Kleinman's Concept of Selection Pressures

[Peter Nyikos]

This is a reply to a post by Kleinman on the thread,

Subject: Mysteries of Evolution: Sexual Reproduction; Part A, meiosis

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 6:45:02 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 12:40:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 18:57:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > > > > <nyik...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> Egglaying and odd shoulder girdles
> > > > > >> would as easily be apomorphic as plesiomorphic, absent an outgroup to
> > > > > >> root the characters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You've got to be kidding! getting from the shoulder girdle
> > > > > >of all other mammals to the one of monotremes is much harder
> > > > > >than the opposite direction. We AGREED that it is harder
> > > > > >to add new parts than to lose old parts.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that would strongly depend on whether there was a
> > > > > strong negative selection pressure involved WRT the "old
> > > > > parts", and/or a strong positive selection pressure WRT the
> > > > > development of "new parts".
> > > >
> > > > I never thought I would see the day when you would
> > > > sound like Dr. Dr. Kleinman.
> >
> > > Get the wax out of your ears Professor [Nyikos]. Only dim bulbs would see selection pressures as positive or negative.

They are both. Below, you blunder by opting for them being
negative for EVERYONE


> > Bob was too much of a dimbulb to respond to this, so I will.
> > It is useful to think of any environmental factor that
> > increases the fitness of a variety as a positive selection
> > pressure.

> Has Professor [Nyikos} ever grown a garden? Is feeding your plants a positive selection pressure or is it simply removing starvation?

Is adequate heat a positive selection pressure for ectotherms or is it
simply removing of cold?

I opt for the former in both cases because the latter sounds
very strained AND because you are reading
the Wikipedia entry you linked in too simplistic a way.
You have failed to take into account its SECOND sentence:

With sufficient pressure, inherited traits that mitigate
its effects--even if they would be deleterious in other circumstances
--can become widely spread through a population.

IOW, the pressures can improve the fitness of the individuals with
those traits. Even absolutely and not just relatively, although
the entry only opts for a formula about relative fitness.


> If you want to improve fitness of a replicator, remove selection conditions.

Or add some to decrease the fitness of competitors. This is something
that would have prevented you from contradicting that second sentence:

> This allows the less fit variants to reproduce which couldn't under the previous selection conditions

Formerly less fit. And here comes the contradiction:

> and allows the more fit variants to reproduce in greater numbers.

If understanding that second sentence is beyond your pay grade,
look at what the entry you've linked below says about malaria.

<snip of things to be discussed in separate reply>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure

Relevant excerpt:

The Malaria parasite can exert a selective pressure on populations.
This pressure has led to natural selection for erythrocytes carrying
the sickle cell hemoglobin gene mutation (Hb S) -- causing sickle cell
anaemia -- in areas where malaria is a major health concern,
because the condition grants some resistance to this infectious disease.

Note how it says the malaria parasite enhances the fitness of people with
sickle cell trait [even with the decrease in the homozygote due to
sickle cell anemia] at the same time it decreases the fitness
of those without it. It is positive for those with the
trait and negative for those without it.



<snip>


> > > > Won't [Kleinman] be proud. :-) :-)
> >
> > Hey, Bob made a step in your direction. Don't be a killjoy --
> > tell us all how proud you are of his accomplishment.

> If dimmy is looking for an ataboy, he needs to go back to his statistic text and read the introductory chapters on probability theory. Once he understands these chapters, then maybe he'll get something out of his statistics courses.

Killjoy.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Selection pressures are stressors on populations, they are always negative. If you want to increase the diversity of populations, remove selection pressures.

>
>
> > > Bob was too much of a dimbulb to respond to this, so I will.
> > > It is useful to think of any environmental factor that
> > > increases the fitness of a variety as a positive selection
> > > pressure.
>
> > Has Professor [Nyikos} ever grown a garden? Is feeding your plants a positive selection pressure or is it simply removing starvation?
>
> Is adequate heat a positive selection pressure for ectotherms or is it
> simply removing of cold?

Excessive heat or cold affects the ability of replicators to replicate. So is this you are positive about the negative but a little negative about the positive?

>
> I opt for the former in both cases because the latter sounds
> very strained AND because you are reading
> the Wikipedia entry you linked in too simplistic a way.
> You have failed to take into account its SECOND sentence:
>
> With sufficient pressure, inherited traits that mitigate
> its effects--even if they would be deleterious in other circumstances
> --can become widely spread through a population.
>
> IOW, the pressures can improve the fitness of the individuals with
> those traits. Even absolutely and not just relatively, although
> the entry only opts for a formula about relative fitness.

If you want to think that feeding a population is the positive selection pressure for starvation, go ahead and think that.

>
>
> > If you want to improve fitness of a replicator, remove selection conditions.
>
> Or add some to decrease the fitness of competitors. This is something
> that would have prevented you from contradicting that second sentence:

Competition doesn't have to be limited to intraspecies, predation, for example, is usually interspecies.

>
> > This allows the less fit variants to reproduce which couldn't under the previous selection conditions
>
> Formerly less fit. And here comes the contradiction:
>
> > and allows the more fit variants to reproduce in greater numbers.
>
> If understanding that second sentence is beyond your pay grade,
> look at what the entry you've linked below says about malaria.
>
> <snip of things to be discussed in separate reply>
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure
>
> Relevant excerpt:
>
> The Malaria parasite can exert a selective pressure on populations.
> This pressure has led to natural selection for erythrocytes carrying
> the sickle cell hemoglobin gene mutation (Hb S) -- causing sickle cell
> anaemia -- in areas where malaria is a major health concern,
> because the condition grants some resistance to this infectious disease.
>
> Note how it says the malaria parasite enhances the fitness of people with
> sickle cell trait [even with the decrease in the homozygote due to
> sickle cell anemia] at the same time it decreases the fitness
> of those without it. It is positive for those with the
> trait and negative for those without it.

There are many red blood cell defects that confer resistance to malaria, Thalassemia, G6PD, and perhaps others but they work by disrupting the life cycle of the parasite in the human red blood cell. These mutations are stressors on the parasite which is why they are beneficial to the person with them in a malaria endemic environment. But these mutations also shorten the life of the red blood cell (even in the heterozygous) forcing that person to do more hematopoiesis.

>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > > > > Won't [Kleinman] be proud. :-) :-)
> > >
> > > Hey, Bob made a step in your direction. Don't be a killjoy --
> > > tell us all how proud you are of his accomplishment.
>
> > If dimmy is looking for an ataboy, he needs to go back to his statistic text and read the introductory chapters on probability theory. Once he understands these chapters, then maybe he'll get something out of his statistics courses.
>
> Killjoy.

No, I kill bacteria.

[Bill Rogers]

You have a narrow understanding of selection pressures based on your medical experience. A selection pressure is any factor in the environment that causes individuals with different genotypes to have different fitnesses. It is as correct to consider selection pressures as opportunities as to see them as stressors.

Consider a bird. Maybe a finch. Maybe living on one of the Galapagos Islands. It's well adapted to its environment. Now a few of those finches get blown to a nearby island. The environment is identical, except that there's one additional type of fruit which the finches could access if they had slightly larger beaks. Surely that's not a stressor, right? The finches could live just as they did in the previous environment. No stress at all. No inhibition of replication. But there's now an opportunity for any lineage of finches that gets a mutation leading to a larger beak. There's a selection pressure in favor of larger beaks, even though the wild type finches are just as fit as they were on the original island.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Name a selection pressure that doesn't kill or inhibit the replication of some or all members of a population.

>
> Consider a bird. Maybe a finch. Maybe living on one of the Galapagos Islands. It's well adapted to its environment. Now a few of those finches get blown to a nearby island. The environment is identical, except that there's one additional type of fruit which the finches could access if they had slightly larger beaks. Surely that's not a stressor, right? The finches could live just as they did in the previous environment. No stress at all. No inhibition of replication. But there's now an opportunity for any lineage of finches that gets a mutation leading to a larger beak. There's a selection pressure in favor of larger beaks, even though the wild type finches are just as fit as they were on the original island.

Starvation is the selection pressure in this case. The birds with the wrong shaped beaks for the food source available are kaput. And there genes are gone from the gene pool. The remaining bird intrabreed, reenforcing those already existing beneficial alleles, for example, becoming homozygous at particular loci.

[Bill Rogers]

See below, but read it carefully.

> >
> > Consider a bird. Maybe a finch. Maybe living on one of the Galapagos Islands. It's well adapted to its environment. Now a few of those finches get blown to a nearby island. The environment is identical, except that there's one additional type of fruit which the finches could access if they had slightly larger beaks. Surely that's not a stressor, right? The finches could live just as they did in the previous environment. No stress at all. No inhibition of replication. But there's now an opportunity for any lineage of finches that gets a mutation leading to a larger beak. There's a selection pressure in favor of larger beaks, even though the wild type finches are just as fit as they were on the original island.
> Starvation is the selection pressure in this case. The birds with the wrong shaped beaks for the food source available are kaput. And there genes are gone from the gene pool. The remaining bird intrabreed, reenforcing those already existing beneficial alleles, for example, becoming homozygous at particular loci.

Read much? The environment on the new island is identical to that on the previous one, except that there is one additional food source which would be accessible to birds with larger beaks. Without larger beaks, they just eat whatever they'd been eating on the original island.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> Get the wax out of your ears Professor [Nyikos]. Only dim bulbs
> would see selection pressures as positive or negative.

That's exactly what you do, asshat. No one else here is making that claim.

> Selection pressures are stressors on populations, they are always negative.
> If you want to increase the diversity of populations, remove selection
> pressures.

Wow - removing selection pressures increases diversity.....thank you dr clueless.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:40:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> Read much? The environment on the new island is identical to that on the
> previous one, except that there is one additional food source which would
> be accessible to birds with larger beaks. Without larger beaks, they just
> eat whatever they'd been eating on the original island.

What should we expect from someone who thinks removing selection pressures increases diversity?

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >
> > Consider a bird. Maybe a finch. Maybe living on one of the Galapagos
> > Islands. It's well adapted to its environment. Now a few of those finches
> > get blown to a nearby island. The environment is identical, except that
> > there's one additional type of fruit which the finches could access if
> > they had slightly larger beaks. Surely that's not a stressor, right?
> > The finches could live just as they did in the previous environment.
> > No stress at all. No inhibition of replication. But there's now an
> > opportunity for any lineage of finches that gets a mutation leading to
> > a larger beak. There's a selection pressure in favor of larger beaks,
> > even though the wild type finches are just as fit as they were on the
> > original island.
>
> Starvation is the selection pressure in this case.

No, it isn't, you useless twat. The hypothetical is that the different beaks are not a detrimental characteristic for the original food source, and the original food source is in abundant supply. The beaks are not 'wrong', starvation is not a selection pressure for this case.

[Öö Tiib]

Huh? Environment with big diversity of dangers favors being
conservative. One whose parents survived in that environment
is obviously most safe when not attempting to be too innovative
there.

Also Richard Lenski's long term evolution experiment seems
to show that with just sole pressure (who can faster eat and
reproduce) in his monocultures the populations threw away
mutation reducing protections after a while as unneeded
cost without benefits.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Rogers, you got a twisted mind and you are twisting the empirical example of Darwin's finches. What you are describing is simply the increase in the carrying capacity of the environment. So, is increasing the carrying capacity of the environment a "positive" selection pressure? If Lenski were to run his experiment in 100ml tubes instead of 10ml tubes a "positive" selection pressure?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's correct, the lineages are even discarding their cell walls just to use the citrate because the osmotic pressures remain constant enough for these variants to survive and reproduce. Energy that normally would have to be used for cell wall production in a widely varying osmotic pressure environment can now be used for replication.

[Bill Rogers]

No. Increasing the carrying capacity would simply involving increasing the total amount of the original fruit (or doubling the size of the original island). An additional new fruit, which can only be accessed by finches with larger beaks, is a selection pressure for larger beaks, but it does not inhibit the replication of the wild type finches.

Not every selection pressure is analogous to drug treatments. A selection pressure is simply any factor in the environment which causes different genotypes to have different fitnesses.

>If Lenski were to run his experiment in 100ml tubes instead of 10ml tubes a "positive" selection pressure?

That's not analogous to the situation I presented.
<snip>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So increasing the food supply for finches with larger beaks is not increasing the carrying capacity of that environment for finches with larger beaks? And if finches with the larger beaks are eating a food source only they can eat instead of eating a food source that all finches can eat doesn't increase the carrying capacity for those finches with smaller beaks?

>
> Not every selection pressure is analogous to drug treatments. A selection pressure is simply any factor in the environment which causes different genotypes to have different fitnesses.

It doesn't matter what the selection condition is, the math is the same for all selection conditions. That's why it takes Lenski's bacteria a billion replications for each evolutionary step when starvation is the selection pressure. And if you have two selection pressures acting on a population, that will reduce the fitness of members of that population more than if only a single selection pressure is acting at a time. That's why if Lenski runs his experiment at non-optimal temperature, the evolutionary process will slow.

>
> >If Lenski were to run his experiment in 100ml tubes instead of 10ml tubes a "positive" selection pressure?
>
> That's not analogous to the situation I presented.

Sure it is, it is supplying more food and enabling a larger population. It is conceptually no different than supplying finches with larger beaks more food.
> <snip>

[Bill Rogers]

I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse or not. The finches blown to the new island are ordinary finches without larger beaks. Because there is a food source present which they could access if they had larger beaks, there is a selection pressure for larger beaks. A mutation causing larger beaks would be selected for. But that selection pressure has no ill effect on the wild type finches who survive normally. I've made the argument pretty clear, and I'm happy to let any observer remaining decide whose argument is more convincing.

> > <snip>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If you are annoyed it's because you don't like your errors being pointed out to you. You think that selection pressures can be positive or negative, an incorrect view held by several other posters on this blog. The correct understanding and definition of what a selection pressure is can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure
"Any cause that reduces reproductive success in a portion of a population potentially exerts evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure, driving natural selection."
Do you think that supplying more glucose in the Lenski experiment is a "positive" selection pressure and if so to what are his bacteria evolving?
>
Rogers, you have an incredibly confused understanding of this subject. This is probably why you never considered your subjects' underlying health status because that is the environment in which you are using your antimalarial selection pressures.
>
> > > <snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

[Re: evolution and selection pressures]:

>...you have an incredibly confused understanding of this subject...

My IronyMeter just exploded...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> [Re: evolution and selection pressures]:
>
> >...you have an incredibly confused understanding of this subject...
>
> My IronyMeter just exploded...

A meter designed by a dim bulb EE. If Rogers wasn't so confused on this subject, he might have solved his malaria problem and given a correct explanation of how drug-resistance occurs. But sadly, in his confusion, he didn't. Now in your case, your problem is ignorance. You should have studied when you took your two courses in statistics, you might have gotten something out of them.

[zencycle]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> >

> If Rogers wasn't so confused on this subject, he might have solved his
> malaria problem and given a correct explanation of how drug-resistance
> occurs. But sadly, in his confusion, he didn't.

And if kleinman weren't so fucking useless he might have published that paper show how his math disproves ToE by now. Sadly, he continues to pollute this group instead of revealing his "brilliance" to the world at large.

[jillery]

Either way, the net effect is the same.

>The finches blown to the new island are ordinary finches without larger beaks. Because there is a food source present which they could access if they had larger beaks, there is a selection pressure for larger beaks. A mutation causing larger beaks would be selected for. But that selection pressure has no ill effect on the wild type finches who survive normally. I've made the argument pretty clear, and I'm happy to let any observer remaining decide whose argument is more convincing.

You describe above a hypothetical where finches move to an environment
with an additional new type of food, but is not available to the
finches until they adapt their beaks.

OTOH drdr polypolymath described a hypothetical where E.coli are moved
to a larger test tube, where more of the same old food is available.
Of course, this is not at all equivalent, as that more food is
available immediately without requiring any adaptation.

A closer analogy would be a hypothetical where E.coli are moved to the
same size test tube but with an additional food source, perhaps
cellulose, that is not available to them until they adapt a metabolic
pathway.

If I can recognize the difference, I can't imagine how someone who
claims to know more about everything than everybody else can't
recognize the difference.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

One of the many reasons you think I'm obtuse is that you refuse to learn introductory probability theory.

>
>
> >The finches blown to the new island are ordinary finches without larger beaks. Because there is a food source present which they could access if they had larger beaks, there is a selection pressure for larger beaks. A mutation causing larger beaks would be selected for. But that selection pressure has no ill effect on the wild type finches who survive normally. I've made the argument pretty clear, and I'm happy to let any observer remaining decide whose argument is more convincing.
>
>
> You describe above a hypothetical where finches move to an environment
> with an additional new type of food, but is not available to the
> finches until they adapt their beaks.

So, all they have to eat is the same old food.

>
> OTOH drdr polypolymath described a hypothetical where E.coli are moved
> to a larger test tube, where more of the same old food is available.
> Of course, this is not at all equivalent, as that more food is
> available immediately without requiring any adaptation.

It will if the finches are to be able to eat the new food source.

>
> A closer analogy would be a hypothetical where E.coli are moved to the
> same size test tube but with an additional food source, perhaps
> cellulose, that is not available to them until they adapt a metabolic
> pathway.

You already have the experiment, it's called the Lenski experiment but it isn't cellulose, it is citrate. However, they already have the metabolic pathway, they just have to be able to transport the citrate in.

>
> If I can recognize the difference, I can't imagine how someone who
> claims to know more about everything than everybody else can't
> recognize the difference.

You would be able to recognize the difference if you understood introductory probability theory. And are you in agreement with Professor Nomathos and the dim bulb that there are positive and negative selection pressures?

[jillery]

Read for comprehension. You have no idea what I think. Don't blame
me for your problems.

>> >The finches blown to the new island are ordinary finches without larger beaks. Because there is a food source present which they could access if they had larger beaks, there is a selection pressure for larger beaks. A mutation causing larger beaks would be selected for. But that selection pressure has no ill effect on the wild type finches who survive normally. I've made the argument pretty clear, and I'm happy to let any observer remaining decide whose argument is more convincing.
>>
>>
>> You describe above a hypothetical where finches move to an environment
>> with an additional new type of food, but is not available to the
>> finches until they adapt their beaks.
>So, all they have to eat is the same old food.

Read for comprehension. What part of "new" do you not understand?

>> OTOH drdr polypolymath described a hypothetical where E.coli are moved
>> to a larger test tube, where more of the same old food is available.
>> Of course, this is not at all equivalent, as that more food is
>> available immediately without requiring any adaptation.
>It will if the finches are to be able to eat the new food source.

Read for comprehension. There's no if here. You proposed no new food
source, just more of the same.

>> A closer analogy would be a hypothetical where E.coli are moved to the
>> same size test tube but with an additional food source, perhaps
>> cellulose, that is not available to them until they adapt a metabolic
>> pathway.
>You already have the experiment, it's called the Lenski experiment but it isn't cellulose, it is citrate. However, they already have the metabolic pathway, they just have to be able to transport the citrate in.

If so, then your described hypothetical is meaningless noise.

>> If I can recognize the difference, I can't imagine how someone who
>> claims to know more about everything than everybody else can't
>> recognize the difference.
>You would be able to recognize the difference if you understood introductory probability theory.

The difference has nothing to do with introductory probability theory.
You would know this if you had any idea what you're talking about.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Sure I know what you think, it is mathematically irrational nonsense.

>
>
> >> >The finches blown to the new island are ordinary finches without larger beaks. Because there is a food source present which they could access if they had larger beaks, there is a selection pressure for larger beaks. A mutation causing larger beaks would be selected for. But that selection pressure has no ill effect on the wild type finches who survive normally. I've made the argument pretty clear, and I'm happy to let any observer remaining decide whose argument is more convincing.
> >>
> >>
> >> You describe above a hypothetical where finches move to an environment
> >> with an additional new type of food, but is not available to the
> >> finches until they adapt their beaks.
> >So, all they have to eat is the same old food.
>
>
> Read for comprehension. What part of "new" do you not understand?

And how to they eat that new food with the same old beak?

>
>
> >> OTOH drdr polypolymath described a hypothetical where E.coli are moved
> >> to a larger test tube, where more of the same old food is available.
> >> Of course, this is not at all equivalent, as that more food is
> >> available immediately without requiring any adaptation.
> >It will if the finches are to be able to eat the new food source.
>
>
> Read for comprehension. There's no if here. You proposed no new food
> source, just more of the same.

It's Rogers who is proposing the hypothetical and it is obvious you are confused by it.

>
>
> >> A closer analogy would be a hypothetical where E.coli are moved to the
> >> same size test tube but with an additional food source, perhaps
> >> cellulose, that is not available to them until they adapt a metabolic
> >> pathway.
> >You already have the experiment, it's called the Lenski experiment but it isn't cellulose, it is citrate. However, they already have the metabolic pathway, they just have to be able to transport the citrate in.
>
>
> If so, then your described hypothetical is meaningless noise.

Dumdum, it's Rogers hypothetical not mine. But that's not surprising since all you reptifeatharians have is hypotheticals. You should try mathematical and empirical evidence. Then you might learn something about science.

>
>
> >> If I can recognize the difference, I can't imagine how someone who
> >> claims to know more about everything than everybody else can't
> >> recognize the difference.
> >You would be able to recognize the difference if you understood introductory probability theory.
>
>
> The difference has nothing to do with introductory probability theory.
> You would know this if you had any idea what you're talking about.

You have proved my point, you don't understand evolution because you don't understand introductory probability theory. And why did you snip this line dumdum? "And are you in agreement with Professor Nomathos and the dim bulb that there are positive and negative selection pressures?" dumdum is a little snipper-snapper.

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

So you don't understand "new". Too many letters?

It's been barely a week since you posted your counter-analogy to Bill
Roger's analogy, and which I paraphrased, and all still preserved in
the quoted text above. Who do you think you're fooling?

>> >> OTOH drdr polypolymath described a hypothetical where E.coli are moved
>> >> to a larger test tube, where more of the same old food is available.
>> >> Of course, this is not at all equivalent, as that more food is
>> >> available immediately without requiring any adaptation.
>> >It will if the finches are to be able to eat the new food source.
>>
>>
>> Read for comprehension. There's no if here. You proposed no new food
>> source, just more of the same.
>It's Rogers who is proposing the hypothetical and it is obvious you are confused by it.

IBID

>> >> A closer analogy would be a hypothetical where E.coli are moved to the
>> >> same size test tube but with an additional food source, perhaps
>> >> cellulose, that is not available to them until they adapt a metabolic
>> >> pathway.
>> >You already have the experiment, it's called the Lenski experiment but it isn't cellulose, it is citrate. However, they already have the metabolic pathway, they just have to be able to transport the citrate in.
>>
>>
>> If so, then your described hypothetical is meaningless noise.
>Dumdum, it's Rogers hypothetical not mine. But that's not surprising since all you reptifeatharians have is hypotheticals. You should try mathematical and empirical evidence. Then you might learn something about science.

IBID

>> >> If I can recognize the difference, I can't imagine how someone who
>> >> claims to know more about everything than everybody else can't
>> >> recognize the difference.
>> >You would be able to recognize the difference if you understood introductory probability theory.
>>
>>
>> The difference has nothing to do with introductory probability theory.
>> You would know this if you had any idea what you're talking about.
>You have proved my point, you don't understand evolution because you don't understand introductory probability theory.

You understand neither evolution nor probability theory, introductory
or otherwise. You're just making noise and are proud of it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You don't understand how evolution works and you don't have any evidence (other than a misinterpretation of fossils) to support your delusions. You are an ideal reptifeatharian but useless to explain how drug-resistance occurs and why cancer treatments fail.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
He's just flinging more poop.

gregwrld

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.

[jillery]

Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
> >> He's just flinging more poop.
> >>
> >> gregwrld
> >
> >Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.
>
>
> Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
> assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
> everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.

You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. That what you have to do in order to believe that reptiles grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. And you read fossil tea leaves to justify your delusions. When are you going to take your introductory course in probability theory?

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> When are you going to take your introductory course in probability theory?

When are you going to publish your paper that concludes your math disprove ToE?

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
>> >> He's just flinging more poop.
>> >>
>> >> gregwrld
>> >
>> >Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.
>>
>>
>> Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
>> assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
>> everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.
>You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. That what you have to do in order to believe that reptiles grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. And you read fossil tea leaves to justify your delusions. When are you going to take your introductory course in probability theory?

And you prove it yet again. Nobody but poop-flingers say that fish
turn into mammals. That's just another stupid PRATT.

OTOH it's a hard mathematical and empirical fact of life that your
very existence is less likely than a tornado going through a junkyard
and assembling a 747.

Since your posts show you don't understand introductory probability
theory, a relevant question is: When are you going to get your money
back?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/19 5:53 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
>>>> He's just flinging more poop.
>>>>
>>>> gregwrld
>>>
>>> Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.
>>
>> Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
>> assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
>> everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.

> You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. [...]

You don't find it at all hypocritical to say that immediately after you
yourself dismissed literally tons of empirical data?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What your reptifeatharian nonsense has produced are researchers like Rogers who can't correctly describe how drug-resistance occurs and give a durable treatment for malaria despite writing 50 papers on the subject. And he does understand introductory probability theory. He just doesn't understand how to apply it to his problem.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/19 5:53 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
> >>>> He's just flinging more poop.
> >>>>
> >>>> gregwrld
> >>>
> >>> Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.
> >>
> >> Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
> >> assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
> >> everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.
>
> > You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. [...]
>
> You don't find it at all hypocritical to say that immediately after you
> yourself dismissed literally tons of empirical data?

There is no doubt that reptifeatharians write vast amounts of stories about their fossil tea leaf reading. They should study and understand the mechanisms of genetic transformation before they write this nonsense. We've had a professor emeritus of paleontology demonstrate that she doesn't know the difference between differentiation and evolution. This is nothing but pseudoscience.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/19 5:53 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> > You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. [...]
>
> You don't find it at all hypocritical to say that immediately after you
> yourself dismissed literally tons of empirical data?
>

Like every other creationist, he only accepts data that supports his prejudice.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Your evidence produces researchers like Rogers who can't describe how drug-resistance occur or give a durable treatment for malaria.

[zencycle]

Your problem with Rogers is that he's a well respected researcher in his field, while you're afraid to publish a paper demonstrating how your math disproves ToE because everyone knows you're a useless twat.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

A well-respected researcher who failed to solve his problem despite writing 50 papers on the subject, ztupid the cesspool mouth. This is what you get from ztupid reptifeatharians. And you are a liar, you don't have a degree in EE, you are way too ztupid. Dance ztupid, dance.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> Dance ztupid, dance.

Says the idiot singing and dancing the same old tune for years - when are you going to do something useful? It must really suck having wasted all those years somehow making it through two degree programs, only to waste your life arguing your delusions in an internet forum. Just imagine those spaces you took up in school could have gone to someone who actually might have used them for some good. How pathetic.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Dance cesspool mouth, dance, you ztupid liar.

[zencycle]

Can you prove that I have lied about anything? Perhaps you'll use the same "logic" that you used to "prove" your math disproves ToE. Your epitaph will be blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

I'd point out that bad examples are always useful...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:46:12 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:00:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:20:02 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >> Just a reminder: Drdr has no background at all in paleontology and is not qualified to make any conclusions about the fossil record.
>>> >> He's just flinging more poop.
>>> >>
>>> >> gregwrld
>>> >
>>> >Paleontology has as much scientific value as phrenology or astrology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you think it clever to prove the very things other posters
>>> assert about you. I have to admit it makes it easier to dismiss
>>> everything you post, so give yourself a gold star.
>>You reptifeatharians always dismiss the mathematical and empirical facts of life. That what you have to do in order to believe that reptiles grow feathers and fish turn into mammals. And you read fossil tea leaves to justify your delusions. When are you going to take your introductory course in probability theory?
>
>
>And you prove it yet again. Nobody but poop-flingers say that fish
>turn into mammals. That's just another stupid PRATT.

For DocDoc, "evolves into" equals "turns into"; i.e., the
"One-Generation Plan". IIRC Ray Martinez, DocDoc's smarter
cousin, used "morphs", which is equally ignorant.

>OTOH it's a hard mathematical and empirical fact of life that your
>very existence is less likely than a tornado going through a junkyard
>and assembling a 747.
>
>Since your posts show you don't understand introductory probability
>theory, a relevant question is: When are you going to get your money
>back?
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 08:42:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

Thanks; I figured it was time for one of your idiotic non
sequiturs, and you didn't disappoint.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Hey poop-flinger, Bill Rogers' 50 scientific papers more than matches
your few articles, both in quantity and quality.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Really Bonzo, which of Rogers' 50 papers describe how drug-resistance occurs and gives a durable treatment for malaria? You don't understand the mathematics of evolution or the principles of clinical medicine for drug-resistance. If you did, you would recognize the shortcomings of Rogers' papers. Rogers now has put his energies toward trying to prove that combination therapy for the treatment of hiv is not a valid example of evolutionary adaptation. The drugs used to treat hiv are selection pressures and the virus still replicates in the presence of these drugs. Why can't the virus accumulate the mutations which would give resistance to these drugs with any efficiency when used in combination of 3, yet easily evolve resistance to 1 drug at a time and still do so with 2 drugs? If you understood the math, you can easily explain why, but you don't and neither did Rogers until I showed him. Rogers says this math is of no use, but what can you expect from someone who thinks that competition is adaptation.

[Mark Isaak]

More irony. Alan complains about the interpretation of fossils,
comparing the process to reading tea leaves. Yet Alan uses the same
tea-leaf reading process on clear, declarative sentences in order to see
what he wants and not see what he disagrees with.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Since you asked, it should go without saying that your standards above
are not the only, or even relevant, means for evaluating scientific
papers. You're welcome, poop-flinger.

<snip remaining nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What I see are drug-resistant infections and your reptifeatharian fossil tea leaf reading has done nothing to help, it actually worsens the problem.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> What I see are drug-resistant infections and your reptifeatharian fossil tea
> leaf reading has done nothing to help, it actually worsens the problem.

Has your research led to any great breakthroughs? I, right, I forgot, aside from publishing mathematical models that at best get mentions in other papers, your work has been just about as useful as your presence here - IOW - as useful to society as as your pet goats. Useless twat.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

<snip to the point>

>...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?

Which of yours do?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> <snip to the point>
>
> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
>
> Which of yours do?

Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
How did you get an EE degree with your ignorance of basic mathematics? You are such a dim bulb. You certainly don't have any papers in the National Library of Medicine. You dummy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net>:
>>
>> <snip to the point>
>>
>> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
>>
>> Which of yours do?

>Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/

No "durable treatment for malaria" there; just more
poorly-applied math.

So, none? OK.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
> >>
> >> <snip to the point>
> >>
> >> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
> >>
> >> Which of yours do?
>
> >Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
>
> No "durable treatment for malaria" there; just more
> poorly-applied math.

dimmy, you are too stupid to understand the math. Fortunately, the staff at the National Library of Medicine got it.
>
> So, none? OK.
None that someone who got nothing out of his two courses in statistics would understand. You are just too dumb.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net>:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
>> >>
>> >> <snip to the point>
>> >>
>> >> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
>> >>
>> >> Which of yours do?

>> >Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
>> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/

>> No "durable treatment for malaria" there; just more
>> poorly-applied math.

>dimmy, you are too stupid to understand the math...

....which includes no malaria cures.

Irrelevancies are DocDoc.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> >On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip to the point>
> >> >>
> >> >> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
> >> >>
> >> >> Which of yours do?
>
> >> >Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
> >> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
>
> >> No "durable treatment for malaria" there; just more
> >> poorly-applied math.
>
> >dimmy, you are too stupid to understand the math...
>
> ....which includes no malaria cures.

Sure it does dimmy, I've shown why 2 drugs in some cases will not achieve a durable treatment for malaria. With the population sizes malaria can achieve, double beneficial mutations can occur. Sadly, you don't understand the math. But the staff at the National Library of Medicine understand it.
>
> Irrelevancies are DocDoc.
Only irrelevant to those (like you) who don't understand the math.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net>:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> >> <klei...@sti.net>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip to the point>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >...which of Rogers' 50 papers...gives a durable treatment for malaria?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which of yours do?
>>
>> >> >Hey, dimmy, if you had gotten something of your two courses in statistics, you might understand.
>> >> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
>>
>> >> No "durable treatment for malaria" there; just more
>> >> poorly-applied math.
>>
>> >dimmy, you are too stupid to understand the math...
>>
>> ....which includes no malaria cures.

>Sure it does dimmy, I've shown why 2 drugs in some cases will not achieve a durable treatment for malaria.

....which you think comprises a "malaria cure". Sounds
remarkably like your conception of how mammals and feathers
came into existence: "Not by rmns!".

You're either an idiot or a pathological liar; I'm still not
sure which.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You reptifeatharians sure are slow. Don't you understand why it takes 3 drugs to give a durable treatment of hiv? Of course, you don't. You didn't get anything out of your two courses in statistics. You are one of those EEs who don't understand anything about quality control. dimmy, you need some quality control in your education, then you might not be so dim.