>> When are you going to get it through your thick skull** that only a tiny
>> > fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
>> > significant degree?
> Give us some examples of these selection pressures that don’t kill or
> impair the reproduction of some or all members of a population.
Only someone with a limited mathematical imagination would think that your formulation and his were equivalent.
**Skull thickness might be a good example by the way, at least in head-butting species. The population as a whole is limited by the food and water supply, predators, etc. But the better "butters" are the ones that reproduce.
>> >>Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
>> >>mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
>> >>greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
>> >>gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
>> >>that survive to reproduce
>> >When are you going to get it through your thick skill that only a tiny
>> >fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
>> >significant degree?
>> >>and the less likely it is that multiple
>> >>beneficial mutations needed to adapt will occur at the correct sites
>> >>on the members of this pressured population. It’s the multiplication
>> >>rule of probabilities that makes the theory of evolution
>> >>mathematically irrational.
>> Since you are so fond of your artificial selection example, how do you
>> explain dog breeds? Humans have placed dogs under simultaneous
>> selection pressures for appearance and behavior traits far greater
>> than what happens in nature. Yet dog populations never crashed.
>Are you trying to make an argument for Intelligent Design because your
>example does just that? You have intelligent dog breeders selecting
>for particular traits in the offspring so they can get Great Danes and
>Chihuahuas based on choice of progenitors. Now are you going to claim
>that reptiles turn into birds by breeding? Because if you do; I would
>really love to see your kennel.
A. Your claim is that selection for multiple traits simultaneously is
impossible due to the population crashing. Dog breeding proves that
claim wrong.
B. If the strong artificial selection of dog breeding is not relevant
to natural evolution, then the *extreme* artificial selection of multi
drug treatments is even less relevant.
> On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:> On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes<wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A. Kleinman wrote
> >> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> >> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> >> ancestor."
> > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup? Give us
> > some of your evolutionist folklore and tell up how this all happened.
> In biology, common descent does indeed refer to the relatedness of all
> life on earth, although "a single first replicator" is too simplistic.
> You evidently mean something else. What?
> By now any reasonably honest debater would have made his own position
> clear, on this point among others. Why haven't you?
If you want to define common descent as a group of organisms that
share a common ancestor, I agree with that definition. If you want to
make the evolutionist gross over-extrapolation and claim that common
descent means every organism that ever existed came from a single
progenitor, that’s mathematically irrational evolutionist crap.
> On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > ancestor."
> > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> Well since you say
> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> But then you say
> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> ancestor."
> So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> of the "concept of common descent"?
Common descent means a group of organisms which share a common
ancestor. Evolutionists have grossly over-extrapolated the definition
to say that every organism came about from a single common ancestor.
The evolutionist gross over-extrapolation comes about because of
evolutionist ignorance of the basic science and mathematics of the
mutation and selection phenomenon.
So William, you do think that all living things came from a single
first replicator from the primordial soup. Do you want to tell us from
your evolutionist folklore what genes were in that first replicator?
> On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > > ancestor."
> > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> > Well since you say
> > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> > means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> > But then you say
> > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > ancestor."
> > So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> > of the "concept of common descent"?
> Common descent means a group of organisms which share a common
> ancestor.
So apparently you mean by ""I do agree with the concept of common
descent"
that birds have a common ancestor and reptiles have a different common
ancestor,
or maybe some subset of reptiles and some subset of birds, or maybe
that there
exists a group or organisms which share a common ancestor, or
maybe ...
Your problems is that there is a huge amount of evidence that birds
and reptiles
share a common ancestor. This evidence is independent of any theory
of how
the needed genetic shift happened. There are a number of theories for
how the needed
genetic shift happened. Four are:
-The genetic information was seeded from outer space
-God intervened to make sure the needed mutations happened
-the genetic change is due to natural mutations and selection
-the genetic change is due to some unknown process
Your criticism that natural mutation and selection does not act
quickly enough.
However, even if accepted, your criticism is not criticism of the
theory that
genetic change happened.
> On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:> On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes<wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A. Kleinman wrote
> >> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> >> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> >> ancestor."
> > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup? Give us
> > some of your evolutionist folklore and tell up how this all happened.
> In biology, common descent does indeed refer to the relatedness of all
> life on earth, although "a single first replicator" is too simplistic.
> You evidently mean something else. What?
> By now any reasonably honest debater would have made his own position
> clear, on this point among others. Why haven't you?
Its been over a year. I've come to the conclusion that he basically
doesn't
understand what it is he is talking about. So given that limitation,
he cannot
clearly express himself.
> On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > > ancestor."
> > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> > Well since you say
> > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> > means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> > But then you say
> > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > ancestor."
> > So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> > of the "concept of common descent"?
> Common descent means a group of organisms which share a common
> ancestor. Evolutionists have grossly over-extrapolated the definition
> to say that every organism came about from a single common ancestor.
> The evolutionist gross over-extrapolation comes about because of
> evolutionist ignorance of the basic science and mathematics of the
> mutation and selection phenomenon.
> So William, you do think that all living things came from a single
> first replicator from the primordial soup. Do you want to tell us from
> your evolutionist folklore what genes were in that first replicator?
So how many common ancestors were there? One for every kind on the
ark? How long ago did these common ancestors live? A few thousand
years ago? A few tens of thousands?
And why do you keep ignoring drift, gene flow, and nonrandom mating as
causes of evolution? They're not insignificant, you know, especially
over long periods of time. Or are you suggesting there wasn't a long
period of time in which they could operate?
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > >Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
> > >mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
> > >greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
> > >gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
> > >that survive to reproduce
> > When are you going to get it through your thick skill that only a tiny
> > fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
> > significant degree?
> Give us some examples of these selection pressures that don’t kill or
> impair the reproduction of some or all members of a population.
Ahh, you want examples of natural selection that don't impose
selection pressure.
>> > Combination selection pressures explicitly demonstrate the effect of
>> > the multiplication rule of probabilities on the mutation and selection
>> > process. The multiplication rule is less apparent when selection
>> > conditions target only a single gene. Amplification of a beneficial
>> > mutation then improves the probability that the next beneficial
>> > mutation will occur at the proper site in the subpopulation with the
>> > previous beneficial mutation in an evolutionary sequence. If Schneider
>> > at the National Cancer Institute understood that the multiplication
>> > rule of probabilities does in fact apply to biological evolution, this
>> > mathematical fact of life would be more apparent. But Schneider
>> > refuses to understand this fundamental principle of the mutation and
>> > selection phenomenon and because of this, he harms the people he is
>> > paid to help. This principle of the multiplication rule of
>> > probabilities is demonstrated on any life form that has multiple
>> > selection pressures applied to its population. This includes viruses,
>> Viruses are alive?
> Viruses certainly replicate
But are they alive? You referred to them as a type of life form above.
> and because of this they can transform
> genetically by mutation and selection. And the transformation process
> that viruses go through obey the same mathematical axioms that all
> other replicators are subject to, in particular the multiplication
> rule of probabilities.
>> > bacteria, parasites, weeds, insects and rodents. I’ve posted citations
>> > which document what happens to the mutation and selection process when
>> > combination selection pressures are applied to all these life forms
>> > and every example shows that the mutation and selection process is
>> > stifled.
>> Were these lethal selection pressures?
> Not only do you evolutionists have a weird notion of the basic science
> and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon, you have a
> weird notion of what a selection pressure is. Selection pressures
> always kill or impair the reproduction of some or all members of a
> population. The selection pressures used to treat viral infections are
> not at all lethal; these drugs only impair the reproduction of the
> viruses.
So how does cold experienced by a polar bear kill it or impair its reproduction when it has fur shorter than it could be?
>> > Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
>> > mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
>> > greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
>> > gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
>> > that survive to reproduce
>> Natural selection pressures are often weaker than those deliberately >> created
>> by humans. This allows more organisms to survive and reproduce. And once
>> the necessary beneficial mutations start to amplify, their origin ceases >> to
>> be relevant, so they can take over an entire population despite having a >> low
>> probability of occurring to begin with.
> If you want to increase the diversity of a population, reduce the
> selection pressure the population is subject to. Reducing the
> intensity of selection only slows the evolutionary process
There's nothing wrong with this. Rates of evolution measured with the fossil record are often much smaller than rates measured in modern organisms..
> and if you
> have multiple weak selection pressures each with their own beneficial
> mutations, you are still faced with multiplication rule of
> probabilities for more than a single beneficial mutation to accumulate
> in a subpopulation.
In a reasonably sized population, there's bound to be some beneficial mutation appearing somewhere in the population, so the application of the multiplication rule won't change much.
> You evolutionists think that mutations can occur
> scattered throughout a population and then magically recombine to give
> a subpopulation with all the beneficial mutations.
Interbreeding among subpopulations could bring the mutations together, and in many cases they don't need to be brought together; you just have independent beneficial conditions evolving.
> You’ve been living
> too long in your evolutionist fantasyland.
>> >and the less likely it is that multiple
>> > beneficial mutations needed to adapt will occur at the correct sites
>> > on the members of this pressured population. It’s the multiplication
>> > rule of probabilities that makes the theory of evolution
>> > mathematically irrational.
>> So do you think polar bears evolved from other bears?
> I certainly don’t think they came from reptiles.
What are your opinions on the evolution of polar bears?
> On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:> On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes<wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> A. Kleinman wrote
> > >> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > >> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > >> ancestor."
> > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup? Give us
> > > some of your evolutionist folklore and tell up how this all happened.
> > In biology, common descent does indeed refer to the relatedness of all
> > life on earth, although "a single first replicator" is too simplistic.
> > You evidently mean something else. What?
> > By now any reasonably honest debater would have made his own position
> > clear, on this point among others. Why haven't you?
> If you want to define common descent as a group of organisms that
> share a common ancestor, I agree with that definition. If you want to
> make the evolutionist gross over-extrapolation and claim that common
> descent means every organism that ever existed came from a single
> progenitor, that’s mathematically irrational evolutionist crap.
Look, you know what we're asking. No one can force you to answer. But
evasion of simple, direct questions is commonly seen as cover for a
position that you know is weak.
Properly so.
So once again, are there any species that you think might share a
common ancestor with other species? Lions and tigers? And bears?
> On Apr 9, 3:46 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > Alan uses the phrase "multiplication rule" in quite different ways at
> > different times in order to come up with nonsensical conclusions.
> > In claiming that evolution is "mathematically irrational" because of
> > the "multiplication rule", the basis of the argument is that evolution
> > depends on the joint occurrence of two events -- mutations -- each of
> > which is so rare that the product of their probabilities is
> > vanishingly small.
> The probabilities are not necessarily vanishingly small if the
> subpopulation with a beneficial mutation is able to amplify (increase
> in number). With a large enough population (or enough generations),
> you can obtain enough replications to give sufficient number of trials
> for the next beneficial event to occur at the proper site.
Yes, that's similar to what I was saying (but there is no necessity
for anything to occur at a "proper site" -- any site, followed by
suitable mating events, will do).
> Only when
> amplification does not occur do the probabilities remain vanishingly
> small.
We're in general agreement.
> At that occurs when more than a single gene is targeted by
> selection pressures at a time. Mutation and selection only works
> efficiently when a single gene is targeted at a time by selection
> conditions.
That's not correct. A few people here have patiently explained, in a
qualitative elementary easy to understand story, how multiple loci can
evolve together under selection. I have seen from you no argument
whatever to the contrary, and certainly you do not have any
credibility at all to support making a naked claim.
> > So the point isn't simply that the joint probability is obtained by
> > multiplying two probabilities. It's also critical that those two
> > probabilities are both very small. Never state that condition and it
> > is not surprising to lose sight of it.
> Charles, if an evolutionary process requires three mutations then you
> would have to multiply the probabilities of those three independent
> events to obtain the joint probability.
No, that is utter nonsense and loses track of exactly the point that I
was making about confusing large probabilities with small ones. You
are assuming that the relevant "event"s are one-off mutation events
(small probability), but under a more realistic scenario of evolution
the events would be the large-probability events of a suitable mutant
type occurring at least once out of many chances, then becoming
prevalent through selection. Once all three mutant types are prevalent
in the population it is only a small additional step for the
combination - assuming as we are assuming that the combination is
beneficial - to be prevalent in the population. In summary, the chance
for that three-locus evolutionary event to occur would be close the
the product of three very large probabilities, hence not be improbable
at all.
[snip corresponding error for the case of "n" loci]
> The
> probability equation I derived for you only demonstrates the
> mathematics for two mutations to occur in a subpopulation. It is an
> easy matter to extend that mathematics to any number of mutations you
> want.
Sorry, but you have demonstrated nothing but confusion. Your "math"
has no credibility whatever. I said so from the beginning. John
Harshman has schooled you very clearly lately about your lack of even
a pretense of treating selection, and despite your show of playing
dumb I think you are really not that dumb and do somewhat see his
point. Moreover, to your credit you have lately stopped reposting your
supposed derivations. I like to think that the reason is that you at
least half-realize, thanks to me, that when your style of math leads
to 1=2 your mathematical insight and methods may be deficient.
On Apr 10, 1:54 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> When are you going to get it through your thick skull** that only a tiny
> >> > fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
> >> > significant degree?
> > Give us some examples of these selection pressures that don’t kill or
> > impair the reproduction of some or all members of a population.
> Only someone with a limited mathematical imagination would think that
> your formulation and his were equivalent.
> **Skull thickness might be a good example by the way, at least in
> head-butting species. The population as a whole is limited by the food
> and water supply, predators, etc. But the better "butters" are the ones
> that reproduce.
You’ve never raised goats, have you? If you put goats and sheep in the
same pasture, sheep will dominate goats because goats rear up before
they charge to butt while sheep just charge without rearing up. The
sheep ram the goats in their gut.
But more directly to you hypothetical, the thinner skulled animals are
impaired from reproduction so skull thickness in your case does
contribute to the fitness to reproduce.
> >> >>Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
> >> >>mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
> >> >>greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
> >> >>gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
> >> >>that survive to reproduce
> >> >When are you going to get it through your thick skill that only a tiny
> >> >fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
> >> >significant degree?
> >> >>and the less likely it is that multiple
> >> >>beneficial mutations needed to adapt will occur at the correct sites
> >> >>on the members of this pressured population. It’s the multiplication
> >> >>rule of probabilities that makes the theory of evolution
> >> >>mathematically irrational.
> >> Since you are so fond of your artificial selection example, how do you
> >> explain dog breeds? Humans have placed dogs under simultaneous
> >> selection pressures for appearance and behavior traits far greater
> >> than what happens in nature. Yet dog populations never crashed.
> >Are you trying to make an argument for Intelligent Design because your
> >example does just that? You have intelligent dog breeders selecting
> >for particular traits in the offspring so they can get Great Danes and
> >Chihuahuas based on choice of progenitors. Now are you going to claim
> >that reptiles turn into birds by breeding? Because if you do; I would
> >really love to see your kennel.
> A. Your claim is that selection for multiple traits simultaneously is
> impossible due to the population crashing. Dog breeding proves that
> claim wrong.
Since when is dog breeding an example of mutation and selection? It is
in the mutation and selection process that you can not amplify
multiple beneficial mutations simultaneously with any efficiency. And
mutations are what are required to create new alleles. With dog
breeding, you are trying to eliminate particular alleles and recombine
other alleles for particular traits. Don’t confuse breeding with
mutation and selection. It makes you look like a mathematically
incompetent evolutionist.
> B. If the strong artificial selection of dog breeding is not relevant
> to natural evolution, then the *extreme* artificial selection of multi
> drug treatments is even less relevant.
There are “natural” examples where the environment will impose
“breeding” conditions on a population but this will not transform
reptiles into birds. What these examples show is that particular
alleles will be selected for the specific environment and other
alleles will be lost from the population. But this is not how you
would have to create the alleles to transform reptiles into birds.
> On Apr 10, 10:38 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:> On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes<wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> A. Kleinman wrote
> > >> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > >> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > >> ancestor."
> > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup? Give us
> > > some of your evolutionist folklore and tell up how this all happened.
> > In biology, common descent does indeed refer to the relatedness of all
> > life on earth, although "a single first replicator" is too simplistic.
> > You evidently mean something else. What?
> > By now any reasonably honest debater would have made his own position
> > clear, on this point among others. Why haven't you?
> Its been over a year. I've come to the conclusion that he basically
> doesn't
> understand what it is he is talking about. So given that limitation,
> he cannot
> clearly express himself.
Stuart, you clearly understand when I say that evolutionists are
responsible for multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant
weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer
treatments. You whine incessantly about this.
> On Apr 10, 6:56 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > > > ancestor."
> > > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> > > Well since you say
> > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> > > means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> > > But then you say
> > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > ancestor."
> > > So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> > > of the "concept of common descent"?
> > Common descent means a group of organisms which share a common
> > ancestor.
> So apparently you mean by ""I do agree with the concept of common
> descent"
> that birds have a common ancestor and reptiles have a different common
> ancestor,
> or maybe some subset of reptiles and some subset of birds, or maybe
> that there
> exists a group or organisms which share a common ancestor, or
> maybe ...
What I mean is that common descent means a group of organism that
share a common ancestor, not the gross over-extrapolation that
evolutionists impose on the meaning of common descent.
> Your problems is that there is a huge amount of evidence that birds
> and reptiles
> share a common ancestor. This evidence is independent of any theory
> of how
> the needed genetic shift happened. There are a number of theories for
> how the needed
> genetic shift happened. Four are:
> -The genetic information was seeded from outer space
> -God intervened to make sure the needed mutations happened
> -the genetic change is due to natural mutations and selection
> -the genetic change is due to some unknown process
Rather than making these speculations William, why don’t you try to
practice some hard mathematical science and understand how the
mutation and selection phenomenon actually works? Then try doing the
mathematics which correctly describes random recombination and random
mating. It would put much of your evolutionist speculations and gross
over-extrapolations to rest and you would stop indoctrinating naïve
school children with the mathematically irrational notion that
reptiles turn into birds.
> Your criticism that natural mutation and selection does not act
> quickly enough.
> However, even if accepted, your criticism is not criticism of the
> theory that
> genetic change happened.
My criticism of evolutionism is not that genetic change happens; it is
the failure of evolutionism to properly describe how genetic change
happens. The failure of evolutionists to properly understand and teach
the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection
phenomenon has led to multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide
resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than
durable cancer treatments.
On Apr 10, 1:47 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 3:53 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:>> > So do you think polar bears evolved from other bears?
> > I certainly don’t think they came from reptiles.
> You display an unflinching devotion to evasion. Why? Such reliance on
> "tactics" hardly befits someone who would claim to be an honest scientist.
> Do you think polar bears evolved from other bears or not?
> On Apr 10, 5:56 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > > > ancestor."
> > > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> > > Well since you say
> > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> > > means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> > > But then you say
> > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > ancestor."
> > > So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> > > of the "concept of common descent"?
> > Common descent means a group of organisms which share a common
> > ancestor. Evolutionists have grossly over-extrapolated the definition
> > to say that every organism came about from a single common ancestor.
> > The evolutionist gross over-extrapolation comes about because of
> > evolutionist ignorance of the basic science and mathematics of the
> > mutation and selection phenomenon.
> > So William, you do think that all living things came from a single
> > first replicator from the primordial soup. Do you want to tell us from
> > your evolutionist folklore what genes were in that first replicator?
> So how many common ancestors were there? One for every kind on the
> ark? How long ago did these common ancestors live? A few thousand
> years ago? A few tens of thousands?
> And why do you keep ignoring drift, gene flow, and nonrandom mating as
> causes of evolution? They're not insignificant, you know, especially
> over long periods of time. Or are you suggesting there wasn't a long
> period of time in which they could operate?
The only thing drifting and flowing is mathematically irrational
evolutionist crap. And now you are going to claim that reptiles turn
into birds by nonrandom mating? You evolutionists are scraping the
bottom of the barrel for arguments. But at least you are starting to
understand that a stochastic process with selection reveals that your
theory of evolution is mathematically irrational. That’s why you have
to introduce nonrandom mating. Sounds like you are making a good
argument for intelligent design.
> On Apr 10, 10:38 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 4:49 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A. Kleinman wrote
> > > > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > > ancestor."
> > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup?
> > Well since you say
> > "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > you apparently do since the "concept of common descent"
> > means (by definition) "all living things have a common ancestor".
> > But then you say
> > "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > ancestor."
> > So are you schitzophrenic or do you have a private definition
> > of the "concept of common descent"?
> he does. He accepts that he had parents and that his parents had
> parents.
> Beyond that, he's not sure.
I am mathematically sure that we didn’t all come about from a single
replicator in the primordial soup. To believe that would be
mathematically irrational.
> > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > > <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > >Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
> > > >mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
> > > >greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
> > > >gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
> > > >that survive to reproduce
> > > When are you going to get it through your thick skill that only a tiny
> > > fraction of selection pressures in nature reduce populations by any
> > > significant degree?
> > Give us some examples of these selection pressures that don’t kill or
> > impair the reproduction of some or all members of a population.
> Ahh, you want examples of natural selection that don't impose
> selection pressure.
> You're an idiot.
Chris, real idiocy is when evolutionist fails to properly describe the
basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection
phenomenon. This evolutionist idiocy has led to multidrug resistant
microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant
insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
> >> > Combination selection pressures explicitly demonstrate the effect of
> >> > the multiplication rule of probabilities on the mutation and selection
> >> > process. The multiplication rule is less apparent when selection
> >> > conditions target only a single gene. Amplification of a beneficial
> >> > mutation then improves the probability that the next beneficial
> >> > mutation will occur at the proper site in the subpopulation with the
> >> > previous beneficial mutation in an evolutionary sequence. If Schneider
> >> > at the National Cancer Institute understood that the multiplication
> >> > rule of probabilities does in fact apply to biological evolution, this
> >> > mathematical fact of life would be more apparent. But Schneider
> >> > refuses to understand this fundamental principle of the mutation and
> >> > selection phenomenon and because of this, he harms the people he is
> >> > paid to help. This principle of the multiplication rule of
> >> > probabilities is demonstrated on any life form that has multiple
> >> > selection pressures applied to its population. This includes viruses,
> >> Viruses are alive?
> > Viruses certainly replicate
> But are they alive? You referred to them as a type of life form above.
It doesn’t matter whether you want to call viruses alive or not.
Anyway it depends upon how you want to define the meaning of life.
From a mathematical point of view, viruses are replicators which
mutate upon replication and therefore obey the mathematics of the
mutation and selection phenomenon.
> > and because of this they can transform
> > genetically by mutation and selection. And the transformation process
> > that viruses go through obey the same mathematical axioms that all
> > other replicators are subject to, in particular the multiplication
> > rule of probabilities.
> >> > bacteria, parasites, weeds, insects and rodents. I’ve posted citations
> >> > which document what happens to the mutation and selection process when
> >> > combination selection pressures are applied to all these life forms
> >> > and every example shows that the mutation and selection process is
> >> > stifled.
> >> Were these lethal selection pressures?
> > Not only do you evolutionists have a weird notion of the basic science
> > and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon, you have a
> > weird notion of what a selection pressure is. Selection pressures
> > always kill or impair the reproduction of some or all members of a
> > population. The selection pressures used to treat viral infections are
> > not at all lethal; these drugs only impair the reproduction of the
> > viruses.
> So how does cold experienced by a polar bear kill it or impair its
> reproduction when it has fur shorter than it could be?
Fitness to reproduce is all about the ability of the replicator to use
the resources of the environment to produce offspring. If a member of
the population must expend energy simply to keep warm to stay alive,
that energy can not be used to reproduce. This is an application of
the first law of thermodynamics.
> >> > Vincent, if you understood the basic science and mathematics of the
> >> > mutation and selection process, it should not surprise you that the
> >> > greater the number of selection pressures applied (more than a single
> >> > gene targeted) to a population, the fewer members of that population
> >> > that survive to reproduce
> >> Natural selection pressures are often weaker than those deliberately
> >> created
> >> by humans. This allows more organisms to survive and reproduce. And once
> >> the necessary beneficial mutations start to amplify, their origin ceases
> >> to
> >> be relevant, so they can take over an entire population despite having a
> >> low
> >> probability of occurring to begin with.
> > If you want to increase the diversity of a population, reduce the
> > selection pressure the population is subject to. Reducing the
> > intensity of selection only slows the evolutionary process
> There's nothing wrong with this. Rates of evolution measured with the
> fossil record are often much smaller than rates measured in modern
> organisms..
Vincent, give us some rates of evolution measured in modern organisms.
And I am not interested in the evolutionist reading of fossil tea
leaves.
> > and if you
> > have multiple weak selection pressures each with their own beneficial
> > mutations, you are still faced with multiplication rule of
> > probabilities for more than a single beneficial mutation to accumulate
> > in a subpopulation.
> In a reasonably sized population, there's bound to be some beneficial
> mutation appearing somewhere in the population, so the application of the
> multiplication rule won't change much.
The multiplication rule doesn’t change at all. What is required for
there to be a reasonable probability that two beneficial mutations
will occur in a subpopulation is that the first mutation must amplify
sufficiently for there to be a reasonable probability that the second
beneficial mutation will occur at the proper site on a member who
already has the first beneficial mutation. When selection pressures
are weak, that member with the first beneficial mutation will not be a
much better replicator than any other member of the population. And
these other members represent competition for the resources of the
environment.
> > You evolutionists think that mutations can occur
> > scattered throughout a population and then magically recombine to give
> > a subpopulation with all the beneficial mutations.
> Interbreeding among subpopulations could bring the mutations together, and
> in many cases they don't need to be brought together; you just have
> independent beneficial conditions evolving.
Dog breeding is interbreeding. The dog breeder is selecting for
particular traits. And in this process, many alleles are lost from
that particular breed. So do the mathematics for us of members with
independent beneficial mutations evolving and coming together. Put
some mathematics to your semantic mush.
> > You’ve been living
> > too long in your evolutionist fantasyland.
> >> >and the less likely it is that multiple
> >> > beneficial mutations needed to adapt will occur at the correct sites
> >> > on the members of this pressured population. It’s the multiplication
> >> > rule of probabilities that makes the theory of evolution
> >> > mathematically irrational.
> >> So do you think polar bears evolved from other bears?
> > I certainly don’t think they came from reptiles.
> What are your opinions on the evolution of polar bears?
They didn’t come from reptiles and they won’t turn into reptiles. And
that opinion is based on mathematical and empirical evidence.
> > > On 4/10/2012 3:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:> On Apr 10, 7:27 am, William Hughes<wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> A. Kleinman wrote
> > > >> "I do agree with the concept of common descent"
> > > >> "I don t believe that birds and reptiles have a common
> > > >> ancestor."
> > > > This really confuses you William. Do you think that all living things
> > > > came from a single first replicator from the primordial soup? Give us
> > > > some of your evolutionist folklore and tell up how this all happened.
> > > In biology, common descent does indeed refer to the relatedness of all
> > > life on earth, although "a single first replicator" is too simplistic.
> > > You evidently mean something else. What?
> > > By now any reasonably honest debater would have made his own position
> > > clear, on this point among others. Why haven't you?
> > If you want to define common descent as a group of organisms that
> > share a common ancestor, I agree with that definition. If you want to
> > make the evolutionist gross over-extrapolation and claim that common
> > descent means every organism that ever existed came from a single
> > progenitor, that’s mathematically irrational evolutionist crap.
> Look, you know what we're asking. No one can force you to answer. But
> evasion of simple, direct questions is commonly seen as cover for a
> position that you know is weak.
> Properly so.
> So once again, are there any species that you think might share a
> common ancestor with other species? Lions and tigers? And bears?
I look at the mathematical and empirical evidence for what type of
genetic transformation can occur in a given number of generations.
Present the genetic sequence of the particular genomes you want to
compare and the number of generations separating the most recent
common ancestor and you can try to determine if there is a reasonable
probability that organisms are from a line of common descent. Clearly,
there are far too many genetic differences between humans and
chimpanzees to come from a common progenitor 500,000 generations ago.
On Apr 11, 10:19 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
<snip>
> My criticism of evolutionism is not that genetic change happens;
Nonsense. You have stated clearly that you do not believe that
certain types of genetic change (e.g. the genetic change needed
to change a reptile into a bird ) can happen. You base your
criticism on a single proposed mechanism for the change.
> it is
> the failure of evolutionism to properly describe how genetic change
> happens.
Nonsense. There are many schools of "evolutionism". You are only
criticising one of them. You are not criticising "evolutionism" as a
whole.
> On Apr 10, 6:07 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 3:46 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > Alan uses the phrase "multiplication rule" in quite different ways at
> > > different times in order to come up with nonsensical conclusions.
> > > In claiming that evolution is "mathematically irrational" because of
> > > the "multiplication rule", the basis of the argument is that evolution
> > > depends on the joint occurrence of two events -- mutations -- each of
> > > which is so rare that the product of their probabilities is
> > > vanishingly small.
> > The probabilities are not necessarily vanishingly small if the
> > subpopulation with a beneficial mutation is able to amplify (increase
> > in number). With a large enough population (or enough generations),
> > you can obtain enough replications to give sufficient number of trials
> > for the next beneficial event to occur at the proper site.
> Yes, that's similar to what I was saying (but there is no necessity
> for anything to occur at a "proper site" -- any site, followed by
> suitable mating events, will do).
Charles, that’s a silly thing to claim. You are claiming that for a
given set of selection conditions, the beneficial mutations can occur
anywhere in the genome. If this were true, sequencing HIV to look for
particular mutations to determine drug resistance would be useless.
You seem to be having difficulty even recognizing that the beneficial
mutation must occur somewhere in the gene targeted by the selection
condition. And why don’t you put some mathematics to what you mean by
“suitable mating events”? After all, you claim to be a “professional
forensic mathematician”.
> > Only when
> > amplification does not occur do the probabilities remain vanishingly
> > small.
> We're in general agreement.
I’ll mark this day on my calendar.
> > At that occurs when more than a single gene is targeted by
> > selection pressures at a time. Mutation and selection only works
> > efficiently when a single gene is targeted at a time by selection
> > conditions.
> That's not correct. A few people here have patiently explained, in a
> qualitative elementary easy to understand story, how multiple loci can
> evolve together under selection. I have seen from you no argument
> whatever to the contrary, and certainly you do not have any
> credibility at all to support making a naked claim.
We’ve been listening to this qualitative evolutionist mathematically
baseless mush for over a year. And not only is this evolutionist mush
mathematically baseless, it is without empirical evidence. All the
empirical evidence shows that you are wrong Charles on this point.
Every real, measurable and repeatable example of mutation and
selection where selection pressures target more than a single gene
shows that the mutation and selection process does not work
efficiently in parallel. The only thing naked here is the theory of
evolution. It is naked of mathematical and empirical evidence.
> > > So the point isn't simply that the joint probability is obtained by
> > > multiplying two probabilities. It's also critical that those two
> > > probabilities are both very small. Never state that condition and it
> > > is not surprising to lose sight of it.
> > Charles, if an evolutionary process requires three mutations then you
> > would have to multiply the probabilities of those three independent
> > events to obtain the joint probability.
> No, that is utter nonsense and loses track of exactly the point that I
> was making about confusing large probabilities with small ones. You
> are assuming that the relevant "event"s are one-off mutation events
> (small probability), but under a more realistic scenario of evolution
> the events would be the large-probability events of a suitable mutant
> type occurring at least once out of many chances, then becoming
> prevalent through selection. Once all three mutant types are prevalent
> in the population it is only a small additional step for the
> combination - assuming as we are assuming that the combination is
> beneficial - to be prevalent in the population. In summary, the chance
> for that three-locus evolutionary event to occur would be close the
> the product of three very large probabilities, hence not be improbable
> at all.
Charles, since when is the computation of the probabilities of joint
independent events not governed by the multiplication rule? If your
argument was correct above, combination therapy for the treatment of
HIV would not work because individual mutations which would be
beneficial for individual drugs are scatter throughout the population
but they don’t recombine to give multidrug resistant variants. This is
why your argument is incorrect. You argument is more than incorrect,
it is mathematically irrational.
> [snip corresponding error for the case of "n" loci]
It’s your error Charles and you are making it to the “n-1”th power for
failing to recognize that the multiplication rule would apply “n-1”
times.
> > The
> > probability equation I derived for you only demonstrates the
> > mathematics for two mutations to occur in a subpopulation. It is an
> > easy matter to extend that mathematics to any number of mutations you
> > want.
> Sorry, but you have demonstrated nothing but confusion. Your "math"
> has no credibility whatever. I said so from the beginning. John
> Harshman has schooled you very clearly lately about your lack of even
> a pretense of treating selection, and despite your show of playing
> dumb I think you are really not that dumb and do somewhat see his
> point. Moreover, to your credit you have lately stopped reposting your
> supposed derivations. I like to think that the reason is that you at
> least half-realize, thanks to me, that when your style of math leads
> to 1=2 your mathematical insight and methods may be deficient.
Charles, do you still think that chromosomes are mutually exclusive?
You’ve bungled two basic concepts of probability theory, the concept
of mutual exclusivity and the concept of computing the probability of
joint independent events using the multiplication rule. If a
professional forensic mathematician like you and a professor of
mathematics like Peter Nyikos are examples of evolutionist
mathematicians, no wonder the theory of evolution is a mathematically
irrational belief system.
