have extrapolated the concept of interspecies gene transfers a bit beyond reality.

I am under no obligation to answer every stupid question raised by you evolutionists. However, in an attempt to stop your incessant whining, I will answer your stupid question. I have not been paid; I will not be paid and do not expect to be paid for revealing the truth about your dumb ass theory of evolution. One reason I do this thread is because I enjoy annoying thin skinned, whining, crybaby evolutionists by using their own mathematical model to prove your theory is hogwash. This is not my primary reason though for doing this thread. That reason is none of your business.

I just wanted to eliminate the possibility that you were paid to undermine evolution.

Based on that and the other cues in the above statement, I'm concluding that it's a vendetta. I suspect evolutionists harmed your career -- perhaps forcing you into retirement.

You have transcended stupidity and are now delusional. How do you know that I am doing this because I enjoy showing mathematically challenged, pseudo-intellectuals that their dumb theory is mathematically impossible using their own computer model? But that isn’t the reason either. Well, you can psychoanalyze me by my writings on this topic if that amuses you, but I do thank you for your example of the Gonorrhea super bug, it is a perfect example of why monotherapy (single selection pressure) gives rapid evolution of resistant strains of this bacteria.

Dr. Kleinman, I noticed you haven't answered anything I and posted? Is it an admission of errors? Do you now see how we have at least 3 examples of multiple stress evolution?

I did answer you. Your publication on the selection of yeasts resistant to multiple stressors is an example of the selection of beneficial alleles in a population to particular stresses. This is and example of breeding, not an example of mutation and selection. In fact, your case is an example of the loss of genetic information in the gene pool.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I presume Ev does not include anything like horizontal transmission of DNA. Am I right, Paul? That would seem to me to impale Alan Kleinman's basic assertion with yet another fatal wound.

You are right. And it's not even on the to-do list!

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am not misrepresenting your argument.

Yes, you are. You have repeatedly stated that I do not understand that three selection pressures can slow evolution. That is a bald-faced misrepresentation of my position and my direct statements. Do you deny this?

You are confusing the number of selection pressures and the intensity of selection pressures.

No, there is no confusion here. I am forcefully stating that the number of selection pressures (three in your example) is not sufficient to stop evolution in all instances as you have argued previously. It is the intensity of the selection pressures that determines how the evolutionary process is impacted.

So, again, yes, you have misrepresented my argument. Why do continue to do this Dr. Kleinman?

These are independent variables in the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Really? So you agree with what I have been telling you now for three weeks? Did this only just dawn on you or have you simply been playing a game?

If you had some understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection, this would be readily apparent to you.

Well, well, since I have been arguing for three weeks that these are independent variables and you now seem to see that they are independent variables (actually they are not completely independent), how does it now follow that I do not understand the mathematics of mutation and selection? To repeat Inigo Montoya again, you keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. But it is quite amusing to see you repeat them over and over.

The reason why I persist in this behavior is that I am engaged in a discussion with someone who does not have any understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection

And yet, you only just proved above that I do. Golly, fancy that. Keep repeating it like a mantra. It is so very amusing. I need the amusement, so please continue.

In order to try to explain something to you of this mathematics, I will persist in telling you that there is a difference between the number of selection pressures and the intensity of selection pressures.

Golly, jeepers, really? Because you've never made the distinction until this post. I have been the one making that distinction. Glad to see you've finally joied the party.

The effect of the intensity of selection pressures is going to be more difficult to discuss since ev does not have the capability to vary the intensity of selection pressures at this time.

Oh, really? Oh, yeah, we discussed this three friggin' weeks ago, when I brought it up.

Of course multiple selection pressures can stop evolution, it is called extinction.

That is not the issue we were discussing earlier and you know it. You stated that multiple selection pressures always profoundly slow evolution so that it can stop the process. We all know that extinction can and does occur.

It is dependent on the intensity of the selection pressures as well as the type of selection pressures.

Well, I'm certainly glad that I finally got through to you on that issue, since you've repeated it three times in this post but never would acknowledge the point earlier. Do you really think you are the one introducing this idea into this thread?





OK, now that we have all that gibberish out of the way, will you now address the issues at hand? You specifically stated that three selection pressures acting simultaneously so profoundly slows evolution that the process essentially stops. Yet, the early trials of HIV triple therapy with less potent agents produced resistant strains of HIV at 95+% compliance. How do you reconcile your earlier stance and this data? Do you admit that HIV triple therapy is not a good model for you to use as a real world example?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

On this issue, you have neither advantage nor argument. Without selection you have no evolution. You are also under a misconception if you think that changing the weight factors is equivalent to changing the intensity of a selection pressure. In order for you to learn why changing the weight factors does not represent changing the intensity of a selection pressure, take any one of your cases where you have a weight factor of 100 for all three selection conditions and run an identical case with all the weight factors set to 1. Then compare the generations for convergence. After you do this, answer the following question. Should increasing selection pressures by 100 fold affect the rate of evolution? Once you answer this question, consider this. Why does ev give these generations for convergence despite increasing the weight factors by 100 fold?

Uniformly increasing the mistake counts does not increase "selection pressure." Changing them nonuniformly, however, does change the relative selection pressures.

Don’t be silly.

Kjkent is not being silly. He is simply playing on your simplistic interpretation of the term "perfect creature." A perfect creature arises instantaneously if all mistake counts are set to zero.

A zero selection weight in ev is equivalent to removing that selective pressure. However, varying nonzero selection weights is not equivalent to varying the intensity of the selection pressure. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, these are mathematical facts that we are dealing with.

Varying nonzero mistake counts varies the relative selection pressures.

Your entire thesis about multiple selection pressures is based on setting some of Ev's mistake counts to zero. Unfortunately, when you do that, you are not evolving the same final creature as when all three mistake counts are nonzero. Thus, it is meaningless to compare the time required to evolve the final creatures.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why Paul, multiple selection pressures can and does stop evolution. It is called extinction.

Ah, now stopping = extinction. Well, since Ev does not model extinction, you can't use it to draw any conclusions about the real world.

I can’t help that you use confusing terminology. What you mean by a “perfect creature” is a genome which has evolved satisfying all three selection conditions in your model. Setting weight factors to zero is simply turning off selection for that condition. Setting all three weight factors to zero is mathematically equivalent to turning off selection in the model

Yes, that is what "perfect creature" means until I change Ev's GUI. When I change it, I will trash your entire thesis. Your thesis is based on a graphical user interface.

Until then, could you explain to us what functions have evolved in three perfect creatures: one where all mistake counts are positive; one where some mistake counts are zero; and one where all mistake counts are zero.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

I did answer you. Your publication on the selection of yeasts resistant to multiple stressors is an example of the selection of beneficial alleles in a population to particular stresses. This is and example of breeding, not an example of mutation and selection. In fact, your case is an example of the loss of genetic information in the gene pool.

A dodge. You've been played out, Dr. Kleinman. You have been clearly outed as a dishonest fool. Perhaps such games work in your circle, but thankfully those in science don't accept such follishness.

Have fun.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Of Pandas OR People

I think you have extrapolated the concept of interspecies gene transfers a bit beyond reality.

Oh, I meant that Pandas interchange genes with other Pandas horizontally, like people with people, through intraspecies sexual congress. Did not intend anyone to infer I meant between pandas and people.

Still, the exclusion of horizontal genetic interchange is a major problem with your central thesis, Dr. Kleinman.

I intended it as a subtle reference to an infamous book. Sorry for the confusing wording.

On the other hand, I read that a zoo panda bit a zoo patron a few months ago. Can we count out the possibility that bacteria that may have picked up a panda gene might then subsequently transfer it to a human? Is there a mathematical proof that this is impossible?

Religious propaganda in public schools: 'Of Pandas and People'

 

[joobz]

I think you have extrapolated the concept of interspecies gene transfers a bit beyond reality.

Oh, I meant that Pandas interchange genes with other Pandas horizontally, like people with people, through intraspecies sexual congress. Did not intend anyone to infer I meant between pandas and people.

Mr. Scott, I think you are making the mistake in assuming Dr. Alan Kleinman was actually making an "honest mistake" of your meaning. He knows full well what the argument is and knows full well what everyone is saying. Dr. Kleinman knows he can't argue on a honest/real level. So he must make intentional missunderstandings of our argument and turn them into strawmen. It is the only thing he has left.

Remember the Dr. Alan Kleinman method:
Dismiss a clearly explained concept by quoting random words from said concept in a contemptable manner.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm really enjoying this!

How do you know that I am doing this because I enjoy showing mathematically challenged, pseudo-intellectuals that their dumb theory is mathematically impossible using their own computer model?

Because you said it?

One reason I do this thread is because I enjoy annoying thin skinned, whining, crybaby evolutionists

You aren't succeeding in annoying us. I've exchanged numerous private messages with other posters here, and the consensus is we are enjoying this immensely.

If you can supply mathematical proof that evolution is impossible, that might annoy us. You haven't done that, but I know how hard you've tried.

 

[kjkent1]

Kent is not being silly. He is simply playing on your simplistic interpretation of the term "perfect creature." A perfect creature arises instantaneously if all mistake counts are set to zero.

Thank you. This is becoming farcical. kleinman is doing precisely what I suggested: he is arguing that the zero mistake weights show that evolution profoundly increases in speed when two mistake weights are set to zero. But, as soon as three mistake weights are set to zero, and every creature is rendered instantly perfect, that particular example is invalid -- because if it's not, then abiogenesis is conclusively proved, and kleinman's theory is utterly destroyed.

There's big trouble in kleinmantown tonight! The annoying creationist must either concede that ev proves a gene from the beginning is guaranteed where no selective pressure exists, or that evolution is not necessarily slowed by multiple selection pressures.

Or, if he wants to be illogical, he can declare both or neither. But, that wouldn't be very scientific, now would it?

hehehehehehehehehe...

 

[delphi_ote]

I admire your willpower, guys. I can't even keep up with the malarkey. Parsing together the meaning of this inconsistent word salad he's puked all over our forum is too exhausting. Is there even a substantive discussion anymore? Can someone attempt to translate? Or should I just give up and go do something more productive with my life?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not worth the bother, Delphi. It's been repeat theatre for months.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why I have a purpose in life Adequate, it is to annoy you.

That's a particularly pitiable form of monomania. I feel rather sorry for you.

I can't give you any annoyance, but you do make me giggle now and then. And Lie #5 made me hoot with laughter the first time you told it.

---

What's your religion again? I've not come across a sect which teaches that the purpose of life is to annoy me. Most of them aim for something a bit more, y'know, sublime.

 

[delphi_ote]

Not worth the bother, Delphi. It's been repeat theatre for months.

Alright. I guess I'll start organizing my sock drawer, then.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I presume Ev does not include anything like horizontal transmission of DNA. Am I right, Paul? That would seem to me to impale Alan Kleinman's basic assertion with yet another fatal wound.

You are right. And it's not even on the to-do list!

Another evolutionist with no idea what ev is about. Well Paul, Mr Scott has solved you mathematical conundrum with horizontal transmission of DNA. I’m sure you evolutionists can find panda genes in humans. You must make sure the evolutionary landscape is complete and don’t forget panspermia.

I am not misrepresenting your argument.

Yes, you are. You have repeatedly stated that I do not understand that three selection pressures can slow evolution. That is a bald-faced misrepresentation of my position and my direct statements. Do you deny this?

Oh, ok, sorry I misrepresented your position. Do you think that multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously can accelerate evolution and if so do you have any mathematical or real examples of this.

On this issue, you have neither advantage nor argument. Without selection you have no evolution. You are also under a misconception if you think that changing the weight factors is equivalent to changing the intensity of a selection pressure. In order for you to learn why changing the weight factors does not represent changing the intensity of a selection pressure, take any one of your cases where you have a weight factor of 100 for all three selection conditions and run an identical case with all the weight factors set to 1. Then compare the generations for convergence. After you do this, answer the following question. Should increasing selection pressures by 100 fold affect the rate of evolution? Once you answer this question, consider this. Why does ev give these generations for convergence despite increasing the weight factors by 100 fold?

Uniformly increasing the mistake counts does not increase "selection pressure." Changing them nonuniformly, however, does change the relative selection pressures.

Your scheme for changing the weights is far from being realistic. If you increase the weights uniformly, you get the same generations for convergence for each case. If you want to model selection pressures realistically, your selection pressures need to be tied to the dead of creatures. A hundred fold increase in the selection intensity would cause far more deaths.

Don’t be silly.

Kjkent is not being silly. He is simply playing on your simplistic interpretation of the term "perfect creature." A perfect creature arises instantaneously if all mistake counts are set to zero.

That fits perfectly with his string cheese theory of evolution.

A zero selection weight in ev is equivalent to removing that selective pressure. However, varying nonzero selection weights is not equivalent to varying the intensity of the selection pressure. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, these are mathematical facts that we are dealing with.

Varying nonzero mistake counts varies the relative selection pressures.

The way you model the variance in selection pressure by varying the weights neglects a very important realistic effect. If the selection pressure represents the concentration of an antimicrobial agent, increasing that value 100 fold probably would markedly impair the microbes’ ability to reproduce. Selection intensity is a highly nonlinear variable. If the intensity is high enough, it causes extinction. You have not included this effect in the model.

Your entire thesis about multiple selection pressures is based on setting some of Ev's mistake counts to zero. Unfortunately, when you do that, you are not evolving the same final creature as when all three mistake counts are nonzero. Thus, it is meaningless to compare the time required to evolve the final creatures.

Of course you don’t evolve the same final creature when you change the selection pressures. What is meaningful is that it takes huge numbers of more generations to evolve the three selection conditions in ev than evolving any single selection condition. It is much more difficult to find an optimum on the fitness landscape when you are trying to satisfy three selection conditions than when you are trying to satisfy a single selection condition.

Why Paul, multiple selection pressures can and does stop evolution. It is called extinction.

Ah, now stopping = extinction. Well, since Ev does not model extinction, you can't use it to draw any conclusions about the real world.

Extinction also = death, extermination, destruction, annihilation, and disappearance. If you include this in ev, it only makes evolution more difficult, especially when you increase the weights on your selection conditions by 100 fold. Dr Schneider had no problem drawing conclusions about the real world despites the model’s lack of an extinction algorithm. Have you told Dr Schneider he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusions about the real world?

I can’t help that you use confusing terminology. What you mean by a “perfect creature” is a genome which has evolved satisfying all three selection conditions in your model. Setting weight factors to zero is simply turning off selection for that condition. Setting all three weight factors to zero is mathematically equivalent to turning off selection in the model.

Yes, that is what "perfect creature" means until I change Ev's GUI. When I change it, I will trash your entire thesis. Your thesis is based on a graphical user interface.

That’s ridiculous Paul, what are you going to do, change the code in ev so that you can’t set a selection pressure weight equal to zero? You do that, I like it when you have to hide the real behavior of your model in a lame attempt to make your case.

Until then, could you explain to us what functions have evolved in three perfect creatures: one where all mistake counts are positive; one where some mistake counts are zero; and one where all mistake counts are zero.

That’s easy to explain, you have three selection conditions, one condition where it is a mistake if a binding site is not located where it should, the second condition is that it’s a mistake if a binding site is located in the gene region of the genome and the third condition is that is a mistake if a binding site is located outside of the gene region. Interestingly, it does not take all three selection conditions to evolve your binding sites. Setting any one of the selection conditions to zero simply stops selection for that condition. Setting all three of the weight factors to zero is equivalent to turning selection off in the model. What is the function of the genome when you set one or two of the selections to zero? That function is simply to satisfy the selection conditions imposed on your creatures.

I did answer you. Your publication on the selection of yeasts resistant to multiple stressors is an example of the selection of beneficial alleles in a population to particular stresses. This is and example of breeding, not an example of mutation and selection. In fact, your case is an example of the loss of genetic information in the gene pool.

A dodge. You've been played out, Dr. Kleinman. You have been clearly outed as a dishonest fool. Perhaps such games work in your circle, but thankfully those in science don't accept such follishness.

If you read more than the title of your paper, you would realize what I have said about your article is not a dodge, but what can you expect from an alchemical engineer who believes in abiogenesis and can’t explain how ribose arose in his primordial world.

I think you have extrapolated the concept of interspecies gene transfers a bit beyond reality.

Oh, I meant that Pandas interchange genes with other Pandas horizontally, like people with people, through intraspecies sexual congress. Did not intend anyone to infer I meant between pandas and people.

Are we back on the topic of recombination again? Well if you understood that recombination without error can not increase the information in the gene pool and recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of information in the gene pool by the loss of alleles. Let’s see if Paul and Dr Schneider will include recombination in ev and whether it increases the information in the gene pool.

I admire your willpower, guys. I can't even keep up with the malarkey. Parsing together the meaning of this inconsistent word salad he's puked all over our forum is too exhausting. Is there even a substantive discussion anymore? Can someone attempt to translate? Or should I just give up and go do something more productive with my life?

Delphi, why don’t you start with your Wikipedia link to fitness landscape? Once you understand your own link, the rest of this discussion will fall into place for you.

Not worth the bother, Delphi. It's been repeat theatre for months.

Maybe you and Delphi should take more power naps. Maybe the mathematics of mutation and selection will come to you in your dreams. It certainly isn’t coming to you while you are awake.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Delphi, why don’t you start with your Wikipedia link to fitness landscape? Once you understand your own link, the rest of this discussion will fall into place for you.

What makes Lie #5 particularly funny is your windy, pompous, self-important attempts to patronise the people who can see through your pathetic, half-baked delusions.

 

[articulett]

I admire your willpower, guys. I can't even keep up with the malarkey. Parsing together the meaning of this inconsistent word salad he's puked all over our forum is too exhausting. Is there even a substantive discussion anymore? Can someone attempt to translate? Or should I just give up and go do something more productive with my life?

Well, as near as I can figure, Kleinman's point boils down to, "My god is true...la, la, la, I can't hear you...nyah, nyah". (But maybe I'm missing the nuances.)