Annoying creationists

[joobz]

Just one question. Do these strawpeople wear watches that were designed spontaneously? or did the watch design EVOLVE over thousands of years from hour-glasses and sun-dials???
Just wondering....

That's an excellent question. From what I understand, these strawpeople love using the evolved watches. They also prefer flying airplanes built by tornadoes in a junk yard.

 

[m_huber]

Some evolutionist draw the erroneous conclusion that just because things look alike they evolved from each other. With that type of thinking, a cloud, a watermelon and a jellyfish must have evolved from each other because they are all mostly water. It is this type of nonsensical speculation that forms the basis for the theory of evolution.

Not exactly sure how you come up with this..

Look back at my last post. I said "morphological similarities aside." Yes, we can infer from the simple fact that every single mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and dinosaur either has 4 limbs, a head, two eyes, a mouth, and an anus (etc) or has bone structure that corresponds to having 4 limbs, etc (such as a snake). We could also look at, say, the progression of different types of finches on islands off of South America and conclude that the best finches to survive would be the ones with beaks that best reach into the plants that they eat from. We could say that finches could actually change over time as different beak shapes allow for easier eating. But if we say this, we need the ability to back it up with other data. Genetic data would do. Fossils located in the right places would do. Guess what? We have both.

To say, "In time, breast cancer treatment will become truly individualised because physicians will be able to match patients with a variety of disease phenotypes to optimal combination therapies," is effectively to say that different phenotypes of cancer exist within each individual. Did God specially create each phenotype, or is this just a subtle evidence of evolution?

 

[jimbob]

I know this has been addressed before, but Kleinman,

When cocktails of drugs are used to treat e.g. a viral infection, should any viruses survive, haven't they already demonstrated adequate resistance to the cocktail in the doses that they have been exposed to?

The survivors are the only ones that reproduce. If an organism reproduces, it is obviously sufficiently adapted to its environment to reproduce. Any mathematical modelling will not change that basic fact.

If you wipe out the entire population, then there will be no evolution in that population. Should some part survive and reproduce, then these are already adapted enough to reproduce; some of their offspring are likely to be better adapted, and some worse adapted than their parents.

 

[kjkent1]

He also believes in torturing these poor poor strawindividuals with terrible rhymes.

As long as we're discussing strawmen, I think that we ought to read the thoughts of the most famous strawman of all time. It's truly prophetic in light of the present continuing insanity by our favorite annoying creationist. My hat's off to lyricist "Yip" Harburg:

I could while away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head, I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.

I'd unravel ev'ry riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln,
If you only had a brain.

Oh, I could tell you why
The ocean's near the shore,
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more.

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain--Whoa!

 

[BPScooter]

I've always found it interesting that we all are, well, Interested in this topic. That would make us all fellow seekers toward increased knowledge, right?

The poster known as Kleinman appears to divide the world into "evolutionists" and say things like "you evolutionists" or some such thing. A binary system that contains no nuances. He does the same with math, and says things like You Evolutionists that Don't Understand Math. Proceeds to denigrate, taunt, and use other very non-scientific techniques to make a point.

If I'm right, Kleinman is attempting a semantic revolution. "Evolutionist" is a bad word, my enemy, my feared-most opponent. When he says "you evolutionists" he is saying "you my enemies" and in doing so attempts to diminish or extinguish the importance of these points of view. Many on this thread have noticed this. A contrary and humorous response is not capable of registering.

It would be fun to translate a typical Kleinman statement into opposite terms. Let me try:

From about 5 posts up, Kleinman said
"Some evolutionists are having a hard time seeing the mathematical and empirical evidence that evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit."

Translation"
"Some [creationists] are having a hard time seeing the cultural and epistemological evidence that godintheskywithnoexplanationdidn'tdoit"

Does Kleinman really claim to represent "all creationists"? I certainly don't claim to represent "evolutionists." My personal decision process, which has resulted in my current belief system, is Socratic (in that I know the limits of my knowledge) and Baconian (in giving weight to observed evidence). A sort of faith, but not what we'd think to be Faith Based. Faith in evidence, I'll grant.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It seems you evolutionists are having difficulty with the fundamentals of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. So I think it worthwhile to discuss the fundamentals of this process.

You evolutionists seem surprised that selection pressures kill members of a population. But that is what selection pressures do to a population. Selection pressures impair the fitness of members of a population. If you recall, fitness is the measure of the ability to reproduce. This impairment of the fitness of members of the population can be caused by selection pressures by killing off the less fit members of the population as is seen with bacteriocidal antibiotics or simply by impairing the ability of members of the population to reproduce as is seen with antiviral agents that interfere with the enzymes viruses use to reproduce. These antiviral agents do not kill the virus. This is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works.

Now consider this; do selection pressures increase the diversity of a population or do selection pressures reduce the diversity of a population? Let’s see if any of you evolutionists can answer this fundamental question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. While you are pondering this, here are some more empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and what these examples demonstrate is the fundamental principle that the greater the number of selection conditions, the much, much slower the process proceeds.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=453423

The Global Program for the Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) intends to achieve its aims through yearly mass treatments with albendazole (ABZ) combined with ivermectin (IVM) or diethylcarbamazine (DEC). The use of ABZ and IVM separately to combat parasites of veterinary importance has, on many occasions, resulted in widespread drug resistance. In order to help predict the spread of potential ABZ resistance alleles through a population of Wuchereria bancrofti, we have developed a mathematical model that incorporates population genetics into EPIFIL, a model which examines the transmission dynamics of the parasite. Our model considers the effect of the combined treatments on the frequency of a recessive allele, which confers ABZ resistance. The model predicts that after 10 yearly treatments with ALB and DEC, 85% coverage and an initial resistance allele frequency of 5%, the frequency of the resistance genotype will increase from 0·25 to 12·7%. If non-random mating is assumed, the initial genotype frequency will be 2·34% and will increase to 62·7%. ABZ and IVM combination treatment may lead to weaker selection for this genotype. Treatment coverage, initial allele frequencies and number of treatments also affect the rate of selection.

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/eb_meeting_societal_needs.htm

Agricultural entomologists trained in evolutionary genetics 31, 53 are contributing to efforts to delay or prevent the evolution of resistance, such as rotational use of different control measures and judicious combination of chemical with nonchemical controls.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/350/10/1023?ck=nck

The use of combinations of antiretroviral drugs has proven remarkably effective in controlling the progression of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and prolonging survival,1 but these benefits can be compromised by the development of drug resistance.2,3 Resistance is the consequence of mutations that emerge in the viral proteins targeted by antiretroviral agents.

More real, repeatable, measurable empirical examples which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process; this is also demonstrated mathematically by Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection.

Now I don’t want you evolutionists to worry, I’ll be patient with you and show you how the fundamentals of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process really works. We all want to understand how your confused misinterpretation of the process has led to MRSA and other multidrug resistant microbes and delayed the usage of combination therapy for HIV and other diseases subject to the mutation and selection process. We don’t want to keep making this evolutionist blunder. Of course you will then realize that common descent by this process is utter nonsense but do feel free to post all your fossil Rorschach tests and show us how blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards.

 

[Shalamar]

Dear gods. Does Mr. Klienman ignore everything that people post here, unless it proves the Theory of Evolution wrong?

No-one is surprised that 'selection pressures' can kill off members of a population. In fact, that is one of the major concepts of the Theory of Evolution. The survivors reproduce, proving themselves fit enough for their environment. Should the environment change, then those survivors may no longer be fit enough to survive.

However, He continues to say he has mathematical proof of the impossibility of evolution, he STILL has no math to post. Just something that on first glance looks like an equation, but still falls sort of being, well, you know.. math.

I still hold to my hypothesis that he NEED evolution to be false with every fiber of his being. To the point where he will grasp at straws, and ignore science. ALL science.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Wait a minute, we have an evolutionist who realizes that selection pressures kill off (or at least impair the ability to reproduce) members of the population. Does this evolutionist want to speculate on whether selection pressures increase the diversity or decrease the diversity of a population? Let’s see if we can drag this evolutionist out of the intellectual mire he is stuck in.

 

[Shalamar]

*sigh*

No-one has EVER said that selection pressures cannot kill off a population, or limit its ability to reproduce. However, this does not mean that it stops or prevents evolution. Those members of the population that survive due to being fit enough, will certainly reproduce starting the whole chain starting up again.

Mr. Kleinmans purposely limited statement that since selection pressures can kill off members of a population, thus proving evolution mathematically impossible, is wrong. Creatures die ALL the time for one reason or another. Those that can adapt to what is causing this are more likely to pass on these traits to future generations, thus slowing down the die off, and ensuring a future for the species. It doesn't matter if there is one pressure, two pressures, or a thousand. If enough of a population survives, they WILL reproduce, and they WILL adapt to survive.

His belief that slow=stop, and that multiple pressures ONLY kill off each and every member of a given population is wrong. And you have been shown this over, and over and over again. Mr Klienman simply chooses to ignore this, because he feels that evolution is morally wrong, because he feels that creationism is true (It is full of lies).

If one looks at the science, and can learn to understand it, then a greater world will be open to you. If one chooses dogmatic and fundamentalist belief, then your eyes will be forever closed to the world around you, no matter how much you scream and stamp your feet for the claim that it isn't true. Reality shows us what is there. Science helps us to understand the process. A shame there are so many that refuse to accept science.

 

[kjkent1]

Wait a minute, we have an evolutionist who realizes that selection pressures kill off (or at least impair the ability to reproduce) members of the population. Does this evolutionist want to speculate on whether selection pressures increase the diversity or decrease the diversity of a population? Let’s see if we can drag this evolutionist out of the intellectual mire he is stuck in.

Look who's talking about being in an intellectual mire!

In his recent cite to the parasite infestation and combination therapy study at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=453423, Dr. Kleinman frivolously suggests that because the study shows a decrease in resistance to combination anti-parasitic therapies from 0.25% to 62.7% during a 10 year period, that this somehow falsifies the theory of evolution.

One wonders what the other 37.3% of the population of parasites which remained resistant to the combination therapy would say about this were they capable of being polled on the issue.

Another day at the self-Burning Man festival, with Dr. Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., M.E.

 

[Shalamar]

Look who's talking about being in an intellectual mire!

In his recent cite to the parasite infestation and combination therapy study at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=453423, Dr. Kleinman frivolously suggests that because the study shows a decrease in resistance to combination anti-parasitic therapies from 0.25% to 62.7% during a 10 year period, that this somehow falsifies the theory of evolution.

One wonders what the other 37.3% of the population of parasites which remained resistant to the combination therapy would say about this were they capable of being polled on the issue.

Another day at the self-Burning Man festival, with Dr. Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., M.E.

Maybe he's a cherry picker for his night job?

 

[m_huber]

Kleinman, I see, I understand! I think I get what you are talking about!

Evolution must not happen. Selection pressures prevent it!

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You evolutionists still are having trouble with the fundamental mathematical and empirical facts of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and you complain that they don’t cause extinction. Do you think that additional selection pressures will speed up the process?

So let’s see if any of you evolutionists can answer this fundamental question about the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. Do selection pressures increase the diversity or decrease the diversity of a population? I’ll give you a hint, the answer is in one of the recently posted citations.

 

[Shalamar]

Too bad Mr. Kleinman still has no evidence of this math of his. What he has posted as an 'equation' is more of his creationist lies.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Are you evolutionists having trouble figuring out whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? Why don’t you post some fossil Rorschach tests then? You evolutionists really have a hard time understanding the basic science and the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process but you have an excuse for this, you were taught by an evolutionist not by a scientist.

 

[Belz...]

It seems you evolutionists are having difficulty with the fundamentals of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. So I think it worthwhile to discuss the fundamentals of this process.

"I am a broken record..."

you were taught by an evolutionist not by a scientist.

So I guess no scientist is a real scientist, eh, kleinbot ?

 

[Shalamar]

It seems that he's failed the turing test.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Are any of you evolutionists going to answer the question whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? Or is all that you have for your theory is a tiny collection of fossil Rorschach tests? Since none of you evolutionists seem to have any idea of the basic science or mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, I’ll go back to posting more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically and empirically impossible. (You know, Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutations shows this!)
http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/philhsu.htm

Protease inhibitors are the latest addition to the arsenal of drugs designed to combat the HIV virus. Preliminary studies show that combination therapy with reverse transcriptase inhibitors have resulted in decrease of viral load to undetectable levels.1 The FDA, encouraged by these early studies, approved protease inhibitors in late 1995 after an accelerated approval process.2 The popular media has portrayed protease inhibitors as the cure for HIV infection and AIDS. However, the medical community remains reservedly optimistic about protease inhibitors because studies have also shown that despite early potent antiviral effects, HIV eventually develops resistance to protease inhibitors.1 This review will attempt to explain the mechanism by which HIV gains resistance and the potential limits to HIV's mutability as elucidated by recent scientific literature.

And

Protease inhibitor therapy has been shown to decrease viral load substantially, but in the long run, it has not been shown to maintain its antiviral potency. However, this does not mean that protease inhibitor therapy is a lost cause. Recent research suggests that HIV gains resistance at substantial cost to protease functionality and that increased selective pressure from more protease inhibitors may lead to less virulent strains of HIV. Therefore, more funding should be given to new and more potent protease inhibitor development.

In addition, the appearance of cleavage site mutations and the possibility that these mutations might be a rate limiting step in the evolution of resistance give hope that HIV has only a limited amount of options left for resistance mutation. Research should focus on ways to inhibit the mutated cleavage sites. If cleavage site mutations are a rate limiting step in resistance development, simultaneous inhibition of cleavage site and protease could be very effective; HIV would have to mutate at both the protease and the cleavage site simultaneously to develop resistance.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512015_4

Predicting the degree of resistance and its clinical relevance of any set of mutations to a specific antiretroviral agent, or combination therapy, is complicated by several factors, including the potential for interactions within and between drug classes.[8,26,27] Therefore we augmented our analyses of antiretroviral susceptibility based on a genotypic rule-based algorithm, with predicted phenotypic results. Because the degree of reduced susceptibility correlated with diminished clinical response is not well defined for most antiretroviral agents, we assessed several available cut-offs.[28] In all cases our analyses were consistent with the genotype rule-based results.

Current treatment guidelines recommend switching patients to at least 2 active antiretroviral agents at the earliest evidence of detectable viremia related to decreased drug susceptibility.[1,5] This approach is appealing if a new regimen is available, well tolerated, and succeeds in limiting HIV replication to undetectable levels, thereby minimizing the probability of acquiring additional resistance. The aggressiveness with which to approach virologic failure, however, must be balanced by the risks associated with exposing patients to additional antiretroviral agents. Our findings demonstrate a relatively slow rate of resistance evolution in patients with HIV-1 subtype B, especially among individuals with multiple mutations, who have stable HIV RNA levels in plasma over time, and who maintain HIV RNA levels <1000 copies/mL. These data suggest that maintaining specific patients on a failing regimen results in relatively slow resistance evolution with limited reduction in antiretroviral drug susceptibility. However, this must be tempered by the specific regimen and prior resistance profile of the patient, because acquiring even a single mutation may cause resistance to all NNRTIs and the M184V mutation leads to resistance to lamivudine and emtricitabine.

Many patients maintained on an incompletely suppressive regimen continue to derive immunologic, virologic, and clinical benefit, possibly due to the reduced replication capacity of mutant HIV variants, enhanced HIV-specific immune responses, and residual drug activity.[3,6,29,30] Therefore, delaying switching of suboptimal regimens may be indicated in some patients. However, patients with HIV-1, with limited resistance, especially those with plasma HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL, are at risk for emergence of increasingly resistant virus. Further studies monitoring resistance evolution over time are needed, and combined analyses across observational clinical cohorts would strengthen our initial observations.

Of course, we know that blizzards transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards, which happened after chemicals cooperated to spontaneously form life.

 

[Shalamar]

Now Mr. Kleinman believes that Fossils are fake. So now he claims that biology is false, he's added Geology into the irrational and false sciences.

I await to see what else he can pull out of his buttocks.

 

[Shalamar]

Of course, we know that blizzards transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards, which happened after chemicals cooperated to spontaneously form life.

This one statement, for all the lurkers out there, shows how Mr. Kleinman fails. He fails to understand science. And he fails to understand what is the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution does not say 'blizzards turned lizards into buzzards with gizzards'. Nowhere. I've looked. This came from the limited Mr. Kleinman.

His second statement is in regards to Abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the creation of life. That is a separate science.

Mr. Kleinmans strawman statements are an failed attempt to belittle people who trust in the evidence of the Theory of Evolution. But all they do is make him look small, and show his limited understanding of the world around him.

That dog isn't laughing with him. It laughs at him.