Annoying creationists

[m_huber]

Are you evolutionists having trouble figuring out whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population?

The real question would be which selection pressures you are talking about. For example, if the selection pressure were related to the climate becoming substantially warmer, you would expect that many of the organisms affected would have to migrate, go extinct, or evolve. Diversity would decrease as animals go extinct, then increase as new animals fill the niches that are newly opened. The evidence of this is how well suited to their environments modern animals are. Given that the climate does change, animals must also change in order to stay fit within a given geographic area.

If the selection pressure were, instead, some type of predator, then you would find that diversity would not change so much as the prey would simply adapt unidirectionally to the best version of itself that could evade the predator.

You could also have selection pressures associated with disease, albedo, humidity, ocean levels, mountain ranges forming or being destroyed, rivers meandering, geographic boundaries being formed or destroyed in general, allowing populations to mix, or a whole host of other possibilities. One that generally doesn't effect non-microscopic animals is antibodies. We big animals are generally able to either spot poison, or figure out that when Bob ate it, he died. Perhaps this is an intelligence selection..

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What’s the matter, can’t you evolutionists figure out this simple question? Do selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? I’ll give you another hint, it either increases or decreases the diversity of the population. Just pretend you are taking one of your evolutionists true/false tests, (you know those tests, the ones without any mathematics) and flip a coin, you have 50-50 chance of getting the right answer.

If you don’t feel this is your lucky day, just post some fossil Rorschach tests.

 

[kleinman]

Wait a minute, we have an evolutionist who is trying to make this into a multiple choice test and is choosing c), none of the above. He even tries to make a rational to support this answer and of course, this evolutionist rational is half right and half wrong. Now which part is right and which part is wrong?

 

[kjkent1]

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?

A tiny collection?

Fossil evidence of the morphological changes leading to the modern elephant and horse are fabulously well documented. But, for certain: no matter how many transitional fossils are found for any particular evolutionary lineage, there will never be enough to satisfy Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D, M.E., because God made Noah's Ark big enough to hold every creature that has ever existed.

Which causes me to ask: how long would it take for every creature that ever existed to board the Ark? Seems like it would be a really long line. Do the math for us Alan.


Tickets, please...

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now we have an evolutionist who is claiming that he has a huge number of fossil Rorschach tests. You evolutionist must enjoy looking at the clouds and seeing all kinds of things in this collection of water vapor. Now it is just too bad that the mathematics and empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process does not support what you see in the clouds.

So aren’t any of you evolutionists going to tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? We’ve had one guess and he said the coin has landed on its edge with a half right and half wrong explanation for his conclusion. Any other takers?

 

[Shalamar]

Hmm.. What is a fossil rorschach test? Were these made by ancient psychiatrists, which then fossilized to see if creationists could see their mother in them?

At least Mr. Kleinman has stopped claiming that Wookies are real, and he's started to admit that weather just might be a real phenomenon.

But he still thinks that biology is not science, and that Geology is not science. He sure does change his mind a lot!

 

[kjkent1]

Now we have an evolutionist who is claiming that he has a huge number of fossil Rorschach tests. You evolutionist must enjoy looking at the clouds and seeing all kinds of things in this collection of water vapor. Now it is just too bad that the mathematics and empirical evidence of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process does not support what you see in the clouds.

So aren’t any of you evolutionists going to tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? We’ve had one guess and he said the coin has landed on its edge with a half right and half wrong explanation for his conclusion. Any other takers?

I'll answer your question, just as soon as you show us the math describing how long it took to load every living thing on Noah's Ark!

Come on, that should be easy for a genius such as yourself. Just try not to light yourself on fire again in the process.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Still no evolutionists will tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population. I wonder why? Didn’t any evolutionists teach you the answer to this question? Didn’t any evolutionist teach you how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works? Of course not because if evolutionists had taught this, we wouldn’t have MRSA and numerous other multidrug resistant microbes and it wouldn’t have taken years to figure out that treatment of HIV require combination therapy. Well lets post some more citations which demonstrate exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by this process.
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/kljr3bmug6kxqppu/

Antimarial drug resistance develops when spontaneously occurring parasite mutants with reduced susceptibility are selected, and are then transmitted. Drugs for which a single point mutation confers a marked reduction in susceptibility are particularly vulnerable. Low clearance and a shallow concentration–effect relationship increase the chance of selection. Use of combinations of antimalarials that do not share the same resistance mechanisms will reduce the chance of selection because the chance of a resistant mutant surviving is the product of the per parasite mutation rates for the individual drugs, multiplied by the number of parasites in an infection that are exposed to the drugs. Artemisinin derivatives are particularly effective combination partners because (i) they are very active antimalarials, producing up to 10 000-fold reductions in parasite biomass per asexual cycle; (ii) they reduce malaria transmissibility; and (iii) no resistance to these drugs has been reported yet. There are good arguments for no longer using antimalarial drugs alone in treatment, and instead always using a combination with artemisinin or one of its derivatives.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/short/128/11/951

First, using drugs that require the virus to undergo multiple mutations to achieve high-level resistance maximizes the efficacy of the drug for the existing viral population and minimizes the probability of breakthrough. In this respect, a drug to which resistance develops after only a single amino acid substitution is expected to be more vulnerable to resistance than an equipotent drug that requires the virus to undergo multiple mutations to achieve the same degree of resistance.

Second, the need for multiple mutations can be increased further by combining different drugs that inhibit independent targets. Three distinct therapeutic classes of drugs with nonoverlapping sets of resistance determinants exist: protease inhibitors, nucleoside inhibitors, and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. There is no evidence that mutations compromising the effects of members of one class will reduce the utility of members of any other class. This is one of the most important benefits of divergent combination therapy: When many simultaneous mutations are required, the probability of preexisting resistance in a therapy-naive patient becomes negligible and the effect of the drug combination is maximized.

I’ll take hard mathematical and measurable, repeatable empirical evidence any day over fossil Rorschach tests and claims that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards. But I do understand why you evolutionists would rather talk about your fossil Rorschach tests than the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process because it proves the theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

 

[kjkent1]

I’ll take hard mathematical and measurable, repeatable empirical evidence any day over fossil Rorschach tests and claims that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards. But I do understand why you evolutionists would rather talk about your fossil Rorschach tests than the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process because it proves the theory of evolution to be mathematically impossible.

The difference, of course, is that your "hard" evidence fails to support the impossibility of evolution, because each and every test that you post proves that evolution actually occurs. Whereas the fossil evidence is directly relevant, and supports the proof that evolution has occurred and caused morphological change over the eons.

It's really all about the "quantity" of evidence, not the "quality." You have exactly zero on your side of the scale, so it really doesn't matter how much evidence we have. If we have any -- you lose.

And, you do lose, Alan Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., M.E. Completely and utterly -- you lose.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Are there no evolutionists willing to tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? If you won’t do that will you at least post the fossil Rorschach tests that show that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards? Of course we know it took eons so there must be lots of fossil Rorschach tests to show us.

 

[Belz...]

Kleinman is obsessed with the word "evolutionist". Not a single post of his in the last few weeks doesn't start with a sentence that includes the work.

I have no idea what it means. I'm a realist. You're a fundie.

 

[kjkent1]

Even your little laughing icon has a fossil history: http://www.hyaenidae.org/ancient-hyaenas.html.

I tell ya, Alan, didn't your mother tell you not to play with matches or you'll get burned. It's a wonder you have any skin left to set ablaze with your nonsensical rhetoric.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Still there are no evolutionists who are willing to tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population. And the answer to this question is not “in some cases yes and in some cases no”. How many hints do you need?

Now I would like to see some of your fossil Rorschach tests. I have always been a fan of science fiction.

 

[kjkent1]

I like science fiction as well. Unfortunately, Noah's Ark and the Antediluvian Age is more like fantasy -- sort of like your belief that evolution is impossible.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

This is such a simple question. Do selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population? Come on now, there must be an evolutionist out there that knows the answer to this question. While you are thinking about this question, here are some more citations which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization phenomenon, after all, that’s what Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows.
http://www.bentham.org/cdt/contabs/cdt3-4.htm

Recent preclinical and clinical studies have addressed the resistance problem by using combinations of different drugs that target TS, or by combining TS-targeting and non-TS-targeting drugs.

And

Distinctive cellular responses to targeting of specific TS mRNA regions provide exciting therapeutic opportunities. Antisense ODN treatment to modulate TS activity, in combination with TS-targeting chemotherapeutic drugs, has the potential to be an effective anti-tumor therapy.

and

Protozoan parasites are responsible for important diseases that threaten the lives of nearly one-quarter of the human population world-wide. Among them, leishmaniasis has become the second cause of death, mainly due to the emergence of parasite resistance to conventional drugs. P-glycoprotein (Pgp)-like transporters overexpression is a very efficient mechanism to reduce the intracellular accumulation of many drugs in cancer cells and parasitic protozoans including Plasmodium and Leishmania, thus conferring a multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotype. Therefore, there is a great clinical interest in developing inhibitors of these transporters to overcome such a resistance. Pgps are active pumps belonging to the ATPbinding cassette (ABC) superfamily of proteins, and consist of two homologous halves, each containing a transmembrane domain (TMD) involved in drug efflux, and a cytosolic nucleotide-binding domain (NBD) responsible for ATP binding and hydrolysis. Most conventional cancer MDR modulators interact with the drug-binding sites on the TMDs of Pgps, but they are also usually transported and the required concentrations for a permanent inhibition produce subsequent side effects that hamper their clinical use. Besides, they only poorly modulate the resistance in protozoan parasites. We review here a rational strategy developed to overcome the MDR phenotype in Leishmania, consisting in: i) the selection of an MDR Leishmania tropica line that overexpresses a Pgp-like transporter; ii) the use of their cytosolic NBDs as new pharmacological targets; iii) the search of new natural compounds that revert the MDR phenotype in Leishmania by binding to the TMDs; iv) the combination of subdoses of the above selected modulators directed to both targets in the transporter, NBDs and TMDs, to accumulate their reversal effects while diminishing their toxicity. In this way, we have reverted the MDR phenotype in Leishmania, including the resistance to the most promising new antileishmania agents, the alkyl-lysophospholipids. This approach might be extrapolated to be used in other eukaryotic cells.

http://www.k-state.edu/pdecology/MundtGarrett2002.pdf .

Integration of practices often provided better disease control than using either practice singly. In two of three cases, the effect of combining management practices was greater than that predicted by a multiplicative relationship. Clearly, it is possible to attain substantial epidemiological synergism by combining disease practices.

It sure is difficult finding examples of combination selection pressures profoundly slowing evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. I’m still looking for that citation which shows blizzards transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards.

Since you evolutionists are having difficulty answering the question whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population, would you please post some of your fossil Rorschach tests?

 

[joobz]

Still there are no evolutionists who are willing to tell us whether selection pressures increase or decrease the diversity of a population. And the answer to this question is not “in some cases yes and in some cases no”.

That's the best answer that can be given to your horribly silly question.

Now I would like to see some of your fossil Rorschach tests. I have always been a fan of science fiction.

I see you've decided to attack a new strawman. Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at more substantial enemies.


To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with an alternative, self-consistent, rational explanation for the following observations:
Start with
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

Remember, sticking fingers in your ear shouting "la la la, I can't hear you" doesn't count as a rational argument.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Somebody has written a shopping list:

1.) the fossil Rorschach record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundamental mechanism of evolution, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is far too slow because combination selection pressures can not be sorted quickly and any way you don’t have the selection pressures to transform lizards into birds, well you do have blizzards that transform lizard into buzzards with gizzards.
3.) the phylogenetic tree is an imaginary relationship that evolutionist like to group things that exists between different species, it only works for occasional genes. If phylogenic trees were representative of reality, thousands of genes would give identical phylogenic trees.
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that persists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree, except despite the fact that humans and chimpanzees have identical insulin molecules the preproinsulin molecules are different.
5.) ERVs, energy efficient recreational vehicles?
6.) human chromosome fusion-like Robertsonian translocations which leads to Down’s syndrome.
7.) multi drug resistant bacteria-thank you evolutionists for your fine job in explaining how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, you evolutionists have given us MRSA, and numerous other multidrug resistant microbes because of your failure to properly explain how the process works. Oh yes, thank you for the multiple year delay in the understanding of how to treat HIV. If you evolutionists had properly explained how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, it would have been obvious that combination therapy had to be used. Oh yes, blizzards do transform lizards to buzzards with gizzards though.
8.) existence of RNAi-you evolutionists can’t even explain how to form ribose nonenzymatically and if you could, the ribose molecule is unstable and would break down very quickly. Ribose can barely last a couple years, so much for billions of years for abiogenesis.
9.) Mitochondrial DNA-you call that proof of evolution?
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques-don’t tell me you believe in Intelligent Design?
11.) vestigal organs-just because you don’t know what an organ does you claim it evolved, fits in good with your gap theory of evolution.
12.) prions-Oh, are these the missing link?
13.) protein multifunctionality-that explains why we only have 20,000 or so genes
14.) protein polymorphisms-variations in enzymes gives common descent?
15.) symbiosis-just because two life forms have a symbiotic relationship that is proof of evolution?
16.) interspecies viable offspring-you had better reexamine your definition for species.
17.) nylon-eating bacteria-a polymerase evolves into a polymerase, what’s your point?
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell-Sickle cell only persists in Malaria endemic areas, having Hgb-S in a region without Malaria is not beneficial; of course you never were involved in the care of someone with Sickle-cell disease because then you would know this.

Oh, the author of blizzards transform lizards into buzzards with gizzards is wrong about whether selection pressures sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing diversity in a population. He would understand this if he had some knowledge of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works. This misinterpretation is understandable since evolution is not his field. His field is chemical engineering and he claims that chemicals cooperated to form life billions of years ago. The only problem for this individual is to explain why chemicals are not cooperating any more. Don’t we have enough energy around for chemicals to cooperate and form life now?

Enough of evolutionist speculations; let’s get back to presenting real measurable and repeatable empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
http://www.csiro.au/proprietaryDocuments/dobson_barnes.pdf .

2.4. Drug Combinations: Computer modelling has shown that the best way to inhibit the development of drug resistance is by the simultaneous applications of drugs (i.e. the use of combinations or mixtures) [3,12].

You mean that Dr Schneider’s computer model is not the only mathematical model which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process?
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/2/196

Based on the samples that could be amplified, low-level viremia in children and adults receiving HAART with prolonged suppression of viremia to less than 50 copies/mL of HIV-1 RNA may result primarily from archival, pre-HAART virus, reflecting earlier treatment conditions, and does not appear to require development of new, HAART-selected mutations reflecting partial resistance to therapy. Low-level viremia below 50 copies/mL may represent less of a concern regarding impending drug failure of current HAART regimens. However, the archival drug-resistant virus may be relevant regarding future treatment strategies.

Pretreatment conditions, they are talking about years of monotherapy for the treatment of HIV which introduced drug resistant strains into the gene pool. Thank you very much evolutionists for your incompetent and irrational explanation of how mutation and selection works.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/19/9328

We studied the combined anti-human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) effects of a derivative of stroma-derived factor 1 (SDF-1), Met-SDF-1, and a modified form of RANTES, aminooxypentane (AOP)-RANTES. The antiviral agents were tested singly or in combination at 95 and 99% virus inhibitory concentrations. Clinical R5 and X4 HIV-1 isolates were used. AOP-RANTES inhibited R5 but not X4 viruses, whereas Met-SDF-1 had the opposite effect. Combinations of these compounds inhibited mixed infections with R5 and X4 viruses (95 to 99%), whereas single drugs were less inhibitory (32 to 61%). Combinations of R5 and X4 inhibitors are promising and deserve further evaluation.

Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. That is what the mathematics shows and that is what the empirical data shows.

Now I know you evolutionists believe that chemicals cooperated and spontaneously formed life and that blizzards transforms lizards into buzzards with gizzards in fact I think I saw a buzzard sitting in a phylogenic tree.

But the mathematical and empirical data shows that evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process simply doesn’t work that way. You evolutionists can cling to your irrational and illogical view of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and you will continue to contribute to the premature death of millions of people suffering from diseases subject to mutation and selection.

Now, I ask you evolutionists once again if selection pressures increase diversity or decrease diversity in a population. So far we have gotten two wrong answers of sometimes yes and sometimes no. Any of you evolutionists want to flip a coin and see if you get the right answer? Next week I’ll give you the correct answer and explain to you why. In the meantime, you all have a good weekend and I’ll see you next week with more empirical examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.

 

[delphi_ote]

More strawmen up in flames... we barely knew them.

 

[Ottis]

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.

What part of "survival of the fittest" cant /wont you understand??? (Hint; the unfit don't survive to reproduce... get it? hu? hu?)
I'm prob the least educated (formally) member of this board and I understood this as a child. Diversity results from how many different "niches" are available in any given environment, eg, harsh environments like the north pole, (you know, where Santa lives, I'm sure you believe in him also) have less diversity then say, a tropical rain forest..... Get it??? Something is week or dumb, it gets ate, something is strong or smart, it lives to reproduce.......

 

[joobz]

Somebody has written a shopping list:

And someone responded with stupidity. Good job, you!

1.) the fossil Rorschach record

that's a stupid thing to say.

2.) molecular biology describing the fundamental mechanism of evolution, the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is far too slow because combination selection pressures can not be sorted quickly and any way you don’t have the selection pressures to transform lizards into birds, well you do have blizzards that transform lizard into buzzards with gizzards.

That's a stupid and boring thing to say.

3.) the phylogenetic tree is an imaginary relationship that evolutionist like to group things that exists between different species, it only works for occasional genes. If phylogenic trees were representative of reality, thousands of genes would give identical phylogenic trees.

that's also stupid and horribly uniformed. Give examples of the genes that don't fit.

4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that persists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree, except despite the fact that humans and chimpanzees have identical insulin molecules the preproinsulin molecules are different.

You've said this before and it's a still stupid observation. explain why they wouldn't be same.

5.) ERVs, energy efficient recreational vehicles?

I know you don't like this topic. it's scary for you.

6.) human chromosome fusion-like Robertsonian translocations which leads to Down’s syndrome.

that's not just a stupid thing to mention, but it helps further support evolution. Good job!

7.) multi drug resistant bacteria-thank you evolutionists for your fine job in explaining how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process works, you evolutionists have given us MRSA, and numerous other multidrug resistant microbes because of your failure to properly explain how the process works. Oh yes, thank you for the multiple year delay in the understanding of how to treat HIV. If you evolutionists had properly explained how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, it would have been obvious that combination therapy had to be used. Oh yes, blizzards do transform lizards to buzzards with gizzards though.

I see you are again going for the stupid statement of the year award.

8.) existence of RNAi-you evolutionists can’t even explain how to form ribose nonenzymatically and if you could, the ribose molecule is unstable and would break down very quickly. Ribose can barely last a couple years, so much for billions of years for abiogenesis.

dumb dumb dumb.

9.) Mitochondrial DNA-you call that proof of evolution?

It's supported by evolutionary theory.

10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques-don’t tell me you believe in Intelligent Design?

How can something that doesn't exist be used to do something? Do you believe in magic...oh wait.

11.) vestigal organs-just because you don’t know what an organ does you claim it evolved, fits in good with your gap theory of evolution.

male nipples.

12.) prions-Oh, are these the missing link?

No, they are just another nail in your logic coffin.

13.) protein multifunctionality-that explains why we only have 20,000 or so genes

wastenot want not. That's what evolution says.

14.) protein polymorphisms-variations in enzymes gives common descent?

chicken...egg...

15.) symbiosis-just because two life forms have a symbiotic relationship that is proof of evolution?

got a better idea...oh wait... Have any idea?

16.) interspecies viable offspring-you had better reexamine your definition for species.

I define species as impossible, therefore god did it. You're not doing very good.

17.) nylon-eating bacteria-a polymerase evolves into a polymerase, what’s your point?

bwa ha ha ha ha!!! Something that doesn't exist evolves something that exists and that doesn't prove evolution?!??! Yeah, we have the new stupid statement.

18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell-Sickle cell only persists in Malaria endemic areas, having Hgb-S in a region without Malaria is not beneficial; of course you never were involved in the care of someone with Sickle-cell disease because then you would know this.

natural selection at work. thanks for playing.



I noticed you failed to provide any counter theory that explains all of those observations.