Annoying creationists

[Foster Zygote]

It could have disproved it, but it could not have proved it.

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."

T'ai Chi fails to realize that his "but the model is intelligently designed" argument is deeply flawed by the fact that every model human minds can devise is intelligently designed. A model of the random movements of gas molecules is intelligently designed. Does he expect us to conclude that the movement of the gas molecules is intelligent because the model was conceived of by an intelligence? Although, maybe he's on to something: ID seems to be full of models that are not intelligently designed.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.

This concept only works if he actually developed and improved his arguments. As it stands, he repeats the same defunct lies in perpetually less creative ways.

Now pussycat, that is another reason that has merit for discussing this issue on this thread, however the counter arguments are so weak, they are not of much use in preparing a presentation. Take joobequate’s argument for example. He has no idea of how ev works and what it shows so he calls my arguments “defunct lies”. His ignorance of ev is the basis for his argument. Consider what joobequate has asked:

He states that microevolution occurs, then what prevents microevolution from going too far? What barriers must be encountered that will prevent the natural selection process?

Joobequate, the answer to your question is multiple selection pressures prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Unless you are going to argue that a single selection pressure has led to the evolution of reptiles to birds, how do you account for all the genetic changes? Ev shows mathematically why you can not evolve the huge number of genetic differences between reptiles and birds and I have presented half a dozen examples of how mutation and selection actually works, all consistent with what ev shows. Wikipedia does a good job of describing the fitness landscape and that is consistent with what ev shows and what these numerous real examples of mutation and selection show. Somehow joobequate has convinced himself that his raw speculations are true. Joobequate, if you believe that reptiles evolved into birds, what is the selection pressure that did this?

 

[Dr Adequate]

My goodness, hasn’t the whining level picked up a bit on this thread!

If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.

Why should you be disappointed in this discussion? This discussion is simply the application of hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection. Dr Schneider has written a bookkeeping tool and we have obtained results from this bookkeeping tool. I contend that mutation and selection becomes profoundly slow when you have multiple selection pressures on realistic length genomes. This is a mathematically testable hypothesis and you can look for real examples of this type of behavior which either refute or support this contention. If you are a scientist, you should not be disappointed because it explains a clinically important medical principle that affects the treatment of infectious diseases. It also has application to many other scientific arenas. You will only be disappointed if you are an evolutionary dogmatist who has a social agenda tied to the theory of evolution.

Professor Behe’s method of attack is still sound. Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity and the example of the flagellum was weakly challenged by Professor Miller’s Flagellum Unspun argument. I asked Professor Miller if he could apply his argument to the DNA replicase system. He could not. Hard science requires mathematical precision. This is something that has always been lacking in the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider applied hard mathematical bookkeeping to the concept of mutation and selection and it reveals how this mechanism works. Unless you are going to retreat to the position that all the complex genetics that we see today developed on short genome life forms with few selection pressures, you are not going to be able to explain the bookkeeping. And you still haven’t told us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo.

You mean to say you aren’t going to complain that I have moved the goalposts. You only can wish that my arguments are delusions. Dr Schneider’s computer model shows why mutation and selection is such a profoundly slow process; it is the multiple selection pressures. And Cuddles, my argument has evolved. It started with the contention that ev shows that mutation and selection is a profoundly slow process, too slow to allow for the theory of evolution to be mathematically possible. My argument then evolved to include a reason for the mathematical impossibility for the theory of evolution, which is multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process.

The theory of evolution is dead!

There is plenty of selection pressure; the theory of evolution has gone extinct.

And Myriad, where have you been, there are plenty of evolutionists who don’t understand the effects of increasing population on the probability of a beneficial mutation hitting a particular locus. They are making the same error that I did before you corrected me. The effect on increasing population is less than additive on this probability. It explains why the slope for the generations of convergence/population curve drops off so quickly in ev and why huge populations don’t cause a marked decrease in the rate of evolution.

and

No new lies here, then?

Neither annoying evolutionists nor achieving a medical breakthrough by explaining how mutation and selection works are my primary motives for writing this thread, though I find both these reasons have merit. Keep on guessing pussycat.

As you've stated that your "purpose in life" is to annoy me, personally, it is not necessary to guess at your motives.

Unless, of course, you were lying.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now pussycat, that is another reason that has merit for discussing this issue on this thread, however the counter arguments are so weak, they are not of much use in preparing a presentation. Take joobequate’s argument for example. He has no idea of how ev works and what it shows so he calls my arguments “defunct lies”. His ignorance of ev is the basis for his argument. Consider what joobequate has asked:

Joobequate, the answer to your question is multiple selection pressures prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. Unless you are going to argue that a single selection pressure has led to the evolution of reptiles to birds, how do you account for all the genetic changes? Ev shows mathematically why you can not evolve the huge number of genetic differences between reptiles and birds and I have presented half a dozen examples of how mutation and selection actually works, all consistent with what ev shows. Wikipedia does a good job of describing the fitness landscape and that is consistent with what ev shows and what these numerous real examples of mutation and selection show. Somehow joobequate has convinced himself that his raw speculations are true. Joobequate, if you believe that reptiles evolved into birds, what is the selection pressure that did this?

No new lies?

Poor little man.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

As you've stated that your "purpose in life" is to annoy me, personally, it is not necessary to guess at your motives.

This is not my primary motive but I do enjoy this aspect of the debate. Adebz, have you run out of gifs and jpegs? We need something interesting from your otherwise dull and boring posts.

Unless, of course, you were lying.

Oh no, the truth, especially when it is shown mathematically is much more effective at annoying you.

Remember when you said this:

Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true. Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.

Ev shows how the mathematics of mutation and selection works, we have numerous real examples of what ev shows, and Wikipedia’s fitness landscape reference does a very nice job explaining it all. Don’t you like the logic of it all? Too bad your beloved theory of evolution has to bite the dust because of this. Maybe you just ended up in the wrong alternative universe. Kjkent1 has 10^500 more for you. Just remember to take your string cheese and red herring with you. I don’t need to remind you to take the whine.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape.

This is an interesting delusion.

You seem to believe that you were "close" to deceiving someone when you told Lie #5.

Who?

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is not my primary motive but I do enjoy this aspect of the debate. Adebz, have you run out of gifs and jpegs? We need something interesting from your otherwise dull and boring posts.

If you're crawling to me for a favor, don't you think you should say "please"?

Oh no, the truth, especially when it is shown mathematically is much more effective at annoying you.

The truth, especially when proven mathematically, is what I love best.

I also appreciate watching halfwits like you flounder about in the web of your own lies, 'cos it's funny.

Remember when you said this:

Yes, it's on page 8.

The exchange went like this:

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.

And he was right, wasn't he?

Ev shows how the mathematics of mutation and selection works, we have numerous real examples of what ev shows, and Wikipedia’s fitness landscape reference does a very nice job explaining it all. Don’t you like the logic of it all?

I love it. I also enjoy watching you scream and rave and lie about these same subjects.

Too bad your beloved theory of evolution has to bite the dust because of this.

You realise that halfwitted windbags like you have been anouncing the demise of science for past 180 years.

I guess it's easier than finding one single piece of evidence against it.

Just remember to take your string cheese and red herring with you. I don’t need to remind you to take the whine?

You remeber how I told you that drooling out nonsense about cheese won't change reality?

Guess what, I was right. It's this knack I have.

Now, do you have any new lies?

Well how about some new magic words?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If, indeed, #6 comes close to Dr. Kleinman's thoughts, then his real reason for "doing" this thread is to use the skeptics here like a "murder board" in preparation for his coming public presentation.

Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.

And he was right, wasn't he?

No, silly adebz, he hasn’t run the case. When he does, it will once again show that population has less than an additive affect on the rate of convergence. Some day when you apply your mathematical skills to mutation and selection you will understand this as well. Until then, you are just a member of the tickle me elmo board.

 

[joobz]

Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.

Wow, Elmo, you said something truthful.

Let me pull this string, Dance for us...

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Pussycat, with members like joobequate and adebz, this forum is more like a tickle me elmo board than a murder board.

Wow, Elmo, you said something truthful.

Let me pull this string, Dance for us...

Why I am dancing joobequate, on the grave of the theory of evolution. It died a slow painful mathematical death. What a pity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."...

Those who seek to discredit science have a predatory relationship with science's language of uncertainty.*

That's why I speak my science in terms of levels of certainty or uncertainty instead of absolutes.

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis that irreducible complexity exists in living organisms.

Prove me wrong.

*paraphrased from someone else's quote.

Just my opinion:
BTW, the people in the marketing department at the DI "lie". Most everyone else is just mistaken, in denial, or blissfully ignorant. It might be helpful to limit the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" to those situations where someone consciously and knowingly seeks to deceive. And unless we are mind readers, that's a pretty tough call. I don't think someone in denial meets the definition of liar.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Some years ago I had an excellent biology professor who drilled that into the class early in the first semester. "Science can only disprove or fail to disprove something."...

Those who seek to discredit science have a predatory relationship with science's language of uncertainty.*

Of course the theory of evolution has to be spoken of in terms of uncertainty. As soon as you start speaking in terms of the bookkeeping of mutation and selection, the theory collapses. Hard science speaks in terms of mathematical certainties.

That's why I speak my science in terms of levels of certainty or uncertainty instead of absolutes.

When the mathematics of the fundamental premise (mutation and selection) for the theory of evolution shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process, what happens to the certainty or uncertainty of the theory?

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis that irreducible complexity exists in living organisms.

There may be thousands of papers written based on a false premise, does that make the false premise true? What is this overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis of irreducible complexity? If you don’t believe that the flagellum is an irreducibly complex system, are you prepared to tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?

Prove me wrong.

I have done this using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of mutation and selection. This model shows that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process profoundly. This effect is illustrated with half a dozen real examples. This is how mutation and selection works. Are you prepared to describe the selection pressure that can evolve a gene de novo or the selection pressure that would evolve reptiles into birds? Mutation and selection can not do what evolutionists have alleged for over 100 years.

BTW, the people in the marketing department at the DI "lie". Most everyone else is just mistaken, in denial, or blissfully ignorant. It might be helpful to limit the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" to those situations where someone consciously and knowingly seeks to deceive. And unless we are mind readers, that's a pretty tough call. I don't think someone in denial meets the definition of liar.

This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.

 

[joobz]

This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.

ok, Elmo. If you say so. We believe you. Who cares if not a shred of paltry amount of evidence that you have presented actually demonstrates anything remotely to what you claim. But, that's ok.

Tell me more about this Fitness Landscape that you keep talking about? can you present your calculations where you see slow downs in all instances of multiple selection pressures? I mean, with your obvious mathematical prowess, this should be a rather simple proof to make.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

This is why I don’t call evolutionists debating on this thread liars. The ones who have some understanding of the mathematics are in denial; the others are simply ignorant of what ev shows and the numerous real examples of this mathematical phenomenon. You evolutionists better get used to this issue because it is not going away.

ok, Elmo. If you say so. We believe you. Who cares if not a shred of paltry amount of evidence that you have presented actually demonstrates anything remotely to what you claim. But, that's ok.

Joobequate, you are a special case, a combination of ignorance and denial. When I asked you if you had run any cases with ev, you said the following:

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

I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev. The only “others” who have done any type of systematic study with ev is Myriad and myself. And he has withdrawn to the sidelines in this debate. You seem to think you are qualified to discuss ev despite the fact you haven’t studied the model, that qualifies you as ignorant and you are in denial about the results from ev that “others” have posted.

Tell me more about this Fitness Landscape that you keep talking about? can you present your calculations where you see slow downs in all instances of multiple selection pressures? I mean, with your obvious mathematical prowess, this should be a rather simple proof to make.

Let’s let the author of the Wikipedia reference speak for themselves:

Fitness landscapes are often conceived of as ranges of mountains. There exist local peaks (points from which all paths are downhill, i.e. to lower fitness) and valleys (regions from which most paths lead uphill). A fitness landscape with many local peaks surrounded by deep valleys is called rugged.

Apart from the field of evolutionary biology, the concept of a fitness landscape has also gained importance in evolutionary optimization methods such as genetic algorithms or evolutionary strategies. In evolutionary optimization, one tries to solve real-world problems (e.g., engineering or logistics problems) by imitating the dynamics of biological evolution. For example, a delivery truck with a number of destination addresses can take a large variety of different routes, but only very few will result in a short driving time. In order to use evolutionary optimization, one has to define for every possible solution s to the problem of interest (i.e., every possible route in the case of the delivery truck) how 'good' it is. This is done by introducing a scalar-valued function f(s) (scalar valued means that f(s) is a simple number, such as 0.3, while s can be a more complicated object, for example a list of destination addresses in the case of the delivery truck), which is called the fitness function or fitness landscape. A high f(s) implies that s is a good solution. In the case of the delivery truck, f(s) could be the number of deliveries per hour on route s. The best, or at least a very good, solution is then found in the following way. Initially, a population of random solutions is created. Then, the solutions are mutated and selected for those with higher fitness, until a satisfying solution has been found.

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

Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.

 

[joobz]

I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev.

I haven't seen any backpedaling. Well, except for changes to the claim of
probability >1, and natural selection is a restatement of the first law, and well, you get the picture.

Let’s let the author of the Wikipedia reference speak for themselves:

Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.

I'm well aware of what wikipedia has to say on the subject. I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.


After 90+ pages, we are still waiting for this wonderful proof against evolution that you keeping telling us about.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I guess you haven’t noticed the back peddling Paul has done on his description of ev.

I haven't seen any backpedaling. Well, except for changes to the claim of probability >1, and natural selection is a restatement of the first law, and well, you get the picture.

So your reading skills are no better than your writing skills. If they were, you would have seen this:

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

And then when Paul started to understand what ev was showing said this:

It works like real life in a simulation of a limited situation. It covers maybe 1/100 of 1% of the complexity of real life.

Joobequate, study this text from Wikipedia and perhaps the concept will come to you.

I'm well aware of what wikipedia has to say on the subject. I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

I have given my explanation in my words of what is being said in the Wikipedia reference. That explanation again is multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Study the Wikipedia reference and perhaps you will see this concept but ignorance and denial are blinding you to the facts.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.

Delphi is out sorting his socks because he finally realized what the implications of his Wikipedia reference and the results from ev means for the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of what ev shows and in denial of what the Wikipedia reference means so it is taking a little while longer to get you to your sock drawer.

After 90+ pages, we are still waiting for this wonderful proof against evolution that you keeping telling us about.

How about if I paint you a picture:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|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.░░░░░░*
******************************************

 

[joobz]

So your reading skills are no better than your writing skills. If they were, you would have seen this:

And then when Paul started to understand what ev was showing said this:

I have given my explanation in my words of what is being said in the Wikipedia reference. That explanation again is multiple selection pressures slow evolution. Study the Wikipedia reference and perhaps you will see this concept but ignorance and denial are blinding you to the facts.

Delphi is out sorting his socks because he finally realized what the implications of his Wikipedia reference and the results from ev means for the theory of evolution. You are ignorant of what ev shows and in denial of what the Wikipedia reference means so it is taking a little while longer to get you to your sock drawer.

How about if I paint you a picture:

******************************************
*░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░*
*░░|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.░░░░░░*
******************************************

I'm sorry was there a point to this post? In all that text, all of those words, you've failed to present anything at all.

Allow me to repeat my request:
I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.

 

[cyborg]

joobz, give it up. You're not talking to a person, you're talking to a macro executor.

 

[Taffer]

If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.

It is painfully obvious that you have never actually read any population or evolutionary genetics text books, or you wouldn't claim this. Why? Because we do have mathematical models for all of this. Come back when you stop being diluded.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I'm sorry was there a point to this post? In all that text, all of those words, you've failed to present anything at all.

Yes there was a point to that post. It was to demonstrate to the folks who are reading this thread that you are ignorant to what ev shows about the mathematics of mutation and selection and you are in denial of what reality shows about mutation and selection.

Allow me to repeat my request:

I asked for YOUR explanation of the fitness landscape. I am asking for your understanding of this concept. I'm asking for YOUR mathematical proof that this term means evolution is impossible. Feel free to use equations. Establish a list of variables you think relavent and let's discuss.

What Wikipedia shows about the fitness landscape is that it is easy to optimize when there is a single selection condition but when there are more than a small number of selection conditions, the optimization becomes almost impossible. Here is how it is worded in Wikipedia:

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

If you are looking for a closed form algebraic equation to describe this situation you are not going to get it because this is a complex parametric system that can only be expressed in the form of functional relationships of the variables. Points on the fitness landscape can be computed with a computer simulation or measured in real situations but you are not going to get a closed form solution. The relevant (dominant) variables in ev are the number of selection pressures and the genome length. Population has a smaller effect and can not overcome the overwhelming affect of the number of selection pressures and genome length. Mutation rate has a fairly linear affect on the rates of convergence in the range of realistic mutation rates. However, no parameter has such profound effect as the number of selection pressures on the rate of convergence. If you did a parametric study with ev, none of this information would be surprising to you.

I've already seen 1 mathematical formalism presented by Delphi that clearly shows how multiple selection pressures can be faster than 1 single selection pressure. We don't even need to plug in values to see how his code demonstrates this. In much the same way that we don't need to physically plot y=x^2 to know that it describes a parabola. I'm asking from you a mathematical proof (not a simulation run) of how "fitness lanscape" proves evolution is impossible. In developing your argument, please include a list of variables, assumptions and any simplifications made.

Well joobequate, Delphi is not here to put his code fragment into ev to prove his point that multiple selection pressures will converge more quickly than a single selection pressure so why don’t you do it. He’s probably at home sorting his sock draw and wondering why he invested his professional career in a mathematically impossible theory.

joobz, give it up. You're not talking to a person, you're talking to a macro executor.

Closing your eyes isn’t going to make this bogey man go away, neither will hitting the Ctrl-Alt-Del keys. You evolutionists are up to your necks in cruft.

If you evolutionists had written a decent text book on the mathematics of mutation and selection, you would realize your theory is mathematically impossible. Some evolutionists got close to understanding this when you read Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the reference to fitness landscape. If you ran a few cases with ev it would become readily apparent that it is the multiple selection pressures that slow the convergence of the model. This effect is seen in many different real situations such as combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides and combination cancer therapies. All of these examples slow the evolution of resistant strains. This is how mutation and selection works. You don’t have millions of selection pressures (as Paul has said) all working together in unison to evolve complex creatures. This is mathematically impossible. You evolutionists need a new text book and a new theory.

It is painfully obvious that you have never actually read any population or evolutionary genetics text books, or you wouldn't claim this. Why? Because we do have mathematical models for all of this. Come back when you stop being diluded.

Oh really Taffer, you have mathematical models. Well tell us about your mathematical models that show that multiple selection pressures evolve more quickly than single selection pressures. Then why don’t you describe the selection pressures that your models use to evolve a gene de novo. Then you can tell us what the selection pressure is that evolves reptiles into birds. We would all like to hear that tale.

What’s the matter, anyone who challenges your silly theory of evolution and shows that it is mathematically impossible using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection automatically becomes delusional in your view? And then demonstrates the mathematics with numerous real examples of this. You had better start thinking of new career alternatives. Maybe joobequate can get you a position in his alchemical engineering school.

You all have a good weekend and we can continue our dance on the grave of the theory of evolution next week. Joobequate, you tickle me.