Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?

No need. The theory is safe as long as creationists shrink from doing any scientific research.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, but many people have explained to you how an intelligently designed program can prove the concept of evolution.

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles.

So, now we are up to a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur. Hold on, I'll get the Guiness folks on the phone.......

I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.

So, in other words, Dr. Kleinman, you are now reduced to playing semantic games? As I, and virtually everyone else participating in this thread, know quite well the placement of the binding site is pre-determined. The information is not. The absence of information in the binding site is in no way analogous to the HIV reverse transcriptase gene which already contains significant information. Do you wish to argue that there is no information in the gene coding for reverse transcriptase?

Once again, HIV has genes that already exist with information content. That information must change by single or possibly triple mutations in one site (sometimes two in some circumstances, sometimes more). The solution is not pre-determined. Any mutation that allows the reverse transcriptase to function and escape the effects of triple therapy, specifically directed against it, works and provides further fitness. In ev the solution is already determined. There are 16 binding sites (in most runs that I have seen) with a width of 5 or 6 bases. That requires 90-96 alterations of a specific type, not 3 (or sometimes only 2 since single mutations in HIV will escape an entire class of inhibitors).

If you want to use HIV triple therapy as your real-world example, then you need to make the simulation in some way analagous. How about a population of 10^9 in each generation with a single binding site of width 3? Run that simulation and see what you get. Otherwise your analogy is a load of bunkum.

Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?

Why don't we apply this to your list of non-sequiturs, since that is what it is? The Guiness people haven't called back yet. They are going to be astounded. Care to address the actual point -- that there are clearly more than three selection pressures applied to HIV in any patient receiving triple therapy?

Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?

It depends on the regimen. In some cases only one. In others two or three. But in most of those cases only one or, at most, two point mutations are required per locus.

There really is no set number, since it depends on the location of the mutation and drug classes used. But if you want more speicific info, here it is: drug reistance mutations in HIV

The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest.

You really haven't the slightest idea how evolution works, do you? Survival of the fittest is a phrase invented by Herbert Spencer. Survival of the fittest basically means, in Darwinian terms, survival of those who survive, which is redundant and completely unecessary. Fitness refers to reproduction. The fittest are those who leave behind the most babies, who leave behind the most babies.

You are back to the silly semantic games now, aren't you, Dr. Kleinman?

That is what natural selection does.

No it isn't. Natural selection has no goal. There is no goal in nature. Some organisms survive and reproduce and some don't. Non-reproducers leave behind no progeny and are a "dead end". It's very simple.

You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?

We've always said there is no goal in nature. How can you fail to notice? You mean to tell me that you have no idea what the theory even says, and yet you argue against it?

The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

There is no goal in nature. Your mind is so saturated with teleology that you cannot even see that ev is a teleological model. It must be in order to define "information". That is one of the big areas where it does not model nature properly, as it relates to the issues of mutation and natural selection. There is another bigger problem that you haven't noticed, but I'm not saying a word.

These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains.

None of which work for very long and all of which involve many more than three selection pressures as already noted above -- you ignore host reactions in every instance.

Drop the HIV example. The other examples suffer for the same reasons. They are also not modelled properly by ev.

That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

For a given definition of "evolution" everyone agrees that three pressures slows the process. More selection pressure always decreases variability. I don't think anyone has argued against that idea.

You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.

Which doesn't model the reality of the examples you profer. So, I'm back to not believing a word you type. Reality always trumps model. Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around. But I needn't repeat what you have been told since the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread.

What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?

Dude, I know that this is a search space issue. It is specifically a search space issue because the binding sites are pre-determined and the sequences in those binding sites are sort-of pre-determined (based on exceeding threshhold). Genome length increases will slow the process for large genomes with a set mutation rate as well. The way nature overcomes this issue is with numerous individuals and fast generation times -- consequently millionis of "experiments" per generation. You've already been told this. You have also been told another mechanism that vastly speeds the process -- lateral, or horizontal, spread of genetic information. Before horizontal information spread was possible, the process was fairly slow. It took approximately one billion years to move from single celled life to multicellular life. It may have taken close to one billion years to get to single celled life. We all know that process is slow. If it weren't slow, then this theory would be in deep ****. Once the process of horizontal tranmission of information became possible, however, organisms no longer needed to solve each and every selection "problem". If you had bothered to look at the mathematical models provided you would have seen a model that demonstrates the rapid acceleration of evolution once this "solution" occurred in nature.

 

[Mercutio]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

If what you are saying here is that the "goddiddit" ID hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then I am going to have to agree with you.

Of course, this program could have demonstrated that natural selection is *not* sufficient (indeed, Kleinman has asserted this countless times), in which case a prediction of natural selection would have been falsified. Or, again, are you saying that this program could not *disprove* natural selection because it is itself intelligently designed? Of course, the same claim could be made about any systematic scientific examination, so perhaps your claim is that science can tell us nothing about anything in the absence of intelligent design (by scientists). Once again, this would be an unfalsifiable stance, of course--the same as saying that all experiments show the hidden hand of god. Fortunately, pragmatism dictates that, since controlled observation has been so successful, further use of it as a technique (despite your "intelligent designer" objection) is likely to remain useful. When it ceases being useful, then we can worry about claims like yours.

 

[cyborg]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

You are wrong - because fundamentally the concept of intelligence you have is untenable. Because you do not understand the nature of computation you do not understand this. You have created an artificial demarcation between computations that do not exist.

Intelligence forms computation. Evolution forms computation. The method is irrelevant, and the former relies on the later to an extent.

Of course I don't expect you to get this. Please say something silly like I've proven an intelligent designer and confirm that I am in fact wasting my time attempting to talk to man who lacks the intelligence he seems to worship.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Which goes right back to an intelligent designer playing the key role.

No, of course not, don't be stupid

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of weather by natural forces does not suggest that the lightning is intelligently directed by Thor. It suggests that the weather is produced by natural forces.

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of snowflakes by natural forces does not suggest that snowflakes are intelligently designed by Jack Frost. It suggests that snowflakes are produced by natural forces.

An intelligently designed program to simulate the production of genetic information by natural forces does not suggest that God made genetic information pop out of thin air by magic. It suggests that genetic information is produced by natural forces.

In each case the programmer is no more part of the computer model than the desk the computer sits on.

---

I seem to remember you whining out this drivel before. Do you own a Lying Machine too?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles. This is mathematically impossible.

I thought you read Dr Schneider’s Ev Evolution of Biological Information and this thread. Here’s what Dr Schneider says that ev does:

I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.

I repeat this because it is a perfect example of how single selection pressures evolve much more quickly than multiple selection pressures, this is what the mathematics of ev shows and this is how mutation and selection works.

If you think multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly, you need to show us how this occurs and provide examples.

Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?

Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?

This is one of the stranger arguments you evolutionary cultists have come up with. You contradict yourselves with this argument. The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest. That is what natural selection does. You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?

Let me remind you of what Dr Schneider has said about ev:

The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

If you mean “first” when you use the word “prime” then HIV is my “prime” example of how multiple selection pressures slows evolution. However there are numerous other examples which are just as valid as this case. These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains. Each of these is real examples of what ev shows with its three selection pressures. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is a mathematical and demonstrated real fact. Now perhaps you would tell us what that selection pressure is that would evolve reptiles into birds? Pretty please?

You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.

You didn’t read far enough back in the threads but let’s see if you can reason this out by asking you a question. What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?

What relationship to reality does this have?

It seems Unnamed has abandoned the discussion after this last exchange:


I don’t think that at all. kjkent1, Ichneumonwasp and numerous other evolutionists attempt to suggest that Dr Schneider’s only purpose for ev was to show how information gain occurs by mutation and selection and nothing more than that. It is clear by the above statement, which was not Dr Schneider’s intention.

De novo = from the beginning. I’ve started using this terminology again since Mr Scott used a reference from Nature that includes this.

Now Paul, don’t get into a tizzy. Just because ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to prove intelligent design mathematically impossible. Why don’t you prove that it is mathematically impossible for intelligent scientists to do recombinant DNA?

Articulett, I must have missed your description of the selection pressure that would evolve a gene de novo. Could you repeat it again for us?

You posted the concept on this thread. So why not defend what you post?

The proof is out there. Multiple selection pressures slow evolution, ev shows this, numerous real examples shows this. I’ll keep whining this until it gets through your prejudiced and biased mind.

Are you talking about Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Which one of the 10^500 alternative universes did this happen in?

If you don’t think the model is anything close to reality then why don’t you correct it to prove your point? I have already shown how ev’s three selection conditions parallels what happens in reality with numerous different real examples, and you, well you have shown us string cheese.

It is not the random point mutations that make the theory of evolution slow, it is the multiple selection pressures which slow the process, of course, that is just in the alternative universe that we live in. Do you think that the real example of combination therapy slowing the evolution of resistant strains of HIV is limited to point mutations? How about combination therapy of TB in order to slow the evolution of resistant strains of this bacterium? Is this case limited to random point mutations? How about combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapy, are these cases limited to random point mutations? It isn’t the type of mutation which slows the evolution process, it is multiple selection pressures which slow this process.

The numerous real examples of how multiple selection pressures work is not conjecture; they are nails in the coffin for the theory of evolution. It is just handy to have a mathematical model of mutation and selection to drive those nails in.

It could but it won’t. The effect of multiple selection pressures will not disappear no matter how sophisticated you make your algorithm. Ev shows the important mathematical principle that crushes the theory of evolution. That is that multiple selection pressures slow the mutation and selection process profoundly. Add that to the fact you don’t have a selection pressure to evolve a gene de novo and you don’t have a selection pressure that would evolve a reptile into a bird makes the theory of evolution the biggest fraud to hit the scientific community since the flat earth theory.

I have done some work; I did what Dr Schneider suggested to do in his paper. I studied what happens to his model of mutation and selection when you vary the parameters. What it shows is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Of course there are numerous real examples which demonstrate what ev shows and why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Really, what limits the numerous real examples to random point mutations?

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?

Mr Scott, I don’t mind if a pussycat joins this debate.

What a minute, isn’t this the cruft theory of evolution?

Now don’t forget the other fundamental purpose of ev: that is to annoy evolutionists.

So, you've not thought of any new lies, eh?

We've debunked this crap. Thanks for playing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So, you've not thought of any new lies, eh?

We've debunked this crap. Thanks for playing.

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Would you like to have an Irish wake for the theory of evolution?

No need. The theory is safe as long as creationists shrink from doing any scientific research.

Oh, do you mean I should be researching your string cheese theory of evolution? No thank you. I will stick with doing parametric studies of peer reviewed and published models of mutation and selection. Not only does this show that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, it shows an important clinical medical and scientific principle of the mutation and selection process. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolution process. I leave it to you evolutionists to try and dream up the selection pressure that evolves Barney to Big Bird.

Perhaps Delphi is already at the Irish wake for your beloved pseudo-scientific theory.

The biggest non-sequitor in this thread is the one evolutionist make. That non-sequitor is mutation and selection leads to the evolution of birds from reptiles.

So, now we are up to a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur of a non-sequitur. Hold on, I'll get the Guiness folks on the phone.......

You evolutionists keep looking for my motivation for this thread. Maybe I’m trying to set the Guiness record for the longest thread for showing evolutionists how mutation and selection works mathematically.

I highlighted part of the text in blue so you can see that the gene already exists. As Paul said earlier, ev is not an example of de novo evolution of a gene.

So, in other words, Dr. Kleinman, you are now reduced to playing semantic games? As I, and virtually everyone else participating in this thread, know quite well the placement of the binding site is pre-determined. The information is not. The absence of information in the binding site is in no way analogous to the HIV reverse transcriptase gene which already contains significant information. Do you wish to argue that there is no information in the gene coding for reverse transcriptase?

I’m not reduced to playing semantic games; I also like to play mathematical games as well. Maybe Dr Schneider can explain this issue to you.

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.

Once again, HIV has genes that already exists with information. That information must change by single or possibly triple mutations in one site (sometimes two in some circumstances). The solution is not pre-determined. Any mutation that allows the reverse transcriptase to function and escape the effects of triple therapy, specifically directed against it, works and provides further fitness. In ev the solution is already determined. There are 16 binding sites (in most runs that I have seen) with a width of 5 or 6 bases. That requires 90-96 alterations of a specific type, not 3 (or sometimes only 2 since single mutations in HIV will escape an entire class of inhibitors).

In some cases it requires only a single base substitution to give HIV resistance to a particular drug. This fact is used in clinical medicine when treating people with HIV. The virus is sequenced and if this base substitution is identified then the clinician knows he is dealing with a strain resistant to this drug and tailors the treatment accordingly. So HIV requires far fewer evolutionary changes to satisfy a selection condition than does ev. If HIV required that 96 loci to evolve as the ev model requires, it would be very likely you would have a successful lifetime treatment for the disease.

If you want to use HIV triple therapy as your real-world example, then you need to make the simulation in some way analagous. How about a population of 10^9 in each generation with a single binding site of width 3. Run that simulation and see what you get. Otherwise your analogy is a load of bunkum.

Kjkent1 has access to a computer that could do this case but you don’t need it if you understood the mathematics of mutation and selection. The only bunkum in this thread is the notion that reptiles evolve into birds. What is that selection pressure that would do this? Pretty please?

Why don’t you tell us how many people survive HIV for any length of time when the three selection pressures from antiretroviral medicines are not applied?

Why don't we apply this to yoru list of non-sequiturs, since that is what it is? The Guiness people haven't called back yet. They are going to be astounded. Care to address the actual point -- that there are clearly more than three selection pressures applied to HIV in any patient receiving triple therapy?

Well, I’ll answer the question for you, I’ve heard of one case where someone with documented HIV infection that did not appear to affect his T-cells. For the vast majority of people infected with HIV, without the selection pressures of antiretroviral drugs, their own immune system applies little selection pressure to prevent the progression of the disease to full blown AIDS. The only thing going into the Guiness book of records is the theory of evolution as the longest lived and widest spread pseudo-scientific theory in modern times. But the theory is dead now, the mathematics of ev shows it and numerous real examples of this mathematics demonstrate this.

Why don’t you tell us how many loci must evolve for HIV to have resistance to three drugs?

It depends on the regimen. In some cases only one. In others two or three. But in most of those cases only one or, at most, two point mutations are required per locus.

And that is correct as described above. HIV requires far fewer loci to evolve than the ev model but combination therapy delays the evolution of resistant strains sometimes for years despite up to 10^9 viral reproductions of the virus per day. Are you getting a sense of the mathematics of mutation and selection yet?

The set goal in the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest.

You really haven't the slightest idea how evolution works, do you? Survival of the fittest is a phrase invented by Herbert Spencer. Survival of the fittest basically means in Darwinian terms survival of those who survive, which is redundant and completely unecessary. Fitness refers to reproduction. The fittest are those who leave behind the most babies, who leave behind the most babies.

Why don’t you read Delphi’s reference to Wikipedia “fitness landscape”, perhaps then you will get some understanding of the mathematics of multiple selection pressures.

You are back to the silly semantic games now, aren't you, Dr. Kleinman?

Semantics is the only way you can support the theory of evolution, you don’t have any mathematics to support it. Your semantic slogan “mutation and selection” to explain the theory of evolution when examined mathematically shows your theory to be mathematically impossible.

That is what natural selection does.

No it isn't. Natural selection has no goal. There is no goal in nature. Some organisms survive and reproduce and some don't. Non-reproducers leave behind no progeny and are a "dead end". It's very simple.

That’s an interesting explanation how the basic chemicals in the primordial world assembled into human beings. It has no scientific or mathematical basis but let’s teach this to naïve school children and tell them it is the truth.

You then turn around and say there is no goal in nature. Which is it? No set goal or survival of the fittest?

We've always said there is no goal in nature. How can you fail to notice? You mean to tell me that you have no idea what the theory even says, and yet you argue against it?

Oh, I know you evolutionists have a belief system that has no mathematical and scientific basis. You have to deny the principle of cause and effect in order to put forth your theory. It’s up to you if you want to believe in this unscientific principle, just don’t try to pass it off as science.

The only set goal is satisfying the three selection conditions and this goes profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

There is no goal in nature. Your mind is so saturated with teleology that you cannot even see that ev is a teleological model. It must be in order to define "information". That is one of the big areas where it does not model nature properly, as it relates to the issues of mutation and natural selection. There is another bigger problem that you haven't noticed, but I'm not saying a word.

Now I understand your logic, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are based on that there is no set goal in nature. How can anyone deny such powerful un-refutable logic as yours? It has no scientific or mathematical basis but that is the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for you, the dumb and dumber ideas that have taken over the field of biology.

These examples include multiple drug therapy for the treatment of TB in order to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of this bacteria, the rapid emergence of resistance in HIV and TB when monotherapy is used, combination pesticides to prevent evolution of resistant strains, combination herbicides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains, combination rodenticides to prevent the evolution of resistant strains and combination cancer therapy to prevent the evolution of resistant strains.

None of which work for very long and all of which involve many more than three selection pressures as already noted above -- you ignore host reactions in every instance.

Really, none work for very long? Why don’t we use monotherapy then? You should ignore host reactions when they don’t have significant effects.

Drop the HIV example. The other examples suffer for the same reasons. They are also not modelled properly by ev.

Why should I drop the HIV example? Are you advocating the return to monotherapy for treatment of this disease? Someday, if you can overcome your evolutionist prejudices and biases, you will come to understand the mathematics of ev. You will then understand how multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

For a given definition of "evolution" everyone agrees that three pressures slows the process. More selection pressure always decreases variability. I don't think anyone has argued against that idea.

Wait a minute; do we have a break through in Ichneumonwasp’s understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection? So what kind of silly semantic games is he going to play with the definition of “evolution”?

You can believe it because I have the data from a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples of this mathematics.

Which doesn't model the reality of the examples you profer. So, Im back to not believing a word you type. Reality always trumps model. Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around. But I needn't repeat what you have been told since the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread.

So this is the silly semantic game you are going to play. In one statement you say “More selection pressure always decreases variability” and in the next statement you say “Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around”. More selection pressures is exactly what ev models. In this case it is three selection pressures. Reduce the selection pressures in the model to one selection pressure and the model evolves that one selection pressure far more rapidly than the single selection pressure. That is what the model shows and that is what reality shows, including the use of combination vs monotherapy for the treatment of HIV.

What changes in the ev model when you lengthen the genome while keeping all other parameters constant?

Dude, I know that this is a search space issue. It is specifically a search space issue because the binding sites are pre-determined and the sequences in those binding sites are sort-of pre-determined (based on exceeding threshhold). Genome length increases will slow the process for large genomes with a set mutation rate as well. The way nature overcomes this issue is with numerous individuals and fast generation times -- consequently millionis of "experiments" per generation. You've already been told this. You have also been told another mechanism that vastly speeds the process -- lateral, or horizontal, spread of genetic information. Before horizontal information spread was possible, the process was fairly slow. It took approximately one billion years to move from single celled life to multicellular life. It may have taken close to one billion years to get to single celled life. We all know that process is slow. If it weren't slow, then this theory would be in deep ****. Once the process of horizontal tranmission of information became possible, however, organisms no longer needed to solve each and every selection "problem". If you had bothered to look at the mathematical models provided you would have seen a model that demonstrates the rapid acceleration of evolution once this "solution" occurred in nature.

The explanation is much simpler than your long paragraph would suggest. As you lengthen the genome, you only increase the length of the nonbinding site region of the genome. You are affecting the selection condition which specifies binding sites in this region is a mistake.

It takes billions of generations to evolve 96 loci on a realistic length genome and that is when you have directed selection conditions. But we now all know that when there is no goal, things go much faster, at least that is the hog wash you evolutionists say how the theory of evolution and abiogenesis works, the dumb and dumber ideas which have taken over the field of biology.

 

[joobz]

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.

that was my thought as well. It was fun when Dr. Kleinman invented the multiple selection pressure nonsense, but now that he's just repeating the same lies again....boring.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I think I'll take your implied advice and bow out. There is no sense in me repeating, point for point, what has already been said ad nauseum throughout this thread.

that was my thought as well. It was fun when Dr. Kleinman invented the multiple selection pressure nonsense, but now that he's just repeating the same lies again....boring.

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.

 

[joobz]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.

The scientist takes the ball. He dodges past the lies, logic gaps and ad homs set up by the opposition.
He Shoots!!!!
----The kleinman FAQ---
He Scores!!
Yes, Evolution wins. EVOLUTION WINS. SCIENCE WINS!!!!!!!!!
the debate is over. Science has demosntrated evolution occurs and is possible.

Well, you know, Chuck, this really was no contest. The scientists have been practicing, publishing non stop over the last 100 years. They had time to refine the ideas, learn more of the world, and really practice their ideas against difficult real world opponents like experiments and peer review.

The IDers in this game were really just not prepared. They never could come up with a testable hypothesis to practice with. I mean look at them out on the field. The IDers are simply crying that god made this field and they have the right to move the goals arround as they see fit. They never once tried to grab the ball and play a game. Despite this level of dishonestly, the scientists simply kept scoring point after point. No matter where the goals were, they were able to make a clean victory.

And that about raps up this metaphor. I like to thank you all for watching. Please stay tuned for a brand new episode of Kleinman's Follies.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, do you mean I should be researching your string cheese theory of evolution? No thank you. I will stick with doing parametric studies of peer reviewed and published models of mutation and selection. Not only does this show that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, it shows an important clinical medical and scientific principle of the mutation and selection process. That is multiple selection pressures slow the evolution process. I leave it to you evolutionists to try and dream up the selection pressure that evolves Barney to Big Bird.

Perhaps Delphi is already at the Irish wake for your beloved pseudo-scientific theory.

You evolutionists keep looking for my motivation for this thread. Maybe I’m trying to set the Guiness record for the longest thread for showing evolutionists how mutation and selection works mathematically.


I’m not reduced to playing semantic games; I also like to play mathematical games as well. Maybe Dr Schneider can explain this issue to you.


In some cases it requires only a single base substitution to give HIV resistance to a particular drug. This fact is used in clinical medicine when treating people with HIV. The virus is sequenced and if this base substitution is identified then the clinician knows he is dealing with a strain resistant to this drug and tailors the treatment accordingly. So HIV requires far fewer evolutionary changes to satisfy a selection condition than does ev. If HIV required that 96 loci to evolve as the ev model requires, it would be very likely you would have a successful lifetime treatment for the disease.

Kjkent1 has access to a computer that could do this case but you don’t need it if you understood the mathematics of mutation and selection. The only bunkum in this thread is the notion that reptiles evolve into birds. What is that selection pressure that would do this? Pretty please?

Well, I’ll answer the question for you, I’ve heard of one case where someone with documented HIV infection that did not appear to affect his T-cells. For the vast majority of people infected with HIV, without the selection pressures of antiretroviral drugs, their own immune system applies little selection pressure to prevent the progression of the disease to full blown AIDS. The only thing going into the Guiness book of records is the theory of evolution as the longest lived and widest spread pseudo-scientific theory in modern times. But the theory is dead now, the mathematics of ev shows it and numerous real examples of this mathematics demonstrate this.

And that is correct as described above. HIV requires far fewer loci to evolve than the ev model but combination therapy delays the evolution of resistant strains sometimes for years despite up to 10^9 viral reproductions of the virus per day. Are you getting a sense of the mathematics of mutation and selection yet?

Why don’t you read Delphi’s reference to Wikipedia “fitness landscape”, perhaps then you will get some understanding of the mathematics of multiple selection pressures.

Semantics is the only way you can support the theory of evolution, you don’t have any mathematics to support it. Your semantic slogan “mutation and selection” to explain the theory of evolution when examined mathematically shows your theory to be mathematically impossible.

That’s an interesting explanation how the basic chemicals in the primordial world assembled into human beings. It has no scientific or mathematical basis but let’s teach this to naïve school children and tell them it is the truth.

Oh, I know you evolutionists have a belief system that has no mathematical and scientific basis. You have to deny the principle of cause and effect in order to put forth your theory. It’s up to you if you want to believe in this unscientific principle, just don’t try to pass it off as science.

Now I understand your logic, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are based on that there is no set goal in nature. How can anyone deny such powerful un-refutable logic as yours? It has no scientific or mathematical basis but that is the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for you, the dumb and dumber ideas that have taken over the field of biology.

Really, none work for very long? Why don’t we use monotherapy then? You should ignore host reactions when they don’t have significant effects.

Why should I drop the HIV example? Are you advocating the return to monotherapy for treatment of this disease? Someday, if you can overcome your evolutionist prejudices and biases, you will come to understand the mathematics of ev. You will then understand how multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Wait a minute; do we have a break through in Ichneumonwasp’s understanding of the mathematics of mutation and selection? So what kind of silly semantic games is he going to play with the definition of “evolution”?

So this is the silly semantic game you are going to play. In one statement you say “More selection pressure always decreases variability” and in the next statement you say “Models are supposed to reflect reality, not the other way around”. More selection pressures is exactly what ev models. In this case it is three selection pressures. Reduce the selection pressures in the model to one selection pressure and the model evolves that one selection pressure far more rapidly than the single selection pressure. That is what the model shows and that is what reality shows, including the use of combination vs monotherapy for the treatment of HIV.

The explanation is much simpler than your long paragraph would suggest. As you lengthen the genome, you only increase the length of the nonbinding site region of the genome. You are affecting the selection condition which specifies binding sites in this region is a mistake.

It takes billions of generations to evolve 96 loci on a realistic length genome and that is when you have directed selection conditions. But we now all know that when there is no goal, things go much faster, at least that is the hog wash you evolutionists say how the theory of evolution and abiogenesis works, the dumb and dumber ideas which have taken over the field of biology.

No new lies?

Ah well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.

Still randomly punching buttons on your Lying Machine, hey?

We all know you're lying. Why don't you go and tell your halfwitted lies to people retarded enough to believe them?

(Hint: they're called "creationists".)

 

[kjkent1]

My repetition of the truth about the mathematics of mutation and selection based on the results from ev and numerous real examples of this is not boring. It is your whining response that this is lies that is boring. You evolutionary pseudo-scientists have no other response to this mathematical fact and the real examples of this mathematical fact. Why don’t you do something original like post a gif or jpeg, or perhaps an irrelevant URL? Perhaps that would liven up this debate of your dumb theory of evolution or your dumber concept of abiogenesis. Joobequate, could you tell us again how ribose forms nonenzymatically in the primordial RNA world. Then you can tell us how RNA replicates without the RNA replicase system.

Ichneumonwasp, you should bow out of this debate until you learn something about the mathematics of mutation and selection rather than continually repeating your silly semantics of your mathematically deficient theory of evolution. Of course, Delphi seems to have bowed out of this debate because he now understands the mathematics of mutation and selection, either that or he is still sorting his sock drawer.

Here are the goalposts again in case you evolutionists whine that I am moving them.

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

So when you get tired of saying that I am repeating myself and decide that I am moving the goalposts, you will have a visual aid to help figure out why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. What a strange cult you evolutionists have formed.

You have way too much time on your hands. Are you the night manager at a 24 hour pharmacy?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Well, you know, Chuck, this really was no contest. The scientists have been practicing, publishing non stop over the last 100 years. They had time to refine the ideas, learn more of the world, and really practice their ideas against difficult real world opponents like experiments and peer review.

But wait a minute Chuck, a new player has just entered the game, its mathman. And ev makes the kickoff and mathman takes the ball at the back of his own end zone. And here come the evolutionists. Just listen to them whine, mathman doesn’t have a chance. The first evolutionist tries to tackle mathman with a red herring but mathman smells that one from a mile away and easily avoids that tackle. Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face, Chuck take the camera off that, its not suitable for children. Mathman is at his own 30 yard line and Paul throws an Rcapacity which misses by a mile. Mathman is at midfield and kjkent1 tries his string cheese move but unfortunately for kjkent1 he is in the wrong alternative universe. Mathman is on the evolutionist 30 yard line and Ichneumonwasp and ev try to throw a reality move on mathman but mathman avoids this ploy with half a dozen examples of reality and look at this Chuck, ev, the kicker for the evolutionist team has turned around and blocked Ichneumonwasp from making the tackle and mathman scores!!! And the gun fires and the game is over, final score, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f. Chuck, who would have thought it could happen? After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened. This is one for the record books Chuck.

And now for some post game analysis by one of the evolutionists who seems to have suffered a concussion. He seems to think he is some entirely different game.

The IDers in this game were really just not prepared. They never could come up with a testable hypothesis to practice with. I mean look at them out on the field. The IDers are simply crying that god made this field and they have the right to move the goals arround as they see fit. They never once tried to grab the ball and play a game. Despite this level of dishonestly, the scientists simply kept scoring point after point. No matter where the goals were, they were able to make a clean victory.

Chuck, tell joobequate that the theory of evolution has lost the game. Perhaps he can come back next year with the abiogenesis team but few people give them a chance. The odds are way too small for the abiogenesis team in this game.

You have way too much time on your hands. Are you the night manager at a 24 hour pharmacy?

Why yes I am. We specialize in the treatment of people who suffer from evolutionism. You know the symptoms and signs, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea. We start with a big dose of mathematical data and follow it up with numerous real examples of this data. You evolutionists whine when you have to take your medicine but you will feel much better afterwards. Of course we are concerned about resistant strains of evolutionists and some clinicians recommend that the mathematics and numerous real examples be administered simultaneously.

 

[joobz]

Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face,

Kleinman's Follies must be running thin on material to fall back on poop jokes.

After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened.

(bolding mine)
ok, that one's pretty funny. The shear level detachment from reality you possess is quite amusing.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But wait a minute Chuck, a new player has just entered the game, its mathman. And ev makes the kickoff and mathman takes the ball at the back of his own end zone. And here come the evolutionists. Just listen to them whine, mathman doesn’t have a chance. The first evolutionist tries to tackle mathman with a red herring but mathman smells that one from a mile away and easily avoids that tackle. Mathman is at his own 10 yard line and adebz tries to make the tackle with fecal matter from his own diaper but the ploy backfires and adebz smack himself in his own face, Chuck take the camera off that, its not suitable for children. Mathman is at his own 30 yard line and Paul throws an Rcapacity which misses by a mile. Mathman is at midfield and kjkent1 tries his string cheese move but unfortunately for kjkent1 he is in the wrong alternative universe. Mathman is on the evolutionist 30 yard line and Ichneumonwasp and ev try to throw a reality move on mathman but mathman avoids this ploy with half a dozen examples of reality and look at this Chuck, ev, the kicker for the evolutionist team has turned around and blocked Ichneumonwasp from making the tackle and mathman scores!!! And the gun fires and the game is over, final score, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f. Chuck, who would have thought it could happen? After more than 100 years of concocted stories, unscientific extrapolations and incessant whining that the theory of evolution would be defeated on the last play of the game by mathman, but it’s happened. This is one for the record books Chuck.

And now for some post game analysis by one of the evolutionists who seems to have suffered a concussion. He seems to think he is some entirely different game.

Chuck, tell joobequate that the theory of evolution has lost the game. Perhaps he can come back next year with the abiogenesis team but few people give them a chance. The odds are way too small for the abiogenesis team in this game.

Why yes I am. We specialize in the treatment of people who suffer from evolutionism. You know the symptoms and signs, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea. We start with a big dose of mathematical data and follow it up with numerous real examples of this data. You evolutionists whine when you have to take your medicine but you will feel much better afterwards. Of course we are concerned about resistant strains of evolutionists and some clinicians recommend that the mathematics and numerous real examples be administered simultaneously.

Calling yourself "mathman" does not conceal from readers of this thread the fact that your mathematical abilities are below those attained by the average teenager.

Nor will your little magical mantras about "cheese" and "herrings" and "fecal matter" make the facts disappear, because screaming nonsense at reality doesn't alter it in any way.

Your hebephrenic word salad and your windy bragging about your nonexistent mathematical competence have been among the most amusing aspects of this thread.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What you describe is the fundamental purpose of ev: to show that information gain can arise from a randomly ordered system using the process of random mutation and natural selection.

Um, as programmed in by an intelligent designer.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Kleinman's Follies must be running thin on material to fall back on poop jokes.

Nor will your little magical mantras about "cheese" and "herrings" and "fecal matter" make the facts disappear, because screaming nonsense at reality doesn't alter it in any way.

Wait a minute folks, the twin stars from the evolutionist team, joobequate and adebz are whining foul. Let’s ask the officials to do an instant replay of the goalposts, and here it is:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|T|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|H Multiple Selection Pressures .|░░░░*
*░░|E|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|M|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|M|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|P|░░░░*
*░░|T|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|O|░░░░*
*░░|I|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|C|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|S|░░░░*
*░░|A|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|I|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|B|░░░░*
*░░|L|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|L|░░░░*
*░░|Y|░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░|E|░░░░*
*░slows░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░evolution░*
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░░░This is what ev shows.░░░░░░░░░*
*░░░░░░░This is what reality shows.░░░░░░*
******************************************

And folks, check the case of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV and combination therapy for the treatment of TB and combination pesticides and combination herbicides and combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. They all show that multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Sorry evolutionists, whining may work with your mothers when it is time to take your nap but it doesn’t change the mathematics of mutation and selection. The final score stands, mathematics-∞, and theory of evolution-f.