IDiot top 6 and Dean's plea for assistance

[RonO]

I haven't kept up with how Dean's plea to other IDiot/creationists to
tell him why the top 6 of IDiocy put up by the ID perps failed the
scientific creationists over 30 years ago. The fine tuning thread seems
to have been going on long enough for him to have gotten some idea of
the failure of that argument over the last few decades. The "evidence"
hasn't gotten any better since the failure of scientific creationism
over 30 years ago.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ

Links:
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

So what was the result of Dean's plea to others of like mind to tell him
why these top 6 never amounted to anything worth discussing?

The ID perps put up these top 6 two years ago so it isn't like there
hasn't been enough time to figure out what these mean to IDiocy. Has
anyone observed any ID perp doing anything with these top 6 in the last
two years?

The first clue may be from the ID perps themselves. They claim that
these 6 are not in order of their significance to the ID creationist
scam. They are in their order of occurrence. What this means is that
the ID perps understand that YEC creationism is dead. The YEC are still
the largest support base for IDiocy, and they are usually the guys still
wanting to teach this junk in places like Louisiana, Texas and Utah.
The Utah IDiots wanted to teach ID in their public schools as the ID
perps were putting up these top 6 2 years ago. The ID perps were later
complaining that the Utah IDiots did not bend over for their switch
scam, but dropped the issue instead. Beats me why they expect any IDiot
to bend over for the switch scam given to them by the same guys that
sold them the ID scam. The switch scam doesn't mention that the ID scam
ever existed. What should that fact tell Dean about the top 6?

The big bang may have happened around 13 billion years ago. Some fine
tuning would have had to occur before or during the big bang, and the
rest of the fine tuning would have happened around 5 billion years ago
when our solar system was forming out of dead star dust. Generations of
stars had lived and died to form the elements that make up our planet.

DNA would have likely evolved after the first self replicating lifeforms
had appeared. Evidence indicates that this may have happened since
around 4 billion years ago. Before DNA there seems to have been RNA
that made up early enzymes and from which protein synthesis evolved. We
havn't figured out what came before RNA, if anything.

Behe's irreducibly complex systems evolved some time ago. The flagellum
evolved over a billion years ago, blood clotting evolved in metazoan
life forms before or during the Cambrian explosion, and the adaptive
immune system evolved in vertebrates over 400 million years ago. Since
then Behe hasn't identified more recent IC systems. Behe's definition
of IC seems to have changed over the years. Around 2 decades ago Behe
told his critics that IC didn't seem to matter because some systems with
dependent interacting parts were not his type of IC systems. His
example of an IC system that wasn't his type was the Lever and Fulcrum.
A tree branch falling between two rocks could create such an IC system,
so it wasn't Behe's type. Behe's type needed more well matched parts
than that, and the order and arrangement of mutations that occurred to
make his systems IC would tell Behe which systems were his type, but
Behe had no such examples to show anyone. The most recent definition of
IC put up was that the number of unselected steps were important. Behe
has crowed about the fact that we have discovered several systems that
required 2 unselected steps to form the new function, but Behe has
admitted that, 2 are not enough to make the systems his type of IC. He
claims that these systems are on the edge of IDiocy. He seems to
require at least 3 unselected steps for the system to be the IDiot type
of IC system, but he has found no such system.

It is sad that he understands that 2 unselected steps are obviously
possible, so 3 would not be impossible if such a system were ever
discovered. My guess is that he would change his edge to 4. Really,
there haven't been very many systems evaluated in such a way that
unselected steps could be identified and we already have an example of 2
unselected steps. Since the IC part doesn't seem to matter any more it
turned out that IC was just the "flagellum is a designed machine"
argument that failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago, and
Behe hasn't been able to improve it since.

Number 5 seems to be basically about the Cambrian explosion (half a
billion years ago). As sad as it may seem for YEC IDiots Meyer makes a
big deal about the fact that we have narrowed the event to within 25
billion years down from around 40 million over half a billion years ago.
Basically this is the same argument that the scientific creationists
used to fool the rubes over 30 years ago. The ID perp's own anti
evolution arguments refute these claims. Kalk put up the IDiot new gene
denial where they were claiming that too many new genes were evolving
during the evolution of life.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5

This is the paper that the IDiots put up to support the IDiot new gene
denial, and it obviously shows that the new genes were evolving during a
long drawn out series of events during the evolution of multicellular
animals, and that multicellular animals evolved before the Cambrian
explosion occurred. Look at figure 1 and look up how long ago Porifera
evolved on this planet. The Cambrian explosion occurred within the
black triangles on the far right side of the figure.

Number 6 is just lame and is dealing with fossil gaps within the last 10
million years of human evolution. Any YEC IDiot just has to note how
the ID perps can limit the gaps to within the last 10 million years to
understand they there is no argument here worth noting for them. Some
of the gaps are longer than their creation has existed. It is the
stupid fossil gap argument that failed the scientific creationists. The
argument was bogus before the scientific creationists started to use it,
so it is no wonder why no IDiot will support it today. As the gaps get
filled two new gaps appear where there once was one, but the new gaps
are not as large as they were 30 years ago when the argument failed the
scientific creationists, so what use could the argument be today?

This is as sad as IDiocy has always been, and is why no IDiots have
likely clued Dean in on why these 6 failed the scientific creationists
over 30 years ago. If any IDiot responded to Deans plea, post a link.
This is the best that the ID perps could come up with and they all
failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago.

Dean likely should repeat his plea until someone puts him out of his
misery. He won't accept the truth from the science side, so some other
IDiot will have to do the dirty deed. Why does Dean think that IDiocy
had to take over after the failure of scientific creationism? How
viable can IDiocy be when their top 6 had already failed the scientific
creationists over 30 years ago? The situation obviously has not
improved for the creationists that became IDiots.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Dean asked for help on these top 6 and no IDiot/creationist seems to be
willing to help him out.

Are any IDiot/creationist going to defend the ID perp's top 6? This is
the best junk to fool the IDiot rubes with that the ID perps have come
up with, and the IDiots would rather go back to these same ID perps for
second rate junk that didn't make the list rather than make something of
the best that they have ever had.

These top 6 failed the scientific creationists as creation science over
30 years ago, so there isn't much doubt as to why no IDiot/creationist
wants to tell Dean why the top 6 never amounted to anything. IDiots
like Dean may put up the junk out of ignorance, but it is obvious that
they never learn anything from their past mistakes.

It is just a fact that if the top 6 were of any value to IDiocy the ID
perps would have used them to build something by now. They need a
viable alternative to the real science. They make the claims about
doing science, but no science ever gets done. These 6 are just used as
the scientific creationists used them. They are only meant to fool the
rubes long enough to get to the next fool the rubes junk. At this point
their only value is as something to tell the rubes that still want to be
lied to. As the negative response to Dean's plea indicates most IDiots
aren't stupid enough to think that the top 6 means more than something
to fool the rubes with. That is all the ID perps use the top 6 for. No
ID perps seem willing to discuss the top 6 or build their best
alternative using them. What should that fact tell Dean?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If moRON only could understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, then we could have an interesting discussion. But sadly, moRON can't even correctly do the mathematics for the simplest evolutionary experiments. moRON can't explain why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. moRON can't explain why competition slows the evolutionary adaptation process in the Lenski experiment. And moRON doesn't recognize that the Lenski experiment demonstrates that Haldane's Dilemma is an evolutionary fact. The only thing that moRON demonstrates is that he was poorly trained in mathematics and physics. moRON doesn't even make the third-string on the JV.

[RonO]

You will always be the one who was wrong about the math. Projection of
your own inadequacies onto me is stupid, and has been stupid for years.
Just think of how long you have been at this same stupid thing. What
kind of moron would do what you have done for over 2 years?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON does't have the training or intelligence to do the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That is why he is moRON. moRON is the typical mathematically incompetent reptifeatharian, too stupid to explain how drug-resistance occurs and too stupid to explain the simplest experiments in evolution. Aren't there any reptifeatharians who can do a simple probability problem or are you all moRONs?
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Projection is stupid. It is supposed to be some type of defense
mechanism, but the perpetrator has to understand that he has the issue
that he has to foist off onto someone else. You will always have been
wrong about the math. You can still multiply those two numbers that you
wanted to multiply and demonstrate that for yourself, but you can't
bring yourself to do something that simple. Being an asshole isn't
going to change that, and you can lie until dooms day and reality isn't
going to change.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON is such a mathematically incompetent nitwit, you can show this moRON how to do the math for the Kishony and Lenski experiment that all he can say is "duh".
moRON, read and understand these papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
And try not to be the blithering idiot moRON that you are. And moRON, if you can't understand these papers, we'll get a high school drop-out to explain it to you. Don't expect dimmy the boob to explain it to you. We all know what moRON and dimmy the boob get when they try to figure out the binomial distribution. Here's moRON doing a probability calculation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QldN3EnBI
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You were just wrong. Get over it. Lying about the past will not change
anything. Just multiply those two numbers and demonstrate that for
yourself. If you can't multiply exponents I could tell you how to do it.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON has just demonstrated that he is a mathematically incompetent nitwit (again). The high school drop-out is asking for overtime to teach moRON introductory probability theory. And here is why, a video of moRON's math lesson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4IQjUpTNVUn:

>
> Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

At least one of T.O.'s IDists admitted Discotut's biological arguments
for ID are a lost cause, so I will focus here on the two cosmological
arguments from above:

Your link 1 describes the Kalam cosmological argument:

Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.

An obvious problem with using this three-line syllogism is that by
itself, it's not an argument for ID unless one assumes said First
Cause is a presumptive intelligent Designer. To address that problem,
Discotut asserts three characteristics of said First Cause:

1) A cause outside of the universe
2) Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe
3) Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the
universe (more on this coming up).

Discotut asserts that no known material cause or set of material
causes appears capable of accomplishing the above, and from that
concludes the necessity of an intelligent Designer.

However, it can be equally asserted that no known intelligent Designer
appears capable of accomplishing the above. So even accepting for
argument's sake our asserted ignorance of a sufficient material cause,
said ignorance applies equally to our ignorance of a sufficient
intelligent Designer. "I don't know" logically can't be used to
conclude which if either presumed cause to choose.
_____________________________

Your link 2 is an article which asserts the existence of fine-tuning
of the Universe:

1) If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there
would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly
weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.

2) If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either
there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars,
or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not
scatter heavy elements across the universe.

3) If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker,
atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.

4) If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger,
one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out
too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and
heavy elements would not be produced.

An obvious problem with all of the above is, they are assertions of
facts not in evidence. Discotut makes no effort to provide or cite
any actual values, or explain how it's known that an slight variations
would make the universe unfriendly to life.

Discotut asserts the following gives a sense of the degree of
fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a
life-friendly universe:

1) Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
2) Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
3) Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
4) Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
5) Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
6) Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)

Unfortunately, Discotut's claims above are nonsensical. For example,
the gravitational constant has a measured uncertainty of between 10^-4
and 10^-5. So any claims based on variations of 1 part in 10^34 have
no basis.

Discotut cites a video from William Lane Craig's reasonablefaith.org
website, which claims that if the gravitational constant varied by 1
in 10^60 part, none of us would exist. Similar to the Discotut
article, the video merely asserts this, without explanation or
evidence.


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

Just do the calculation the way that you wanted to do it, but I told you
that you were wrong. You will never have been correct. You will always
have been wrong no matter how long you want to lie about the event.
Projecting your own stupidity onto someone else is a stupid defense.
You have to know how bogus you are in order to do that, and what have
you been doing for years? Just think about it for a few seconds. You
will always have been wrong. What you should be worrying about is
getting it right instead of lying about it for years.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Basically the Big Bang and fine tuning arguments do not support IDiocy
any more than they support anything else. What I pointed out above is
the reason why no ID perp is doing anything with the top 6. It may be
the best that they have, but it isn't worth jack in terms of what they
want to do. No one is building anything of value with the top 6. The
main reason is that the majority of IDiots are still YEC and the Big
Bang and fine tuning arguments mean that YEC is a dead issue. The ID
perps only use this "evidence" the same way in which the scientific
creationists used it before them. They only use it so that the rubes
can lie to themselves long enough to get to the next denial argument.
There is no intent to accomplish anything except fooling the rubes.

Look at Jonathan's response to the cardinal problems thread. After all
of these years IDiots are not able to use the same criteria for claiming
that real science is not good enough to evaluate their own stupid junk.
By the criteria that Jonathan is obviously using his alternative is so
much worse that it isn't even worth putting up as a comparison. As with
these top 6 the IDiots just have to ask themselves what is not as good
as their own level of not good enough, and it is always their
alternative. If this wasn't true the bait and switch would not have
been going down for over 17 years and there would be some real ID
science to discuss.

Where are the confirmed IDiot type IC structures in nature?

Where has specified complexity ever been demonstrated to exist in nature?

Where has complex specified information ever been found in nature?

Where is the new law of thermodynamics that was supposed to save ID?

Likely the easiest one to demonstrate is the new IDiot law of
thermodynamics. Anyone can just look around and see if there is a new
law of thermodynamics that people are crowing about. Wouldn't it be the
biggest news in science in around a century? All the rest of IDiocy has
suffered the same fate. There never was any ID science, and ID perps
like Behe have avoided doing any science because they know that they
would not like the answers.

Just look at the Adam and Eve Discovery Institute nonsense. They just
made the claim that it could be done. They never did what they could do
because they don't like the answer that they are going to get.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON thinks I did the calculation wrong. moRON should tell the editors and peer reviewers who publish my papers where the error is but moRON won't because he knows I'm right. moRON just lies to himself because he can't accept the mathematical and empirical facts of life. moRON can't explain why each evolution step in the Kishony experiment takes a billion replications. moRON can't explain why it takes hundreds of generations for each fixation in the Lenski experiment as Haldane predicted more than half a century ago (Haldane's Dilemma). And moRON thinks that reptiles can evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals when he can't explain why hiv can't evolve efficiently to three selection pressures targeting only two genes. moRON can't explain anything about evolution. moRON can only be a moRON.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr makes his ugly noises here because he knows no one who matters thinks his claims are worth wasting time on.
And that's ok: it just demonstrates that T.O. is still doing it's job.

gregwrld

[RonO]

It doesn't matter what you got published. If you didn't know how wrong
you were you would multiply the two numbers that you wanted to multiply
and demonstrate for yourself how wrong you were. Lying about the past
is just stupid, and you will always have been the one that was wrong.
Really, why won't you do the calculation the way that you claimed it
should be done? You just have to multiply two numbers together, and
what have you done instead for over 2 years?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

No one is publishing gregweird's stupid ideas because they would only contribute to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON could easily point to any line in my publications where the mathematics or physics is wrong but moRON doesn't do this, he just does moRONic babbling. moRON can't explain anything about the simplest experimental examples of evolution which take a billion replications for each evolutionary step under the best of circumstances (more replications than that if multiple selection pressures are acting simultaneously) and demonstrate that the Haldane Dilemma is true. moRON, try not being such a moRON and take a course in introductory probability theory and learn something about stochastic processes (like DNA evolution). Otherwise, you will be the same stupid moRON that contributes to drug-resistant infectiions and failed cancer treatments.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You could easily multiply those two numbers to demonstrate how wrong you
were, and what do you do instead? Look up this thread to determine for
yourself what a lying asshole you are. This has been going on for over
2 years. What would you think about someone else doing what you have
done for the last 2 years? Read your posts as if someone else had
written them, and think about the fact that you were the one that has
always been wrong about the math. None of your stupid assoholic
behavior will ever change that. You really are the one that has written
what has been written in this thread. What does that say about such a
person.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
<snip>

>
> You could easily multiply those two numbers to demonstrate how wrong you
> were, and what do you do instead?

I doubt I am the only one who has long since forgotten what two numbers you are referring to. Why not restate the problem where those numbers come up and explain where Kleinman is wrong about the math?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON, everyone (except mathematically incompetent reptifeatharians) knows that you are a blithering moRON. You don't understand why it takes a billion replications for every evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment, you don't understand that the Lenski experiment demonstrates that the Haldane dilemma is correct, you don't understand why hiv doesn't evolve efficiently to combination therapy. What everyone understands is that you have no understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution. That is because you are moRON. moRON, you need to take a course in introductory probability theory so that you might understand stochastic processes (like DNA evolution). And stop being a moRON who contributes to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > You could easily multiply those two numbers to demonstrate how wrong you
> > were, and what do you do instead?
>
> I doubt I am the only one who has long since forgotten what two numbers you are referring to. Why not restate the problem where those numbers come up and explain where Kleinman is wrong about the math?

I appreciate your question. But is that really the problem?

[RonO]

On 11/5/2019 6:14 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> You could easily multiply those two numbers to demonstrate how wrong you
>> were, and what do you do instead?
>
> I doubt I am the only one who has long since forgotten what two numbers you are referring to. Why not restate the problem where those numbers come up and explain where Kleinman is wrong about the math?

The issue was 2 mutations occurring in the same lineage, but not at the
same time. The two mutations only had to occur in the same cell
lineage, so that cells with two mutations would be produced. Kleinman
claimed that you could use the product rule and multiply the two
mutation rates in order to determine the probability that those two
mutations could occur in the same lineage. I told him that this was
wrong due to basic biology and how evolution actually worked. Kleinman
did not take into consideration the fact that living organisms
reproduce, and that evolution works by changes building on what came before.

I gave him the Behe and Snokes paper on how those two creationists had
approached the problem and told him how he could estimate the
probability at a specific point in time when the population with the
first mutation had reached the point where 100,000 mutation producing
events could occur. If he did the calculation correctly he would find
that he would be orders of magnitude off in his use of the product rule.

He never accepted that he was wrong. His own reference on the subject
said that the product rule may not be applicable in instances where the
two events are separated temporally, as in the case of two mutations
occurring in the same lineage with one occurring several generations
later. He even put up the Kishony experiment that demonstrated that he
was totally wrong. More than half a dozen mutations occurred in each
lineage in around a week, and his way of calculating the probability was
obviously wrong. In the video he put up it was even stated that the
reason why the Kishony experiment was possible was because after a
mutation happened the population with the mutation would multiply due to
reproduction. That is why he will not multiply the two numbers that he
wanted to multiply. He knows that it gives him the wrong answer. He
was wrong over 2 years ago, and he will never have been correct.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:45:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/5/2019 6:14 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> You could easily multiply those two numbers to demonstrate how wrong you
> >> were, and what do you do instead?
> >
> > I doubt I am the only one who has long since forgotten what two numbers you are referring to. Why not restate the problem where those numbers come up and explain where Kleinman is wrong about the math?
>
> The issue was 2 mutations occurring in the same lineage, but not at the
> same time. The two mutations only had to occur in the same cell
> lineage, so that cells with two mutations would be produced. Kleinman
> claimed that you could use the product rule and multiply the two
> mutation rates in order to determine the probability that those two
> mutations could occur in the same lineage. I told him that this was
> wrong due to basic biology and how evolution actually worked. Kleinman
> did not take into consideration the fact that living organisms
> reproduce, and that evolution works by changes building on what came before.

You are wrong. I did the mathematics for the sequential accumulation of beneficial mutations, not the simultaneous occurrence of the mutation.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sim.6307
Read carefully the sentence before equation (7) in the above link:
"We start this part of the computation by computing the probability that our beneficial mutation B will occur on some member of the population that already has mutation A."
And you multiply the probabilities of those two mutations occurring to obtain the joint probability. See equation (12) to see how the math.

>
> I gave him the Behe and Snokes paper on how those two creationists had
> approached the problem and told him how he could estimate the
> probability at a specific point in time when the population with the
> first mutation had reached the point where 100,000 mutation producing
> events could occur. If he did the calculation correctly he would find
> that he would be orders of magnitude off in his use of the product rule.

Read my paper carefully. If you have trouble doing the math, go to figure 1. and you will find that for a mutation rate of e-9 gives that it takes a billion replications to give a probability of about 0.5 that the beneficial mutation will occur. These results were published before Kishony ran his experiment and demonstrated empirically that this math is correct.

>
> He never accepted that he was wrong. His own reference on the subject
> said that the product rule may not be applicable in instances where the
> two events are separated temporally, as in the case of two mutations
> occurring in the same lineage with one occurring several generations
> later. He even put up the Kishony experiment that demonstrated that he
> was totally wrong. More than half a dozen mutations occurred in each
> lineage in around a week, and his way of calculating the probability was
> obviously wrong. In the video he put up it was even stated that the
> reason why the Kishony experiment was possible was because after a
> mutation happened the population with the mutation would multiply due to
> reproduction. That is why he will not multiply the two numbers that he
> wanted to multiply. He knows that it gives him the wrong answer. He
> was wrong over 2 years ago, and he will never have been correct.

The reason why I don't accept it is wrong is that it isn't wrong. You just don't understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. Try reading carefully my paper where I go through a step by step derivation of the math starting with the definition of mutation rate which is the probability that an error will occur at a specific site in the genome in a single replication. The math I've presented gives the correct way to compute the probability of a particular mutation occurring after another particular mutation has occurred. And it requires amplification at each evolutionary step which is what is demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. Here's an opportunity for you to correctly learn how evolution works. Don't squander this opportunity.

[Bill Rogers]

That's good. If you think anyone is following this exchange, you might want to show how Kleinman calculates that probability, and then how you do so correctly. He'll probably just give a link to his paper and ignore the details of your post, but at least anyone who cared could see how the calculation should be done.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Of course, I'm going to give the link to my paper but I will also point to the exact lines which show where Ron is wrong. And like Charles Brenner would have it, I do the calculation with rigor. By the way, do you now understand the physical and mathematical difference between competition and evolutionary adaptation? And have you figured out yet why competition slows evolutionary adaptation?

[RonO]

Why lie? We were not even talking about beneficial mutation. You
wanted to use the product rule to calculate the probability of two
mutations occurring in the same lineage. There was no selection
involved, and it didn't matter if the mutations were beneficial or not.
You have been lying about being wrong for 2 years.

>>
>> He never accepted that he was wrong. His own reference on the subject
>> said that the product rule may not be applicable in instances where the
>> two events are separated temporally, as in the case of two mutations
>> occurring in the same lineage with one occurring several generations
>> later. He even put up the Kishony experiment that demonstrated that he
>> was totally wrong. More than half a dozen mutations occurred in each
>> lineage in around a week, and his way of calculating the probability was
>> obviously wrong. In the video he put up it was even stated that the
>> reason why the Kishony experiment was possible was because after a
>> mutation happened the population with the mutation would multiply due to
>> reproduction. That is why he will not multiply the two numbers that he
>> wanted to multiply. He knows that it gives him the wrong answer. He
>> was wrong over 2 years ago, and he will never have been correct.
> The reason why I don't accept it is wrong is that it isn't wrong. You just don't understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. Try reading carefully my paper where I go through a step by step derivation of the math starting with the definition of mutation rate which is the probability that an error will occur at a specific site in the genome in a single replication. The math I've presented gives the correct way to compute the probability of a particular mutation occurring after another particular mutation has occurred. And it requires amplification at each evolutionary step which is what is demonstrated by the Kishony experiment. Here's an opportunity for you to correctly learn how evolution works. Don't squander this opportunity.

The physics don't matter. You were just wrong and you were not applying
the product rule correctly. You were wrong due to basic biology and how
biological evolution actually works. Noting will ever change that fact.

Just multiply those two numbers and demonstrate that for yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

He wanted to use the product rule. This is just multiplying the two
mutation rates for the two mutations that would occur in that cell
lineage. That is why he will not multiply those two numbers because he
knows the answer would be wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The physics might not matter to a moRON but it does matter to someone who wants to understand how evolution works. And the editors and peer reviewers didn't need StaTrec to understand this math.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You see Rogers, this is how he earned the name moRON.

[RonO]

Just multiply the two numbers and show everyone who the moron is.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The physics do not matter. The simple fact is that you did not apply
the product rule correctly. That has nothing to do with the physics.
Why keep lying about something that you were wrong about years ago?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON is going to notify the editors at "Statistics in Medicine". There aren't enough people who know that moRON is a moRON.

[Sean Dillon]

Haven't you heard? Even phoneys publish peer reviewed articles. A Dr. Doctor told me that. And if phoneys can publish in highly-reputed journals like Nature, I shudder to think what halacious dreck is getting published in obscure, non-science rags like Statistics in Medicine.

[RonO]

Why keep lying about what you were wrong about. Just multiply the two
numbers and demonstrate how wrong you were for yourself.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of lame insults he spews.

gregwrld

[jillery]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:

>Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of lame insults he spews.
>
>gregwrld

Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.

--
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]

The lazy, ignorant layman can't get anything published. But ignorant layman think that reptiles evolve feathers and biomolecules can last for millions of years. That's the kind of stupidity you get from lazy layman. That the kind of stupidity that gives you drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON is now going to show us how to do the correct mathematics for evolution. First, moRON needs his link to StaTrek.

[RonO]

The real moron still can't multiply those two numbers even though he
claims that others are math deficient. Stupid, but true as anyone can
see above no multiplication of those two numbers ever gets done by the
math wiz. How can anyone lie to themselves to the extent of the Dr. Dr.?

[R Dean]

On 11/5/2019 9:28 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of lame insults he spews.
>>
>> gregwrld
>
>
> Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.
>

I'm sorry, I had some ups & downs recently and could not get involved.
But in going back and reading a few post. I came across this thread, is
this somehow relative to me, and if so, how?

[j.nobel...@gmail.com]

Welcome back. Sounds like you've put yourself and your loved ones
through a bit of a scare. Be well and try to stay away from hospitals,
they're full of sick people.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Glad you are doing better. I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.

Everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, and you have
utterly no basis to say any of it.

[jillery]

Welcome back. I hope you're finally over that terrible pneumonia.

AFAICS the above has nothing to do with you. It's just a consequence
of drdr polypolymath's trolling.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.
>
>
> Everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, and you have
> utterly no basis to say any of it.

Next, sillery is going to claim that Charles Brenner doesn't understand probability theory and sillery does.

[RonO]

You are the one that requested creationist assistance in telling you the
facts of life about these Six. No one has come forward to help you out.
So if you are going to figure out why these 6 had already failed the
scientific creationists over 30 years ago you will have to find some
other means of getting that information since you remain willfully
ignorant of what anyone tries to tell you on TO.

Really, these are the 6 that you requested help on.

The links are given to you again in the first post of this thread.

The simple fact is that all IDiots are in so much denial that they can't
face the best that they ever had.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON is a mathematically incompetent nitwit who can't explain the physics and mathematics of the simplest evolutionary experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

[j.nobel...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/18/2019 11:32 AM, R Dean wrote:
> > On 11/5/2019 9:28 PM, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of
> >>> lame insults he spews.
> >>>
> >>> gregwrld
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.
> >>
> > I'm sorry, I had some ups & downs recently and could not get involved.
> > But in going back and reading a few post. I came across this thread, is
> > this somehow relative to me, and if so, how?
> >
>
> You are the one that requested creationist assistance in telling you the
> facts of life about these Six. No one has come forward to help you out.

You are an ass. You invoked his name out of nowhere while Ron was fighting
for his life in a hospital. Why? Because there's some burr lodged deeply
up your ass, so deep that it seems to have interfered with higher
cognitive function. Take a vacation and find some perspective on life.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr's math is all about his biases. It's based on his own beliefs about mutation and selection and doesn't test modern evolutionary theory. And like a typical creationist he rejects any part of modern science that doesn't pander to his biases, i.e., paleontology.
He's no danger to the TOE and his views on evo won't have any effect. But at least he has found a playground to play bully on. Too bad for him that no one is frightened of him.

gregwrld

[erik simpson]

Too true, but he likes the attention and insulting those that pay attention to
him. There is a solution to that problem...

[R Dean]

Spam detection software, running on the system "beagle.ediacara.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
The administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: On 11/18/2019 2:33 PM, jillery wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019

12:32:53 -0500, R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/5/2019 9:28

PM, jillery wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), [...]

Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust
[198.58.96.67 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
CUSTOM_MED
0.0 T_SPF_PERMERROR SPF: test of record failed (permerror)
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider ("r dean"[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
1.0 FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD 'From' gmail.com does not match 'Received'
headers
0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level
mail domains are different
0.1 TW_WR BODY: Odd Letter Triples with WR
0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are
different
2.3 FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA Forged mail pretending to be from Mozilla
0.9 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing
list
1.0 BODY_URI_ONLY Message body is only a URI in one line of text or
for an image
2.3 FROM_ADDR_WS Malformed From address

[R Dean]

On 11/18/2019 7:06 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/18/2019 11:32 AM, R Dean wrote:
>> On 11/5/2019 9:28 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of
>>>> lame insults he spews.
>>>>
>>>> gregwrld
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.
>>>
>> I'm sorry, I had some ups & downs recently and could not get involved.
>> But in going back and reading a few post. I came across this thread,
>> is this somehow relative to me, and if so, how?
>>
>
> You are the one that requested creationist assistance in telling you the
> facts of life about these Six.  No one has come forward to help you out.
>

I remember nothing about this. I think you're confusing me with someone
else.

[R Dean]

Thank you, you're right. I'm still not back to my old self. My
mind is not clear as it was. I don't remember things like I should.
I hope this get better.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 7:15:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:

What modern evolutionary theory? Reptiles evolve feathers? This mythology is now hundreds of years old. And if bullying is teaching reptifeatharians the physics and mathematics of evolution, you deserve to be bullied. Your stupid mythology harms people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What's the matter space scientist? A lecture on the physics and mathematics of evolution not worth paying attention to? Just because you are a poorly trained physicist that doesn't know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics to evolution, don't blame me, just try paying attention. You reptifeatharians might learn something besides mythology.

[RonO]

On 11/18/2019 10:37 PM, R Dean wrote:
> On 11/18/2019 7:06 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/18/2019 11:32 AM, R Dean wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2019 9:28 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number
>>>>> of lame insults he spews.
>>>>>
>>>>> gregwrld
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I had some ups & downs recently and could not get involved.
>>> But in going back and reading a few post. I came across this thread,
>>> is this somehow relative to me, and if so, how?
>>>
>>
>> You are the one that requested creationist assistance in telling you
>> the facts of life about these Six.  No one has come forward to help
>> you out.
> >
> I remember nothing about this. I think you're confusing me with someone
> else.

I am sorry that you are so sick that you suffer such memory loss.

You restated the top six and asked other creationists for their take
because you did not want to believe reality. No one responded to your
request. It was several months ago. Does that jog your memory? It was
after you started your "The Ratio" thread that is still active. In
another thread I pointed out that the ratio that you were putting up was
part of the ID perp's Top Six, and that you were already running from
it, and had been running from it for over a year.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:09:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

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

>On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.
>>
>>
>> Everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, and you have
>> utterly no basis to say any of it.
>Next, sillery is going to claim that Charles Brenner doesn't understand probability theory and sillery does.

Next, drdr polypolymath is going to claim he is the Second Coming of
Christ.

[jillery]

What the fudge?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 7:15:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:09:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.
> >>
> >>
> >> Everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, and you have
> >> utterly no basis to say any of it.
> >Next, sillery is going to claim that Charles Brenner doesn't understand probability theory and sillery does.
>
>
> Next, drdr polypolymath is going to claim he is the Second Coming of
> Christ.

I'm not the one who has lost contact with reality. We can only try to point you in the right direction.

[R Dean]

I do not know!

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:29:18 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

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

>On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 7:15:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:09:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:35:04 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:07 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I've been trying to give moRON a lesson in the physics and mathematics of evolution. moRON doesn't do any better than the other reptifeatharians. Their latest attempt to try and deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities (which is the mathematical reason the ToE is mathematically irrational) is to now claim when a random event occurs, its probability goes to 1. Charles Brenner tried to explain to them in the "reasoning with probabilities" thread why this is incorrect but these reptifeatharians are very slow learners.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, and you have
>> >> utterly no basis to say any of it.
>> >Next, sillery is going to claim that Charles Brenner doesn't understand probability theory and sillery does.
>>
>>
>> Next, drdr polypolymath is going to claim he is the Second Coming of
>> Christ.
>I'm not the one who has lost contact with reality. We can only try to point you in the right direction.

Sez the troll who can't tell the difference between facts and
opinions, or between what is certain and what might be.

[R Dean]

On 11/19/2019 7:39 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/18/2019 10:37 PM, R Dean wrote:
>> On 11/18/2019 7:06 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2019 11:32 AM, R Dean wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2019 9:28 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:57:11 -0800 (PST), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Drdr's confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to the number
>>>>>> of lame insults he spews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gregwrld
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget to apply the multiplication rule of probability.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I had some ups & downs recently and could not get involved.
>>>> But in going back and reading a few post. I came across this thread,
>>>> is this somehow relative to me, and if so, how?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are the one that requested creationist assistance in telling you
>>> the facts of life about these Six.  No one has come forward to help
>>> you out.
>>  >
>> I remember nothing about this. I think you're confusing me with someone
>> else.
>
> I am sorry that you are so sick that you suffer such memory loss.
>
> You restated the top six and asked other creationists for their take
> because you did not want to believe reality.
>

Again, I think you are confusing me with
another.

>
No one responded to your
> request.  It was several months ago.  Does that jog your memory? It was > after you started your "The Ratio" thread that is still active.  In
> another thread I pointed out that the ratio that you were putting up was
> part of the ID perp's Top Six, and that you were already running from
> it, and had been running from it for over a year.
>

You have not demonstrated nor proven where or when I pleaded for
assistance for some I.D. "top six"
Yes, I did point to a video where Dr. Leonard Susskind argues that
the cosmological constant (dark energy) is defined to one part in
10^120 parts ie 120 decimal places.
For certain Dr. Susskind is more qualified to speak on the subject
than you or me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkqsDOi76IA
(starting a time scale 7:20-9:50)

[jillery]

If you are up to pursuing this, please review these posts:

************************
<mcfqsed18hb1qtcp9...@4ax.com>
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:59:44 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
************************

and

************************
<gg26se1vkccdu1cv4...@4ax.com>
On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:00:11 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
************************

[R Dean]

I tried to look these 2 post up what I got was "no results".

[RonO]

My guess is the reason why you persist with this lost cause is because
you don't remember how badly it always ends up for you. My guess is
that you have discovered many times before that no matter what Susskind
says the argument is a lost cause for you.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/n81y-wFCWLQ/2Z1a_SsTAgAJ

This is your post. In it you claim that you had never seen these 6
before even though you were one of only two IDiots to respond in any way
when I first pointed them out on TO 2 years ago. All the other IDiots
ran in denial. You now deny writing the above linked to post. My guess
is that in another couple months you will forget that you saw the Top
Six again.

What you should do is think about your situation for a few minutes, and
before you forget what you thought about write it down and stick it on
your monitor.

It is just a fact that the scientific creationists used these 6 pieces
of "evidence" and all six failed them over 30 years ago. Their failure
was so definite that the creationists had to change the name of what
they supported to intelligent design to keep the creationist political
ploy rolling. The ID perps that have put them up as their Top Six use
them in the same way that the scientific creationists used them. You
may not remember checking, but you likely have checked these things out
before, and you have never been able to find the ID perps nor the
scientific creationists before them use these 6 to build anything
positive. These 6 are just used as denial arguments to allow the rubes
to lie to themselves long enough to get to the next fool the rubes
"evidence". These 6 and other denial arguments like them are never used
in a positive fashion to develop any type of IDiot alternative worth
discussing.

You may not believe that, but write yourself a note on what you don't
believe and spend a few days trying to find any scientific creationist
or ID perp using this type of evidence to build something positive about
IDiocy. You will fail and unless you have your note as to why you fail,
you will likely have to repeat the failure over and over, just as you
are doing now.

Ron Okimoto

[R Dean]

I didn't remember this. But now that I see it I do, but there is no
reason I'm required to defend these six. I've seen no criticism. So,
they can stand until criticism is put forth

>
> What you should do is think about your situation for a few minutes, and
> before you forget what you thought about write it down and stick it on
> your monitor.
>
> It is just a fact that the scientific creationists used these 6 pieces
> of "evidence" and all six failed them over 30 years ago.  Their failure
> was so definite that the creationists had to change the name of what
> they supported to intelligent design to keep the creationist political
> ploy rolling.  The ID perps that have put them up as their Top Six use
> them in the same way that the scientific creationists used them.  You
> may not remember checking, but you likely have checked these things out
> before, and you have never been able to find the ID perps nor the
> scientific creationists before them use these 6 to build anything
> positive.  These 6 are just used as denial arguments to allow the rubes
> to lie to themselves long enough to get to the next fool the rubes
> "evidence".  These 6 and other denial arguments like them are never used
> in a positive fashion to develop any type of IDiot alternative worth
> discussing.
>
> You may not believe that, but write yourself a note on what you don't
> believe and spend a few days trying to find any scientific creationist
> or ID perp using this type of evidence to build something positive about
> IDiocy.  You will fail and unless you have your note as to why you fail,
> you will likely have to repeat the failure over and over, just as you
> are doing now.
>

I've seen no criticism of the six. And as far as I'm concerned the ball
is in your court!

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:01:59 -0500, R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:


<mercy snip>

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/n81y-wFCWLQ/2Z1a_SsTAgAJ
>>
>> This is your post.  In it you claim that you had never seen these 6
>> before even though you were one of only two IDiots to respond in any way
>> when I first pointed them out on TO 2 years ago.  All the other IDiots
>> ran in denial.  You now deny writing the above linked to post.  My guess
>> is that in another couple months you will forget that you saw the Top
>> Six again.
>I didn't remember this. But now that I see it I do, but there is no
>reason I'm required to defend these six. I've seen no criticism. So,
>they can stand until criticism is put forth

For reference:
*********************************
Ok, I never saw these before. But I would like to cee a criticism
by someone without the ultimate extreme bias I see non TO WHo can give
a fair and honest criticism of these six evidences. What is wrong with
them
1) "The Origin Of the Universe". There is no problem with the Big bang
as the origin of the Universe. There must have been a cause.
2) "The Fine Tuning of the Laws of the universe"
There is evidence of fine tuning of the laws of science,
3) "The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life".
This is a gap in our knowledge. It's possible that information in DNA
is designed. I;ve seen no evidence to the contrary
4) "The Origin of Irreducible Complex Molecular Machines."
This is the mouse trap argument. This sounds reasonable. Without
the completed mouse trap it attracts and catches no mice.
5) "The origin of Animals". I think this is outdated.
There is nothing about Homeobox Genes.
6) "The Origin of Humans"
This is the samd with Animals - It's outdated.
********************************

The above are six arguments which have been posted many times over the
years. Each have been refuted many times. That you didn't remember
posting the above, suggests you don't remember reading the
refutations.

Some of the above you have posted to T.O. many times yourself. I and
others have refuted them each time you posted. It's unreasonable for
you to repeatedly demand from others what has been posted many times.
If you don't remember the refutations, then the ball is in your court
to at least make an effort to search for those previous refutations.
If you won't do that, then why should anybody refute them again, just
so you will forget those refutations again?

GIYF. You could start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[RonO]

Then don't put up junk like your Ratio thread if you don't want to
defend this stupidity. This is the best that IDiots ever had according
to the guys running the ID scam. You keep putting up some of them as if
they were still viable. What does that tell you?

Why do you think that no other IDiot/creationist helped you out before?
Claiming that it doesn't matter is tragically lame at this time.

What are you going to claim the next time you put up one of the Six?
Running in denial hasn't worked so far.

Why lie to yourself about the situation? The ball has always been in
your court to demonstrate that these Six ever amounted to anything since
they failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. What does it
mean when you keep putting up the same junk when it never amounted to
anything?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

<sigh> GG's search engine really sucks:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/0u86tt9vTgs/8cR0vXJKBQAJ>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/D_QCRraJXgE/fC1rx8y_BgAJ>

[Bill Rogers]

Jeez, Ron, the guy just got back from almost dying of pneumonia. Couldn't you tone it down just a bit for a little while.

[R Dean]

Ok, I still think what I wrote is true.

It looks like getting back in the swing of things
I have to go on an out of town trip tomorrow morning.
Be gone about 5 days.
>

[jillery]

You're entitled to your opinion. Everybody has one.

>It looks like getting back in the swing of things
>I have to go on an out of town trip tomorrow morning.
>Be gone about 5 days.

Don't do anything I wouldn't do.

[R Dean]

On 11/21/2019 10:28 PM, R Dean wrote:
> On 11/21/2019 6:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:01:59 -0500, R Dean <"R Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

I'm back in town for the Thanksgiving weekend.

It appears that I responded to each the six statements, but I reject
the notion that I was the person who initially referenced the six
considering this was an unacceptable site to the people with whom I
choose to communicate.

>>
>> Some of the above you have posted to T.O. many times yourself.  I and
>> others have refuted them each time you posted.  It's unreasonable for
>> you to repeatedly demand from others what has been posted many times.
>> If you don't remember the refutations, then the ball is in your court
>> to at least make an effort to search for those previous refutations.
>> If you won't do that, then why should anybody refute them again, just
>> so you will forget those refutations again?
>

I did a search. It's easy to claim to have disputed this in the past.

[RonO]

So what did you learn from the top six? Willful ignorance may be all
that you have left, but what good does that do you the next time you
want to put up one of the Six?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Talk about ignorance, you have mathematically incompetent moRON who has no understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Why keep lying about who was misusing the product rule? Just multiply
those two numbers that you wanted to multiply together to demonstrate
for yourself that you were wrong. There is no reason to keep lying
about such a stupid mistake for years. You were the one that was wrong,
and you will always have been the one that was wrong. Really, just
multiply the two numbers that you wanted to multiply. They don't give
the correct. what should that tell the math wiz?

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON has no idea how to compute the joint probability of two or more beneficial mutations occurring on a lineage.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> >

[RonO]

Just quit lying about the past and multiply those two numbers that you
wanted to multiply and demonstrate that the product rule did not apply
the way that you wanted to apply it. Lying about the past is stupid.
You will always have been the one that was wrong. Nothing that you
could ever do will change how wrong you were.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I'm not lying you dumb moRON. Your understanding of probability theory is limited to plugging numbers into StatTrek and even that, you don't know what it means. And you understand less about the physics and mathematics of evolution.

[jillery]

Are you denying I and others have disputed your PRATTs in the past?
Then why should anybody dispute them now, since you will just forget
again?

>>>
>>> GIYF.  You could start here:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/
>>>
>> Ok, I still think what I wrote is true.
>>
>> It looks like getting back in the swing of things
>> I have to go on an out of town trip tomorrow morning.
>> Be gone about 5 days.

[RonO]

You were the one that was wrong, so lying about the past isn't going to
do you any good. The insanity of what you have been doing for the past
two years should be evident even to someone as lost as yourself.

Just the fact that you won't multiply those two numbers should tell
anyone that you are just a lying asshole. The product rule did not
apply the way that you wanted to apply it. You were just wrong.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[R Dean]

I've seen how Ron O disproves intelligent design, it's by besmirching
abuse, name calling, smears and slander. I've seen no such thing by you,
Jill. But Ron O is typical.

[jillery]

I understand you have a personal problem with RonO. But you are
letting him affect your responses to other posters. For your own
sake, don't give him that power. RonO is one poster. He does not
speak for other posters any more than I do.

For good or ill, T.O. is a Usenet forum, which means everything posted
is visible to all, and all can respond to it, just like with an
old-time telephone party line, or a CB radio. You don't have to like
it, but you do have to tolerate it.

Clearly, you have a contrasting POV about some issues. And you have a
desire to express them. And you have a right to do so. But you are
also recovering from a near-fatal illness. So, even though I am very
reluctant to suggest this, if you find some responses so disturbing
that you can't ignore them, perhaps you should defer posting to T.O
until you are stronger.

>>>>> GIYF.  You could start here:
>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, I still think what I wrote is true.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like getting back in the swing of things
>>>> I have to go on an out of town trip tomorrow morning.
>>>> Be gone about 5 days.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The reason moRON has earned the name moRON is that he can't explain the physics and mathematics of evolution. He can't explain the mathematical reason why it takes a billion replication for each evolutionary step in the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. And he can't explain the physical reason why competition in the Lenski experiment slows the accumulation of the billion replications necessary for the evolutionary step. The consequences for the ToE and the notion of common descent is that it takes at least a billion replications for every evolutionary step. Unless it is a microbial population or plants which produce a vast number of seeds, what population can achieve these numbers of replications in order for evolution to operate?

[Bill Rogers]

Any real event, specified in enough detail far enough in advance is so fantastically unlikely as to seem "mathematically irrational." That includes your own birth, the particular configuration of dead leaves in your yard on a given fall day, or any specific evolutionary trajectory.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Rogers, are you really going to embrace sillery's "explain the improbability of your existence arguement"? I wanted sillery to present Charles Brenner with that silly argument but he decided to go in a different direction after sillery's first "nonsequitur" complaint. Or do you think it is impossible to come up with a mathematically rational explanation for DNA evolution? Have you yet come to understand the difference between competition and adaptation and why competition slows adaptation? The physics is actually quite straight-forward. Start with the 1st law of thermodynamics to understand the physics of competition. DNA evolution and adaptation is a 2nd law of thermodynamics process. Study it and perhaps you will see it.

[RonO]

Hey Dean! This is the only type of support that you are going to get.
No IDiot/creationists can help you with the Top Six. They don't want to
deal with why they failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago
any more than you do.

Just look at the Dr Dr, the boob has to keep lying about what he was
wrong about over 2 years ago. He was wrong about his application of the
product rule. No matter how he wants to lie about what he was wrong
about, reality isn't going to change, and look what he has been doing
for over 2 years. Maybe he will multiply those two numbers that he
wanted to multiply using the product rule and whisper the answer to you.
He obviously can't tell anyone the answer here on TO.

It should tell you something about what you are doing. Just claiming
that you have forgotten what you did months ago doesn't matter. It
should be apparent what you should be doing about it now, but you can't
bring yourself to do it. How many months down the road will you put up
another of the top six and claim that you forgot?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

In the Lenski experiment the rate at which fitness increases decreases over the course of the experiment. Why do you think that is the case? How does it fit your model?

[jillery]

Liar.

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 05:08:12 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-8, R Dean wrote:


>> I've seen how Ron O disproves intelligent design, it's by besmirching
>> abuse, name calling, smears and slander. I've seen no such thing by you,
>> Jill. But Ron O is typical.
>The reason moRON has earned the name moRON is that he can't explain the physics and mathematics of evolution.

According to you, only you can correctly explain the physics and
mathematics of evolution, so that can't be why. Instead, the reason
is your obsession with posting boring and stupid non-sequiturs and
ad-hominems.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON has plenty of support from his fellow mathematically incompetent morons. moRON and his fellow morons can't correctly explain the physics and mathematics of evolution and moRON and his fellow morons harm people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. What can you expect from moRON and his fellow morons?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Think about it. DNA evolution is governed by the 2nd law. The population is approaching equilibrium and maximum fitness with the environment and its selection conditions.

[Bill Rogers]

I agree that the population is approaching a fitness maximum and that that is why the rate of increase in fitness slows down.

Indeed, the results would suggest that the farther away from a fitness maximum you are, the faster fitness would increase. So which population is farther from a fitness maximum, a population exposed to a single new selection pressure, or a population exposed to two new selection pressures?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are trying to make this process linear when it is actually highly nonlinear. Remember different selection pressures have different evolutionary trajectories. When combining selection conditions gives a much more complex evolutionary trajectory. And it doesn't help a variant with a beneficial mutation for one selection condition when a different selection kills that member.

[Bill Rogers]

I'm just talking about the data. And Lenski's data suggest that the farther you are from a fitness maximum, the faster your fitness will increase. Of course, if you are so far away that you are non-viable, then you're dead.

It's true that different selection pressure open up different evolutionary trajectories. There are more ways to improve your fitness if you are far from a fitness maximum. In other words, the more selection pressures, the more potentially beneficial mutations available - that's equivalent to saying that you are far away from a fitness maximum.

If your model were correct, the rate of increase in fitness would increase over time, rather than decrease, until it suddenly went to zero when you reach the fitness peak, because as you approach the fitness maximum (1)you are more fit and (2) the evolutionary trajectory gets progressively simpler, as there are fewer options for improved fitness. But your model is wrong.

Still, you can manipulate the binomial distribution very nicely. Pat yourself on the back.
<snip>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Think about the math. Lenski's carrying capacity allows for about 500,000,000 replications per day. For a mutation rate of e-9 gives sufficient replications for mutations at about half the sites in the genome, about 2,500,000 variants generated each day. Let some number of those variants have mutations which give improved fitness, for example, 100. Of those 100 variants, the improvement in fitness will not be uniform across all variants. Some mutants will have a greater improvement in fitness than others. It is the variant with the most improvement in fitness that will fix in that particular cycle. Only in later cycles will the other variants fix when they are the most fit variant of that cycle.

>
> It's true that different selection pressure open up different evolutionary trajectories. There are more ways to improve your fitness if you are far from a fitness maximum. In other words, the more selection pressures, the more potentially beneficial mutations available - that's equivalent to saying that you are far away from a fitness maximum.

The problem for the population is for all those random beneficial mutations to accumulate on some lineage to achieve adaptation. And a beneficial mutation such as seen with the Kishony experiment with a single drug is not so beneficial if he were to run his experiment with two drugs. Only when some member of the population gets those two beneficial mutations, one for each drug, will that member be able to grow in the next higher drug region. That can happen but it will require exponentially more replications for that to happen. And if Lenski were to run his experiment at a non-optimal temperature, a beneficial mutation for the starvation conditions would not give as much improvement in fitness if it were to occur in an optimal temperature environment.

>
> If your model were correct, the rate of increase in fitness would increase over time, rather than decrease, until it suddenly went to zero when you reach the fitness peak, because as you approach the fitness maximum (1)you are more fit and (2) the evolutionary trajectory gets progressively simpler, as there are fewer options for improved fitness. But your model is wrong.

Not so, and I hope you understand my explanation above why you are not correct.

>
> Still, you can manipulate the binomial distribution very nicely. Pat yourself on the back.

You still need to do some work on understanding the distinction between competition and adaptation. In particular, for competition (survival of the fittest), it is the most fit variant that wins the competition even if there is a distribution of variants that have improved fitness for the environmental conditions. That's why in Lenski's experiment you are seeing a decreasing pattern on improving fitness as his evolutionary steps proceed. And I do appreciate your thoughtful questions and comments.
> <snip>

[Burkhard]

But that's not jillery's point. That one is about your admittedly
somewhat irritating tendency to ask a question/make a claim, then
people go with great patience through it and show the implications to
the point where you yourself admit that there is a flaw in the argument,
and then you disappear for a bit, only to ask the same question/make the
same claim again upon your return. And to add insult to injury,
sometimes with the added claim that "nobody had ever addressed this
issue on TO"

Last time e.g. we two went through this dance was your use (again) pf
punctuated equilibrium as evidence of design.

[RonO]

Why don't you multiply those two numbers that you wanted to multiply,
tell Dean the answer and why you wanted to multiply those two numbers
because of your application of the product rule. You can then tell him
why you were wrong and why the way that you wanted to do it doesn't
apply to what we were discussing or things like the Kishony experiment.
Go for it. It has to be sad to know that you have been lying about it
for over two years. In about half a year it will be three years.

You were just wrong about the math. Lying about it like you do for
years is insane and past stupid. You will forever be the one that was
wrong about the math.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON needs to leave the discussion of evolution to those who have some training in physics and mathematics, not some indoctrination that reptile evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals. That type of debate is only good for pseudo-scientist moRONs.

[RonO]

I realize that you are too insane to stop the stupidity, but you should
try. You will always be the one that was wrong. Lying about the past
won't change it.

Ron Okimoto