Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

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.

Sorry, this stupid little ritual didn't change reality either.

 

[joobz]

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:

unoriginal lies again, Oh well.

BTW: I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Um, as programmed in by an intelligent designer.

... as is the case with every computer simulation of a natural process.

As I have explained to you, this does not prove that snowflakes were intelligently designed by Jack Frost.

I would give you the same advice I've given kleinman --- go back to the hind end of the bull and get some new crap. Whining out the same old crap to people who know that you're talking crap convinces them of nothing except that you talk a lot of crap.

It's not even entertaining --- most creationists are much funnier than you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

... as is the case with every computer simulation of a natural process.

Then when one talks about selection, evolution, mutation, etc., one isn't really talking about those real life things, but intelligently designed simulations of them?

How compelling...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Then when one talks about selection, evolution, mutation, etc., one isn't really talking about those real life things, but intelligently designed simulations of them?

No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.

Try to respond to my posts, if you can, rather than to the nutty voices in your head.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sorry, this stupid little ritual didn't change reality either.

and

unoriginal lies again, Oh well.

Folks, adebz and joobequate twins refuse to face facts, resistant strains of evolutionism have already appeared.

I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.

Maybe you should form a mutual admiration society. You can teach adebz grammar, spelling and alchemical engineering and adebz can teach you the finer points of posting gifs and jpegs. Those combined skills make for a formidable evolutionary debating team. Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.

So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible.

You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though.

 

[joobz]

Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Say this lie often enough, maybe it will become true?

yes, truth by mantra. very good, Kleinman. Now I understand why you have so many peer reviewed articles to your name.

 

[Foster Zygote]

BTW: I greatly appreciate the compilment you pay me when comparing me to Dr. Adequate. I aspire to the direct and clear commentary he frequently makes.

Plus his avatar causes one to attribute to his words the voice of Alan Rickman playing Snape which works brilliantly.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Too bad neither of you have demonstrated any mathematical or real examples which refutes the results from ev and the many real examples presented here that show your theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Say this lie often enough, maybe it will become true?

Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.

 

[joobz]

Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.

I have absolutely no clue what any of this blathering means. I think the your automatic lying machine is broken.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why don’t you remind us of all your mathematical proof of the theory of evolution and all the real examples of this mathematics? Don’t worry about anybody accusing you of repeating yourself since you haven’t given us any mathematical proof to begin with. However, you certainly do whine with the best of the evolutionists. Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster. That goes well with your “anything is possible” proof of abiogenesis.

I have absolutely no clue what any of this blathering means. I think the your automatic lying machine is broken.

Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:

Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.

Consider combustion chemistry. It's an oxidative process which predominately oxidizes fuels into smaller MW products, CO and CO2. Yet, larger mw products can and typically do form during this process due to the excess energy present. And during the mapping of it's pathways, intermediates have been shown to combine to form new compounds. Granted these are transient and thermodynamically unstable, but highlight the shear complexity of something as benignly simple as burning. If you wish to know more, look into Phil Westmoreland and combustion.

You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation. Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon. You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining. Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?

 

[joobz]

Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:

Oh GOODY! We are now playing the quote past posts game. Shall I relive the Dr. Kleinman Favorites? Probability exceeding 1? Ah, nevermind.

Well, I must ask, have you looked at Westmorelands' research? Did you know those reaction intermediates existed? did your ignorance of them mean that they didn't exist. The comparison I made was with my cursory understanding of the question. But here's a more complete answer that was provided in later posts by others in this thread.

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase.

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase

De novo DNA synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase I associated with primase activity.

De Novo synthesis of DNA-like molecules by polynucleotide phosphorylase in vitro

De Novo Initiation of RNA Synthesis by the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (NS5B) of Hepatitis C Virus

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis by a recombinant classical swine fever virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis catalyzed by HCV RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

Template-free, polymerase-free DNA polymerization

Template-Free Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by Bacterial DNA Polymerases I Using the DnaB Protein from Escherichia coli

You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation.

No, simply that thermodynamics doesn't argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But, of course, Dr. Kleinman, as a engineer you already know this.

Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon.

????

You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining.

see above. see the kleinman FAQ.

Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?

Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others. I've even see code by Delphi that explains why your multiple selection is slow argument is just plain stupid. But, you are the mathman, so you know this one already as well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So you're aruging that a simulation, intelligently designed, proves that a simulation of evolution is possible.

No, that is not what I said.

You've been listening to the voices in your head again, haven't you?

You cannot possibly see why this is not taken seriously as a firm argument for evolution in real life, as well as for evidence against a designer. It is amusing to see you try though.

The voices in your head are indeed amusing; but it is pitiful to watch you pretend that they have anything to do with me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible.

A slight correction. You can sum up his statement in that way, because you are a lying halfwit.

A mentally normal person could not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Let me help lead you out of your confusion. Here is your explanation of how abiogenesis occurred:

Oh GOODY! We are now playing the quote past posts game. Shall I relive the Dr. Kleinman Favorites? Probability exceeding 1? Ah, nevermind.

Sure, go ahead and repeat my quotes. You complain that I say the same thing over and over anyway. I take from this response you have not run any cases with ev. You silly evolutionists think that you can learn the mathematics of mutation and selection by osmosis.

Well, I must ask, have you looked at Westmorelands' research? Did you know those reaction intermediates existed? did your ignorance of them mean that they didn't exist. The comparison I made was with my cursory understanding of the question. But here's a more complete answer that was provided in later posts by others in this thread.

This is a favorite evolutionist ploy; you can’t post a quote that proves your point so you say, look at somebody else’s research. You then post 11 URL’s which I suppose you claim shows that multiple selection pressures don’t slow evolution. Adebz has taught you well, post as many irrelevant URL’s that you can find. I already played this game with you with your yeasts and multiple selection pressures. It had nothing to do with mutation and selection. If you think you have a reference with a valid point, post that point with your reference.

You can sum up your statement with if you have enough free energy, anything is chemically possible. This is an evolutionist’s idea of a scientific proof, raw speculation.

No, simply that thermodynamics doesn't argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But, of course, Dr. Kleinman, as a engineer you already know this.

As an engineer, you have to determine what is possible and what is impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection. I have posted URLs with quotes from the URLs of real examples which support this contention. You have not countered this with any cases from ev or any real examples. You have whined a lot though. I have come to expect this from evolutionists.

Well, I have the results of a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of mutation and natural selection and it shows that multiple selection processes profoundly slow the evolutionary process. I have shown half a dozen real examples of this phenomenon.

????

Now don’t whine when I repeat myself here. Combination therapy of HIV shows this, combination therapy of TB shows this, combination pesticides show this, combination herbicides show this, combination rodenticides show this and combination cancer therapies shows this. All these examples show that multiple selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of the life forms subjected to these multiple selection pressures. Do you want me to post the URLs with quotes from these URLs that support my contention? I don’t mind doing this again.

You have presented no mathematical proof or real examples which refute this, but you do present some skill at whining.

see above. see the kleinman FAQ.

There you go again, posting a link without a quote. Post you mathematical proof or real examples which counter the results from ev and the numerous real examples that demonstrate what ev shows.

Unfortunately for you, that skill does not help in this debate. Have you run even a single case with ev yet or are you depending on your paranormal skills to learn the mathematics of mutation and selection?

Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others. I've even see code by Delphi that explains why your multiple selection is slow argument is just plain stupid. But, you are the mathman, so you know this one already as well.

Oh, so you have run ev? Why don’t you post your results? When you do, you will find out that the results contradict your unscientific and mathematically challenged theory of evolution. What you would find out is how mutation and selection really works and it doesn’t evolve a gene de novo and it doesn’t transform reptiles into birds despite all your whining.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps you are one of the evolutionists who say that there is no direction for selection and that is what makes it go faster.

This is unlikely, since there are no such people.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yup, I've run ev and it has agreed with the summations that was posted here by Paul and others.

Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection.

Kleinman is the geek in the carnival of of pseudoscience, flaunting his grotesque mental deformities to shock, amuse and titillate the sane.

That was particularly funny. Do you suppose he'd do it again if I toss him a nickel?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You silly evolutionists think that you can learn the mathematics of mutation and selection by osmosis.

Do you really suppose you can deceive us by lying to us about our own opinions?

How crazy are you?

This is a favorite evolutionist ploy; you can’t post a quote that proves your point so you say, look at somebody else’s research.

Yeah, sure, referring to scientifically proven facts is indeed a favorite "ploy" of evolutionists.

And your self-pitying hysteria and refusal to look at the facts --- well, this is a favorite behavior of creationists, but I wouldn't dignify it with the word "ploy", since the phrase "mental handicap" would be more accurate.

You then post 11 URL’s which I suppose you claim shows that multiple selection pressures don’t slow evolution.

Why do you suppose that?

Oh yes, I nearly forgot --- you're a looney.

A sane person would have noticed that he was responding to your question about abiogenesis.

As an engineer, you have to determine what is possible and what is impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev program (which you haven’t run a single case with) shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by mutation and selection.

We all know you're lying, remember?

Combination therapy of HIV shows this, combination therapy of TB shows this, combination pesticides show this, combination herbicides show this, combination rodenticides show this and combination cancer therapies shows this.

These are all examples of successful adaptation to multiple selection pressures. You know, the thing you say is "mathematically impossible"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman may not have done anything to prove the childish fairy-story about the talking snake, but he has convinced me of the unshakeable truth of Proverbs 26:11.

He swore he'd prove that Genesis
was true, but --- not to our surprise ---
his thesis was no more than this:
repeating half-a-dozen lies.

A fool grown wise in his conceit
through putrid swelling of his brain,
who, once exposed in his deceit
recites his stupid lies --- again.

One moral only draw we from it;
one sure and simple rule:
the dog returneth to his vomit;
to foolishness, the fool.