Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

Paul, do you know how to tell the difference between the opossum and the theory of evolution?

The opossum plays dead, the theory of evolution is dead.

I guess that the Christian theory of creation is dead, too, because there are no opossum in Africa or the middle east and never have been. And, even if opossum were on Noah's Ark, how did they manage to get from Africa to South America?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

For clarity, I have summarized the key points of this conversation. I think we have a new lie here.

You say something with clarity? This almost makes me want to post a gif or jpeg. Your idea of clarity is that abiogenesis is true because of cooperative chemistry and your idea that evolution is true because of cooperative selection pressures. Sorry, I’m not going to cooperate with this type of nonsense. However, I will listen to your story of how the sun beating down on the primordial soup cooperates to chemically produce life. Everyone enjoys a good fairy tale.

But feel free to include the other mutation mechanisms in ev an show how they cooperate to accelerate evolution.

Joobz, yeah, he pulled that with me several pages ago when I pushed him into the same corner, which is why I bowed out of the debate. There is simply no sense in continuing a conversation with someone who is so dishonest.

Really, is that the reason why you are bowing out of the debate? It wouldn’t have any thing to do with you have no idea of the mathematics of mutation and selection which you don’t.

 

[joobz]

You say something with clarity? This almost makes me want to post a gif or jpeg. Your idea of clarity is that abiogenesis is true because of cooperative chemistry and your idea that evolution is true because of cooperative selection pressures.

No I didn't, you little liar. I simply gave an example of a possible mechanism. I never said that this "proved" abiogenesis.

Sorry, I’m not going to cooperate with this type of nonsense. However, I will listen to your story of how the sun beating down on the primordial soup cooperates to chemically produce life. Everyone enjoys a good fairy tale.

You can't even insult me without lieing. I suggest going back to making fun of my spelling and grammar. At least that's honest.

I've proven you to be an intellectually dishonest little liar. Do you wish to revisit how HIV proves evolution is impossible?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really, is that the reason why you are bowing out of the debate? It wouldn’t have any thing to do with you have no idea of the mathematics of mutation and selection which you don’t.

Yes, your dishonesty is the precise reason for my bowing out. That and the subtle embarassment that I think everyone feels at watching you make such a complete fool of yourself. It is quite sad to watch.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul, do you know how to tell the difference between the opossum and the theory of evolution?

The opossum plays dead, the theory of evolution is dead.

I guess that the Christian theory of creation is dead, too, because there are no opossum in Africa or the middle east and never have been. And, even if opossum were on Noah's Ark, how did they manage to get from Africa to South America?

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I’m not here to prove to you that God exists scientifically.

Anyway, your explanation for how opossum came about by evolution doesn’t have a mathematical basis. Use your imagination and you can probably figure a way opossum can migrate. You know how good your evolutionist imagination is. Perhaps they evolved wings traveled to South America and then devolved their wings once they arrived.

What is it with you evolutionists, you all say you are bowing out of this discussion and yet you keep on posting. You are a mysterious group, whiny and thin skinned but your faith in your belief system is amazing.

 

[joobz]

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I’m not here to prove to you that God exists scientifically.

that's right. I remember how science works now. Foolishly trash theories that you don't understand and don't defend the one you beleive in. interesting.

What is it with you evolutionists, you all say you are bowing out of this discussion and yet you keep on posting. You are a mysterious group, whiny and thin skinned but your faith in your belief system is amazing.

Why do you lie so much? We haven't all stated this?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I’m not here to prove to you that God exists scientifically.

that's right. I remember how science works now. Foolishly trash theories that you don't understand and don't defend the one you beleive in. interesting.

You liar! I am only trashing one theory, your dumb theory of evolution and I’m using an evolutionist written and peer reviewed model of mutation and natural selection to show it is mathematically impossible, well that and a series of real examples of what the model shows. And the author of this model got it right. Now if only you evolution cultists would come to understand this. I’m patient; we will get the message through to you and free you from the bondage of your mathematically impossible theory.

What is it with you evolutionists, you all say you are bowing out of this discussion and yet you keep on posting. You are a mysterious group, whiny and thin skinned but your faith in your belief system is amazing.

Why do you lie so much? We haven't all stated this?

Will it still be a lie when you bow out?

 

[kjkent1]

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I’m not here to prove to you that God exists scientifically.

Anyway, your explanation for how opossum came about by evolution doesn’t have a mathematical basis. Use your imagination and you can probably figure a way opossum can migrate. You know how good your evolutionist imagination is. Perhaps they evolved wings traveled to South America and then devolved their wings once they arrived.

What is it with you evolutionists, you all say you are bowing out of this discussion and yet you keep on posting. You are a mysterious group, whiny and thin skinned but your faith in your belief system is amazing.

I don't "believe" in evolution. I review the observed evidence and conclude that evolution is the only sane possibility, because the alternative is a guy in a white robe and a beard blowing life into dust.

Schneider's model shows how information gain from a random start occurs. It does not show how abiogenesis has culminated in homo sapiens.

For you to extrapolate one from the other is, in my opinion, mentally disordered, because you are applying ev as the model for all observed evolutionary evidence that fits the ev model -- while excluding all observed evidence that does not fit.

You may as well say that since Newton's equations don't fit with the observation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the experiment is mathematically impossible, and Newton is correct.

In retrospect, knowing that Einstein's equations exist to explain reality, it's easy to say that Newton's formulas are wrong as applied to certain relativistic effects. But, if we place ourselves in time prior to Einstein, and conduct the Mchelson experiment, that would be the equivalent to what you are attempting to do with ev and evolution.

You have a formula that you think explains everything, and wherever it doesn't explain something observed in nature, you insist that what it does not explain is mathematically impossible.

Seek professional help, Alan.

 

[joobz]

You liar!

You even calling me a liar on this point is a lie. Wow, that's like a russian doll of lies. Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

I am only trashing one theory, your dumb theory of evolution ...[snip incoherent rambling]

It's not my theory. I haven't published any work in the area. It is the best working model to describe species. I'd be willing to entertain alternatives, if one existed that fit the data better. But what would you know of that.

Will it still be a lie when you bow out?

???
So you are now trying to obtain truth by attrition? I can easily get a lie detector bot to match your liar bot and let them duke it out. Funny thing is, that won't change reality.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I don't "believe" in evolution. I review the observed evidence and conclude that evolution is the only sane possibility, because the alternative is a guy in a white robe and a beard blowing life into dust.

Oh, I understand, how many alternative universes have you observe? And how often have you observed the sun giving rise to life in the primordial soup? Kjkent1, it is all belief. Which belief can be shown is mathematically impossible?

Schneider's model shows how information gain from a random start occurs. It does not show how abiogenesis has culminated in homo sapiens.

Really? I love when you make posts like this, it gives me an opportunity of showing how Dr Schneider used the results from his model in his publication Ev Evolution of Biological Information.

Second, the probability of finding 16 sites averaging 4 bits each in random sequences is 2^(-4x16)~=5x10^-20 yet the sites evolved from random sequences in only ~10^3 generations, at an average rate of ~1 bit per 11 generations. Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, about 9 months [35], but it could be much faster because the enormous titer (10^10 new virions/day/person [17]) provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

Care to include diverse world wide population, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfers in ev and correct his estimate?

For you to extrapolate one from the other is, in my opinion, mentally disordered, because you are applying ev as the model for all observed evolutionary evidence that fits the ev model -- while excluding all observed evidence that does not fit.

Perhaps you should include panspermia in your observations or our beloved string cheese theory of evolution. Would you care for a bowl of primordial soup to go with your string cheese?

You may as well say that since Newton's equations don't fit with the observation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the experiment is mathematically impossible, and Newton is correct.

Ok, I’ll take some red herring with that string cheese. This is really a hearty meal.

In retrospect, knowing that Einstein's equations exist to explain reality, it's easy to say that Newton's formulas are wrong as applied to certain relativistic effects. But, if we place ourselves in time prior to Einstein, and conduct the Mchelson experiment, that would be the equivalent to what you are attempting to do with ev and evolution.

I knew that the Einstein’s equations were related to the theory of evolution. Recombination is the way you get relatives, relatively speaking.

You have a formula that you think explains everything, and wherever it doesn't explain something observed in nature, you insist that what it does not explain is mathematically impossible.

Dr Schneider’s computer doesn’t explain everything, it only explains the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. However, I believe if you combine the string cheese theory of evolution with Dr Schneider’s work, you would really have something. You have observed alternative universes, haven’t you?

Seek professional help, Alan.

Are there any plumbers out there? We have a bunch of evolutionists with blocked up pipes and we need professional help immediately.

You liar!

You even calling me a liar on this point is a lie. Wow, that's like a russian doll of lies. Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

Don’t be silly, I don’t need to fool anyone. I have the results of an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples which show why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I have no need to fool anyone, only to get you evolutionists to understand what this model says and what the real examples of the model show.

I am only trashing one theory, your dumb theory of evolution ...[snip incoherent rambling]

It's not my theory. I haven't published any work in the area. It is the best working model to describe species. I'd be willing to entertain alternatives, if one existed that fit the data better. But what would you know of that.

I see, you prefer a mathematically impossible theory to no theory at all. That’s shows real scientific acumen.

Will it still be a lie when you bow out?

So you are now trying to obtain truth by attrition? I can easily get a lie detector bot to match your liar bot and let them duke it out. Funny thing is, that won't change reality.

You evolutionists repeat your speculations over and over (usually stamping your foot while you are doing this) until you finally get tired. I’ll keep on repeating the results of ev calmly, and throw in real examples of what it is showing.

In the mean time, you evolutionists have a good weekend. And watch out for those directional selection pressures. Too many of them can kill you and if they don’t, they will really slow you down. If you can survive them, you may find yourself at a new optimum.

 

[joobz]

I’ll keep on repeating the results of ev calmly, and throw in real examples of what it is showing.

Oh so this is your version of "real examples". Continue to spout lies. They just pile up and up and up.

For clarity, I have summarized the key points of this conversation. I think we have a new lie here.

If you studied ev, you would understand this. If you examined the real cases of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, combination therapy for the treatment of TB, combination pesticides, combination herbicides, combination rodenticides, you would see real examples of what ev demonstrates and what the fitness landscape requires. Mutation and selection can not and does not do what evolutionists allege, it is mathematically impossible.

It is the number of directional selection pressures and genome length which dominate the mathematics of mutation and selection. There is no reason to believe that frame shift mutations, translocations, duplications or any other way of scrambling a genome is going to change the underlying mathematics of mutation and selection.

This is your concrete basis for not worring about it?

I think this paper wouldn't have been accepted if that was the case:
Carvajal-Rodriguez A, Crandall KA, Posada D. "Recombination favors the evolution of drug resistance in HIV-1 during antiretroviral therapy." Infect Genet Evol. 2007 Feb 12; [Epub ahead of print]
I can't access the paper yet, but from the abstract:

Using computer simulations we show that the effect of recombination on the evolution of drug resistance depends strongly on the intensity of selection, as well as on the viral population size. Under the high selection pressure expected during antiretroviral therapy, the strength of the Hill-Robertson effect increases and recombination favors the evolution of resistance under a wide range of population sizes, independently of the sign of the epistatic interaction. Our results suggest that recombination plays an important role in the evolution of drug resistance in HIV-1 under various realistic scenarios

Seems like evolution has a mathematical basis after all.

So how does this work with HIV? Here is a quote from an article located at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/burke.htm

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, like all retroviruses, is "diploid." Each viral particle contains two RNA strands of positive polarity, each full length and potentially able to replicate (1). No other virus families, RNA or DNA, are diploid. Typically both RNA strands in a retroviral particle derive from the same parent provirus. However, if an infected cell simultaneously harbors two different proviruses, one RNA transcript from each provirus can be encapsidated into a single "heterozygous" virion. When this virion subsequently infects a new cell, the reverse transcriptase may jump back and forth between the two RNA templates so that the newly synthesized retroviral DNA sequence is recombinant between that of the two parents (2). All subsequent progeny virions will be of this recombinant genotype. HIV-1 strains with chimeric genomes thought to have arisen through homologous recombination have recently been discovered in nature (3).

This is a property unique to the retroviruses, are you trying to generalize this phenomenon to the entire theory of evolution? This appears like a baseless extrapolation.

Unfortunately, you've been using HIV viruses as proof of why evolution is impossible. I show a study where they demonstrate how multiple selection pressures won't HALT HIV evolution, and now you claim that I can't extrapolate this truth to anything else.

No it doesn’t, it only shows that you know how to make a baseless extrapolation.

I see, when evolutionists adjust their theory, this is scientific research, when I adjust my theory, I’m moving the goal posts.

This isn't an "adjustment of a theory". This is intellectual dishonesty.
We have been discussing how multiple pressures doesn't stop evolution using HIV as an example. I give evidence that states mathematically that this isn't the case. And now you claim that it doesn't apply.
This is the worst form of professional behavior.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I was going to stop for the weekend but I happened to take a look at Dr Schneider’s ev blog page an note that he has spoken up about ev for the first time in months.

In case you evolutionists think that Dr Schneider has abandoned his ev model, he has not. The following was posted on his ev blog page earlier this month at http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

The key test [for Intellegent Design] is show me a process that generates information, and large amounts of specified information, without the guidance of an intelligent agent.

Ev does that.

I find this a bit of a strange statement since the basic premise for Intelligent Design is that it requires intelligence. However, I’m glad that Dr Schneider has not abandoned his model. I wonder if he will ever discuss publicly how much information is generated by his model of random point mutations and natural selection. Since I believe his model shows that information can be generated but at far more limited values than necessary to accomplish the huge genetic changes to evolve reptiles into bird or even humans and chimpanzees from a primate precursor. His model does properly capture the fact that multiple (directed) selection pressures slows down the acquisition of information by this process, especially with longer genomes.

 

[Taffer]

So I see you have gone on to simply ignoring my posts, kleinman. Is this because I actually know what I'm talking about, and you cannot lie your way through an argument with me?

ETA: Please note that I haven't forgotten all the unanswered questions you have simply ignored, kleinman. For example, where I used a certain word you accused me of misspelling. Or why you haven't commented on the three first search returns from your own search, and why they do not support your position.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Really?

When are you planning to start?

 

[Dr Adequate]

In case you evolutionists think that Dr Schneider has abandoned his ev model, he has not.

Why on earth would we think that? The model is still, as it has always been, "a process that generates information, and large amounts of specified information, without the guidance of an intelligent agent". No-one has pointed out any flaws in this claim since he first produced it. Why, then, should he abandon it; or we suppose that he has?

You do come out with some nutty stuff.

I find this a bit of a strange statement ...

Whereas I find it simple and lucid.

If you'll tell me which aspect of it you're too dumb to understand, I'll explain it in nice short words for you.

 

[Taffer]

1. What is the selection pressure that increases protease efficiency in an untreated patient?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

2. What is the selection pressure that increases protease efficiency in a treated patient?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

3. What is the selection pressure that increases reverse transcriptase efficiency in an untreated patient?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

4. What is the selection pressure that increases reverse transcriptase efficiency in an treated patient?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

5. What is the selection pressure that improves integration/replication in the host DNA?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

6. What is the selection pressure that causes mutations in the genome to interact with other mutations to improve overall fitness?

Nothing. Selection pressures and blind, unguided and have no goal. There is selection against unfit traits, and that is all.

Are there any stabilizing selection pressures acting on HIV and if so, how many are there? Are there neutral selection pressures acting on HIV and if so, how many are there?

There is only selection, kleinman. There is no such thing as "stabilizing selection pressures", only selection against unfit traits. There is no such thing as "neutral selection pressures", only selection against unfit traits. What we call "stabilizing selection" (note the lack of the word "pressures") is the situation wherein all available variants of a sequence are less fit then the most common allele. What we call "disruptive selection" is the situation wherein the alleles which are the two rarest are the least unfit, and thus increase in frequency over time. What we call "directional selection" is the situation wherein one rare allele is less unfit the all others, and thus increases in frequency over time. Please note that in all these situations, selection works exactly the same. All selection ever does is cause the less unfit organisms to contribute fewer genes to the next generation. All selection ever does is select "against" those who are unfit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, I understand, how many alternative universes have you observe? And how often have you observed the sun giving rise to life in the primordial soup? Kjkent1, it is all belief. Which belief can be shown is mathematically impossible?

Really? I love when you make posts like this, it gives me an opportunity of showing how Dr Schneider used the results from his model in his publication Ev Evolution of Biological Information.

Care to include diverse world wide population, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfers in ev and correct his estimate?

Perhaps you should include panspermia in your observations or our beloved string cheese theory of evolution. Would you care for a bowl of primordial soup to go with your string cheese?

Ok, I’ll take some red herring with that string cheese. This is really a hearty meal.

I knew that the Einstein’s equations were related to the theory of evolution. Recombination is the way you get relatives, relatively speaking.

Dr Schneider’s computer doesn’t explain everything, it only explains the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. However, I believe if you combine the string cheese theory of evolution with Dr Schneider’s work, you would really have something. You have observed alternative universes, haven’t you?

Are there any plumbers out there? We have a bunch of evolutionists with blocked up pipes and we need professional help immediately.

Don’t be silly, I don’t need to fool anyone. I have the results of an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection and numerous real examples which show why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I have no need to fool anyone, only to get you evolutionists to understand what this model says and what the real examples of the model show.

I see, you prefer a mathematically impossible theory to no theory at all. That’s shows real scientific acumen.

You evolutionists repeat your speculations over and over (usually stamping your foot while you are doing this) until you finally get tired. I’ll keep on repeating the results of ev calmly, and throw in real examples of what it is showing.

In the mean time, you evolutionists have a good weekend. And watch out for those directional selection pressures. Too many of them can kill you and if they don’t, they will really slow you down. If you can survive them, you may find yourself at a new optimum.

So ... same old lies ... check ... same old ravings ... check ... same old magic words ... check.

No sign of any math.

Situation nominal.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Really? I love when you make posts like this, it gives me an opportunity of showing how Dr Schneider used the results from his model in his publication Ev Evolution of Biological Information.

What do you find so loveable about a quote which shows you up as a liar and a fool?

Let me guess --- the fact that you didn't understand a word of it. Am I right?

It's the Lie #5 fiasco all over again, isn't it?

 

[joobz]

So ... same old lies ... check ... same old ravings ... check ... same old magic words ... check.

No sign of any math.

Situation nominal.

I don't know. I thought the change from
"HIV is proof evolution is impossible" to
"HIV is not representative of evolution"
was a very humorous transition.

 

[Mr. Scott]

There is no reason to believe that frame shift mutations, translocations, duplications or any other way of scrambling a genome is going to change the underlying mathematics of mutation and selection.

Dr. Adequate, I really like this one. Can we assign it a lie number?