The Reason the Theory of Evolution is Not True

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

[Robert Camp]

On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

The reason your argument is not true is independent variables subject to
cumulative selection.

Robert Camp LHC DOD LOL

[John Harshman]

On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

Whoa. I remember this guy.

The need to put "MD PhD" after your name indicates a deep insecurity.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Friday, 13 November 2015 16:09:26 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Ahh, trying to disprove a theory of evolution that does not include any notion of heredity. Always entertaining!

The Masked Lapavenger LL.B. (almost) LL.M.

[Melzzzzz]

Mad PhaD ;)

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

Groundhog Day ... AGAIN?

"Just put your little hand in mine ..."

[Rolf]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> skrev i melding
news:yZednTieVfoOnNvL...@giganews.com...

Arguments like that are even worse than, but always remind me of the
Bumblebee Argument,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

Rolf.

[Carl Kaufmann]

On 2015-11-13 10:08, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

And which rule would that be? Please state it explicitly.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Robert, give us a real, measurable and repeatable example that cumulative selection overcomes the multiplication rule of probabilities. If you can't, I'll give you one (or more) but what you will find out that these examples put such restrictive conditions on the evolutionary process that there is no mathematically rational way to extrapolate this mechanism to the evolution of reptiles into birds. On the other hand, I can give you numerous real, measurable and repeatable examples of random mutation and natural selection (rmns) that shows that the multiplication rule of probabilities makes that the theory of evolution not true. I'll also show you the mathematical theory which governs the rmns phenomenon.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If A and B are events in a sample space S and P(A) ≠ 0 and P(B) ≠ 0, then
P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B|A) = P(B)P(A|B)
If the events A and B are such that P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B) they are called independent events.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John, if I remember correctly, you are the one who claimed that when you double the population size, you double the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur. Oh yes, my deep insecurity drove me to be licensed in both medicine and engineering. Are you finally ready to learn how to do this mathematics correctly?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:29:29 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

[Robert Camp]

On 11/13/15 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the
>>> multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>
>> The reason your argument is not true is independent variables
>> subject to cumulative selection.
>>
>> Robert Camp LHC DOD LOL
>
> Robert, give us a real, measurable and repeatable example that
> cumulative selection overcomes the multiplication rule of
> probabilities. If you can't, I'll give you one (or more) but what you
> will find out that these examples put such restrictive conditions on
> the evolutionary process that there is no mathematically rational way
> to extrapolate this mechanism to the evolution of reptiles into
> birds.

Let me get this straight. You're offering an in principle argument that
evolution could not have happened based upon mathematical abstractions -
but you complain about responses to that argument that don't precisely
map to evolutionary reality? You need to think a bit more about the
philosophical obligations of your position.

I'll give you credit for using a lot more rhetorical bs to give your
religious ideology a patina of scientific rigor than the average
creationist. But no matter how you camouflage it, wishful thinking is
still just wishful thinking.

> On the other hand, I can give you numerous real, measurable
> and repeatable examples of random mutation and natural selection
> (rmns) that shows that the multiplication rule of probabilities makes
> that the theory of evolution not true. I'll also show you the
> mathematical theory which governs the rmns phenomenon.

I'll be happy to read all of it. Just give me the citations to your
published work in the relevant scientific journals.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Oh, the doctor doctor is back. It should be noted that his argument (which is
only slightly more sophisticated that the usual tornado in a junkyard making
a 747) is an argument against evolution by natural selection, not an argument
against evolution and that he himself does not understand the distinction.


The Dr^2 position on evolution is unclear. He will not say if he thinks
reptiles are the ancestors of birds, only that the needed gene changes could
not happen through natural selection. He believes in "common descent" but it
turns out that he has his own idiosyncratic definition of the term.

--
William Hughes

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 11/13/15 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the
> >>> multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >>
> >> The reason your argument is not true is independent variables
> >> subject to cumulative selection.
> >>
> >> Robert Camp LHC DOD LOL
> >
> > Robert, give us a real, measurable and repeatable example that
> > cumulative selection overcomes the multiplication rule of
> > probabilities. If you can't, I'll give you one (or more) but what you
> > will find out that these examples put such restrictive conditions on
> > the evolutionary process that there is no mathematically rational way
> > to extrapolate this mechanism to the evolution of reptiles into
> > birds.
>
> Let me get this straight. You're offering an in principle argument that
> evolution could not have happened based upon mathematical abstractions -
> but you complain about responses to that argument that don't precisely
> map to evolutionary reality? You need to think a bit more about the
> philosophical obligations of your position.

I have not said that evolution doesn't happen. Please try and read and understand more precisely. What I have said is that the theory of evolution is not true and given the mathematical reason for this. And what I will do here is describe with mathematical precision how the rmns phenomenon operates, something which is not correctly taught in school. There are consequences for this failure to properly understand how the rmns phenomenon operates and these consequences are not good.

>
> I'll give you credit for using a lot more rhetorical bs to give your
> religious ideology a patina of scientific rigor than the average
> creationist. But no matter how you camouflage it, wishful thinking is
> still just wishful thinking.

Prepare yourself for a lesson in hard mathematical science and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics. This is not good news for advocates of the theory of evolution but it is good news those of us who want to prevent antibiotic resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds and have more durable cancer treatments.

>
> > On the other hand, I can give you numerous real, measurable
> > and repeatable examples of random mutation and natural selection
> > (rmns) that shows that the multiplication rule of probabilities makes
> > that the theory of evolution not true. I'll also show you the
> > mathematical theory which governs the rmns phenomenon.
>
> I'll be happy to read all of it. Just give me the citations to your
> published work in the relevant scientific journals.

Are you claiming that it is not true until it is published in the relevant scientific journals? Why not try to do the mathematics of rmns and see whether the mathematics correlates with the empirical data? Of course, rmns is a stochastic process and in order to correctly do this mathematics, you need to have some understanding of probability theory. Also, you didn't give us an example of cumulative selection and how it overcomes the multiplication rule of probabilities. So here is one, the evolution of MRSA, but these types of examples would not occur if the rmns phenomenon were properly understood.

[John Harshman]

Yep, that's the guy.

[jonathan]

On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
relationships where cause and effect dominates.

Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
so linear probability doesn't apply.

Nonlinear system
From Wikipedia,

In physics and other sciences, a nonlinear system, in
contrast to a linear system, is a system which does not
satisfy the superposition principle – meaning that the
output of a nonlinear system is not directly proportional
to the input.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system


For instance what is the probability of a falling
grain of sand being the one that starts the avalanche?

This is the statistical mathematical relationship
at the heart of evolution.

Self-organized criticality
From Wikipedia

Self-organized criticality is one of a number of important
discoveries made in statistical physics and related fields
over the latter half of the 20th century, discoveries which
relate particularly to the study of complexity in nature.

For example, the study of cellular automata, from the early
discoveries of Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann through
to John Conway's Game of Life and the extensive work of
Stephen Wolfram, made it clear that complexity could be
generated as an emergent feature of extended systems with
simple local interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality





s

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>
> Oh, the doctor doctor is back. It should be noted that his argument (which is
> only slightly more sophisticated that the usual tornado in a junkyard making
> a 747) is an argument against evolution by natural selection, not an argument
> against evolution and that he himself does not understand the distinction.

I say and post many things but I have never argued against "evolution", my argument is against the theory of evolution. And what I will do here is give you a mathematically precise definition of how evolution by rmns phenomenon operates. And this mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns. Once you understand this, you will start to understand why the theory of evolution is not true.

>
>
> The Dr^2 position on evolution is unclear. He will not say if he thinks
> reptiles are the ancestors of birds, only that the needed gene changes could
> not happen through natural selection. He believes in "common descent" but it
> turns out that he has his own idiosyncratic definition of the term.

It is mathematically irrational to believe that a reptile population can be transformed into a bird population by the rmns phenomenon. I will give you a mathematically precise definition of how "common descent" is associated with the rmns phenomenon. But first, we will go through the preliminaries before we start doing the mathematics in detail.
>
> --
> William Hughes

[Burkhard]

What Robert said

Prof. Burkhard Schafer, MA, LLM, FHEA, DSmN(IhaGT)

[Robert Camp]

Of course not. Please try and read and understand more precisely.

I'm claiming that there are innumerable cranks and crackpots around,
some of whom we interact with here in this group, who, based upon
passionate interest and Dunning-Kruger overconfidence, believe they know
what those who spend lifetimes in research and investigation don't.

Yes, yes, "they laughed at Columbus and Fulton." You can collect your
accolades when the scientific consensus confirms your genius.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/13/2015 12:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication
>> rule of probabilities.
>>
>
>
> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
> relationships where cause and effect dominates.

You are probably better off avoiding the vortex of Dr. Dr. We all are.

> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
> so linear probability doesn't apply.
>
> Nonlinear system
> From Wikipedia,
>
> In physics and other sciences, a nonlinear system, in
> contrast to a linear system, is a system which does not
> satisfy the superposition principle – meaning that the
> output of a nonlinear system is not directly proportional
> to the input.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
>
>
> For instance what is the probability of a falling
> grain of sand being the one that starts the avalanche?

Isn't the more important point in what happens after the grain initiates
the sand flow? It's more likely that there will be a minor displacement
of sand, but not improbable that there will be a major avalanche. This
is something of a power law.

> This is the statistical mathematical relationship
> at the heart of evolution.

Or there's more short-jumps than long jumps. I think Kaufman made this
point in _At Home in the Universe_. As a matter of fact, upon recently
re-reading this book I am struck by how humble and reasonable Kaufman's
arguments were. And he seemed to focus more on Darwinian landscapes than
actual meat and potatoes of self-organization. I found his observations
based on N-K modeling interesting, such as being placed somewhere being
Red Queen chaos and the order of evolutionary stable strategies. As for
self-organization there's the textbook case of the micelle or lipid
bilayer with hydrophobic and hydrophilic components. Selection can work
with this but not create it.

In fact modern complexity science draws from the same well as D'Arcy
Thompson and Goethe well before. Nothing new there.

> Self-organized criticality
> From Wikipedia
>
> Self-organized criticality is one of a number of important
> discoveries made in statistical physics and related fields
> over the latter half of the 20th century, discoveries which
> relate particularly to the study of complexity in nature.
>
> For example, the study of cellular automata, from the early
> discoveries of Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann through
> to John Conway's Game of Life and the extensive work of
> Stephen Wolfram, made it clear that complexity could be
> generated as an emergent feature of extended systems with
> simple local interactions.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

Daniel Dennett (note the second "t") started his book _Freedom Evolves_
with the basic foundations on Conway's Game of Life.

It would be better if you gave us your own perspective on complexity
than copy-paste from websites. I could do better reading Kaufman's _At
Home in the Universe_ again or Gleick's _Chaos_. Or maybe some Mandelbrot.

I do find Menger sponges to be perhaps the coolest concept ever
(infinite surface area and zero volume). But doesn't this kinda hint at
how lungs are designed (self-similar branching)? And the Lorenzian
waterwheel does far better for me to grasp chaos than anything you
offer. I do recall relaxing on a large wooden swing in a house on stilts
in the mountains and how it seemed to trace a chaotic figure eight.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-8, jonathan wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >
>
>
> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
> relationships where cause and effect dominates.
>
> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
> so linear probability doesn't apply.

Probability theory is linear?????? jonathan, what is the probability of rolling two 1's with the roll of two dice? What is the probability of rolling three 1's with the roll of three dice? It's posters like John Harshman who thinks that probability theory is linear when he claimed that doubling the population size doubles the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur. The mathematics I will derive for you is highly non-linear and it accurately predicts the behavior of the rmns phenomenon.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote in
news:e0397a20-991b-4fd2...@googlegroups.com:

Shouldn't you learn how to write grammatical English before you attempt to
teach other people how to do maths?
--
S.O.P.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:49:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 11/13/15 9:28 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 11/13/15 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

Thinned for legibility

>
> > Are you claiming that it is not true until it is published in the
> > relevant scientific journals?
>
> Of course not. Please try and read and understand more precisely.

You claimed "You're offering an in principle argument that evolution could not have happened based upon mathematical abstractions", when what I will actually do is correctly do the physics and mathematics of the rmns phenomenon, something which should have been done long ago. On the other hand, I only questioned you whether truth can exist outside of publications in relevant scientific journals. Would you find this work more reasonable if it was published in a relevant scientific journal?

>
> I'm claiming that there are innumerable cranks and crackpots around,
> some of whom we interact with here in this group, who, based upon
> passionate interest and Dunning-Kruger overconfidence, believe they know
> what those who spend lifetimes in research and investigation don't.

People can spend a lifetime believing that the earth is flat, there may even be a consensus that this is scientifically true but good scientific research looks at the empirical data closely and if possible, defining the mathematical law(s) which govern this phenomenon. I'll show you how derive the governing mathematical law for the rmns phenomenon.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in

I promise to try and improve my grammar if you try to improve your mathematical skills.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/13/2015 1:46 PM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
>

Three years ago, actually. But the good Dr. seems to be starting from
scratch again, without acknowledging the flaws in his argument that went
unanswered the last time.

Chief among these was why repeated catastrophic selection - his example
is a pathogen in the presence of antibiotics - is an appropriate model
for all of evolution. But there were so many more.

[John Harshman]

On 11/13/15 10:46 AM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
>

If I recall, it has to do with multiple antibiotic resistance in
bacteria. He's rather like Ray in that he has a number of mantras whose
wording never varies and which he doesn't have to think about before
posting.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >
> > Oh, the doctor doctor is back. It should be noted that his argument (which is
> > only slightly more sophisticated that the usual tornado in a junkyard making
> > a 747) is an argument against evolution by natural selection, not an argument
> > against evolution and that he himself does not understand the distinction.
> I say and post many things but I have never argued against "evolution", my argument is against the theory of evolution.

There you go again. There is no one theory of evolution. Drift, Selection,
Panspermia, Theistic, to name a few and of course Agnostic (I am convinced that
evolution happened but I am not convinced by any theory as to how it happened).
Your arguments target selection, and only selection.

> >
> > The Dr^2 position on evolution is unclear. He will not say if he thinks
> > reptiles are the ancestors of birds, only that the needed gene changes could
> > not happen through natural selection. He believes in "common descent" but it
> > turns out that he has his own idiosyncratic definition of the term.

<snip>

> It is mathematically irrational to believe that a reptile population can be transformed into a bird population by the rmns phenomenon.

But that was not the question. The question is:
"Are birds descended from reptiles?"; not "Was the reptile population
transformed into a bird population by the rmns pehomemon?''

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote in

news:4cc2493f-0262-47c7...@googlegroups.com:

> I promise to try and improve my grammar if you try to improve your
> mathematical skills.

Your posts are evidence that your writing skills need to improve. What
evidence has led you to conclude that my mathematical skills need to
improve?
--
S.O.P.

[Greg Guarino]

Yes, there was that. He thinks it's a good model for all evolution;
serial catastrophic selection. No one could get him to address what
would happen under less aggressive selection, or even that selection can
occur without reducing the population.

But there was also the denial that neutral fixation could account for
anything like the number of changes needed. Because, of course, neutral
changes can also only become fixed serially, and even more slowly than
those that are selected for. This despite the fact that the simulation
he himself recommended fixed neutral changes just fine, and not serially.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?

The multiplication rule of probabilities is what determines whether an evolutionary process has any reasonable probability of occurring. This is very commonly demonstrated with the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. Do you understand why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV when the use of single drug therapy gives resistant variants in days?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:59:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 1:46 PM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
> >
> Three years ago, actually. But the good Dr. seems to be starting from
> scratch again, without acknowledging the flaws in his argument that went
> unanswered the last time.

I have to start from scratch because you didn't get it the first time around.

>
> Chief among these was why repeated catastrophic selection - his example
> is a pathogen in the presence of antibiotics - is an appropriate model
> for all of evolution. But there were so many more.

What determines when selection becomes catastrophic? In order to answer this question correctly, you need to correctly describe how the rmns phenomenon works when selection is not catastrophic.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

<snip>

> <snip>
>
> > It is mathematically irrational to believe that a reptile population can be transformed into a bird population by the rmns phenomenon.
>
>
> But that was not the question. The question is:
> "Are birds descended from reptiles?"; not "Was the reptile population
> transformed into a bird population by the rmns pehomemon?''

If you want to create new alleles, you need mutations, so for example if reptile scales are to be transformed into feathers, all the genes involved need the appropriate mutations and selection is required to carry out this genetic transformation. If you know of some other way to create new alleles, let us know.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:28:19 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>
>Whoa. I remember this guy.
>
>The need to put "MD PhD" after your name indicates a deep insecurity.

Change the first "D" to a "C" and we could refer to him as
"McFudd".
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:08:07 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:24:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in
> news:4cc2493f-0262-47c7...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum
> > wrote:
> >> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in

> > I promise to try and improve my grammar if you try to improve your
> > mathematical skills.
>
> Your posts are evidence that your writing skills need to improve. What
> evidence has led you to conclude that my mathematical skills need to
> improve?
> --
> S.O.P.

True, you haven't demonstrated any mathematical skills at all so let's test your mathematical skills with two simple mathematical questions.
1. If you double the population size, do you double the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur in that population?
And,
2. Why does combination therapy work for the treatment of HIV?
Explain both of your answers mathematically.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:49:02 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

>On 11/13/15 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the
>>>> multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>>
>>> The reason your argument is not true is independent variables
>>> subject to cumulative selection.
>>>
>>> Robert Camp LHC DOD LOL
>>
>> Robert, give us a real, measurable and repeatable example that
>> cumulative selection overcomes the multiplication rule of
>> probabilities. If you can't, I'll give you one (or more) but what you
>> will find out that these examples put such restrictive conditions on
>> the evolutionary process that there is no mathematically rational way
>> to extrapolate this mechanism to the evolution of reptiles into
>> birds.
>
>Let me get this straight. You're offering an in principle argument that
>evolution could not have happened based upon mathematical abstractions -
>but you complain about responses to that argument that don't precisely
>map to evolutionary reality? You need to think a bit more about the
>philosophical obligations of your position.
>
>I'll give you credit for using a lot more rhetorical bs to give your
>religious ideology a patina of scientific rigor than the average
>creationist. But no matter how you camouflage it, wishful thinking is
>still just wishful thinking.

And IMHO, "credit" is not the right term, any more than it
is when used by media pukes for acts of terrorism.
"Responsibility", perhaps? Or "blame"?

>> On the other hand, I can give you numerous real, measurable
>> and repeatable examples of random mutation and natural selection
>> (rmns) that shows that the multiplication rule of probabilities makes
>> that the theory of evolution not true. I'll also show you the
>> mathematical theory which governs the rmns phenomenon.
>
>I'll be happy to read all of it. Just give me the citations to your
>published work in the relevant scientific journals.
>

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Friday, 13 November 2015 20:39:24 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
>
> The multiplication rule of probabilities is what determines whether an evolutionary process has any reasonable probability of occurring. This is very commonly demonstrated with the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.

I, contrary to most other posters in this thread, wasn't familiar with your line of argumentation, but even without reading their posts this assertion would immediately have made me highly suspicious of your reasoning, for the exact same reason they raise: what makes you think it's a good model for all of evolution? I suspect it may be because you deal with drugs resistance on a daily basis as part of your work. You tell me. But at any rate, you need to show that this massive extrapolation is valid.

>Do you understand why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV when the use of single drug therapy gives resistant variants in days?

Yes.

[Jonathan]

On 11/13/2015 1:04 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-8, jonathan wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
>> relationships where cause and effect dominates.
>>
>> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
>> so linear probability doesn't apply.

> Probability theory is linear?????? jonathan, what is the probability of
> rolling two 1's with the roll of two dice? What is the probability of
> rolling three 1's with the roll of three dice?

Are the dice fair and independent of each other?

> It's posters like
> John Harshman who thinks that probability theory is linear when he
> claimed that doubling the population size doubles the probability that
> a beneficial mutation will occur. The mathematics I will derive for you
> is highly non-linear and it accurately predicts the behavior of the rmns phenomenon.
>

(apologies in advance for going on for so long, but it's not a
small subject)


Please review the link I provided about non-linear dynamics.
I'm not talking about non-linear equations, but dynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

In an evolving system dice isn't a suitable analogy, but instead
the famous sandpile model. Where the chances of any /specific/
falling grain of sand creating a 'world-changing' avalanche
is practically zero, while the odds of one grain a sand...eventually
creating that landscape transforming event is almost certain.

Which is the concept that underlies the creation of virtually
all visible order whether the universe, life or anything
in between.

And it's a concept a child can grasp and prove with complete
certainty.

Merely go down to a beach, take some wet sand and shape it
into an overly steep pile. Wait for it to dry and eventually
it's slope will 'evolve' to the critical point where a
single grain of sand falling on it may have no effect, or
it may create a transforming avalanche.

And there's no way to predict which grain of sand it will be.
Or no way to predict which input causes the world changing output.

But a world changing or dramatic landscape change is
entirely inevitable, and this is important, almost
REGARDLESS of the initial conditions

If you randomly drop enough grains of sand in the same
place, eventually a critical slope will form, and
an evolutionary process will spontaneously emerge.

The difference between a linear frame of reference and
non-linear view isn't an easy transformation to take.

It completely alters how the terms 'simple' and 'complex'
are defined.

Evolving systems reside near the 'messy middle' as
the famous physicist Neil Turok recently said.

So does complexity.

Perimeter Lecture: Neil Turok on "The Astonishing Simplicity
of Everything"
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/oct/03/perimeter-lecture-neil-turok-on-the-astonishing-simplicity-of-everything



In a linear view we tend to complexity as a linear
sliding scale from zero to infinite. So increasing
complexity is merely analogous to being increasingly
complicated.

Complexity has...one minimum and...one maximum in a linear
or input side frame of reference.

simple >>>>>>>>>>> complex


HOWEVER from a non-linear, output or behavioral frame
simplicity has...TWO minimums and complexity...one maximum

simple >>>>>>>> complex <<<<<<< simple

As in...

static >>>>>>>> dynamic <<<<<<< chaotic
genetics >>>>>>>> evolution <<<<<<< natural selection
laws >>>>>>>> democracy <<<<<<< freedom
gravity >>>>>>>> universe <<<<<<< cosmic expansion

The messy middle!


Static behavior, as in a fixed rule or a solid is
considered simple behavior as it can be described
with very little information.

Chaotic behavior, as in freedom or a gas is..also
considered simple behavior for the same reason.
For instance the simple gas law describes the
behavior of a gas.

Now one can see how the following system characteristics
holds.


Simple systems give rise to complex behavior

Complex systems give rise to simple behavior.


A simple system would be one where the components
/are definable/, and such a system gives rise
to complex behavior, which is behavior that requires
a nearly infinite amount of information to describe.
Or a system output that is NOT stable, predictable
or evolving. Disorder.

Conversely, a complex system, where the components are
/not definable/, gives rise to system output that can
be easily described, which is simple behavior that's
stable and predictable, or evolving. Order.


But one might argue that any component can be
defined or is deterministic, and that is true.

The only way around the paradox is to realize
that, like relativity, whether anything is
simple or complex does NOT depend on the object
at hand, but upon the...observer.

After all, every component is a system unto itself.

SO, this is the how we decide.

From the frame of reference of the system, the parts
will always appear chaotic, random or undefinable.

From the frame of reference of the parts, the whole
will always appear emergent and largely mysterious.

The observer has to define /in advance of the observation/
whether the object at hand is to be treated as
a component, or a system.

For instance, am I just a part to a greater whole
called society?

Or am I an independent system?

I'm both at the same time of course, just as in the
duality of light.

But the minute we separate them into distinct
objects is the minute the simplicity of the
universe vanishes from our eyes.

At the messy middle, complexity!



Jonathan



"I DIED for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?
“For beauty,” I replied.
“And I for truth,—the two are one;
We brethren are,” he said.

And so, as kinsmen met a night,
We talked between the rooms,
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names."





s

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote in

news:dee39a75-0a74-4903...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:24:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:
>> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in
>> news:4cc2493f-0262-47c7...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum
>> > wrote:
>> >> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in
>
>> > I promise to try and improve my grammar if you try to improve your
>> > mathematical skills.
>>
>> Your posts are evidence that your writing skills need to improve.
>> What evidence has led you to conclude that my mathematical skills
>> need to improve?
>

> True, you haven't demonstrated any mathematical skills at all so let's
> test your mathematical skills with two simple mathematical questions.

Yeah, let's not. Your lack of writing skills is the issue here: the state
of my mathematical skills is irrelevant. (If your writing skills were
better, you might have gotten away with that transparent attempt at
evasion.)

If you want to communicate your ideas effectively, then you should learn
how to express them effectively. That's all I'm saying. If you can't use
language well, people won't understand what you're saying. Improving your
communication skills is in your own best interest. Can you understand
that?
--
S.O.P.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:59:27 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> On Friday, 13 November 2015 20:39:24 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
> >
> > The multiplication rule of probabilities is what determines whether an evolutionary process has any reasonable probability of occurring. This is very commonly demonstrated with the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
>
> I, contrary to most other posters in this thread, wasn't familiar with your line of argumentation, but even without reading their posts this assertion would immediately have made me highly suspicious of your reasoning, for the exact same reason they raise: what makes you think it's a good model for all of evolution? I suspect it may be because you deal with drugs resistance on a daily basis as part of your work. You tell me. But at any rate, you need to show that this massive extrapolation is valid.

The reason you are not familiar with this line of argumentation is that our educational system does not train student in the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. A good mathematical model of a physical phenomenon enables one to predict the behavior of the phenomenon. The model I will present to you governs every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns.

>
> >Do you understand why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV when the use of single drug therapy gives resistant variants in days?
> Yes.

Explain your answer in detail because if you can do this correctly, you will demonstrate some understanding of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

So, you're a physician and an engineer (big yawn).

You've also told us in at least 5 posts what you're going
to do. Why don't you just do it already?


--
- There is no harm in being a fool; harm lies in being a
fool at the top of your lungs. (Author Unknown)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-8, Jonathan wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 1:04 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-8, jonathan wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
> >> relationships where cause and effect dominates.
> >>
> >> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
> >> so linear probability doesn't apply.
>
> > Probability theory is linear?????? jonathan, what is the probability of
> > rolling two 1's with the roll of two dice? What is the probability of
> > rolling three 1's with the roll of three dice?
>
>
>
> Are the dice fair and independent of each other?

Let's assume that the dice are independent of each other, on the other hand, it doesn't matter whether the dice are fair. The joint probability of rolling two 1's is going to be the product of the two individual probabilities and the joint probability of rolling three 1's is again going to be the product of the three individual probabilities. If it so happens that they are fair dice, the joint probabilities for the two examples will be (1/6)^2 and (1/6)^3 respectively, both non-linear relationships. Probability theory is inherently nonlinear because of the multiplication rule of probabilities.

>
>
> > It's posters like
> > John Harshman who thinks that probability theory is linear when he
> > claimed that doubling the population size doubles the probability that
> > a beneficial mutation will occur. The mathematics I will derive for you
> > is highly non-linear and it accurately predicts the behavior of the rmns phenomenon.
> >
>
>
> (apologies in advance for going on for so long, but it's not a
> small subject)
>
>
> Please review the link I provided about non-linear dynamics.
> I'm not talking about non-linear equations, but dynamics.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
>
> In an evolving system dice isn't a suitable analogy, but instead
> the famous sandpile model. Where the chances of any /specific/
> falling grain of sand creating a 'world-changing' avalanche
> is practically zero, while the odds of one grain a sand...eventually
> creating that landscape transforming event is almost certain.

Let's start considering the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. You are not quite correct that dice isn't a suitable analogy for an evolutionary system. The starting point in doing this analysis is determining the trial(s) for this stochastic process. The reason I put an "s" on trial is that there are actually 2 trials which occur in the rmns phenomenon. The first trial is the replication and there are two possible outcomes for this trial, the first possible outcome is that the mutation does not occur at the correct site in the genome and the other possible outcome is that a mutation does occur at the correct site in the genome. This is a binary probability problem, a variation on the coin tossing problem except in this case we do not have a fair coin but a coin which is heavily weighted again the mutation occurring at the correct location in the genome for a given replication. But the mutation itself is also a trial in that a variety of different mutations are possible. This is a multiple outcome probability problem similar to a dice rolling problem but in this case it is not a fair die. Using the addition rule of probabilities, how would you write out the possible outcomes for a mutation occurring at a particular site? Hint: In this case, the relationship is linear and similar to writing the possible outcomes for the roll of a die.
<snip the rest for now>
> s

[*Hemidactylus*]

An asteroid created a landscapre transforming event at the K-T boundary.
We are in the midst of doing the same with our highly revered science
and tech. But most stuff is more mundane than that. I think that's the
scale Dr. Dr. is focusing upon, microevolution in populations or basic
population biology...divergences from H-W equilibrium. Chaos may play
some role here. Or randomness more so as sampling error between
generations in small populations is important.

> Which is the concept that underlies the creation of virtually
> all visible order whether the universe, life or anything
> in between.

That's a bit of dogmatic assertion there.

> And it's a concept a child can grasp and prove with complete
> certainty.
>
> Merely go down to a beach, take some wet sand and shape it
> into an overly steep pile.

Or let the waves do it for you...escarpment.

> Wait for it to dry and eventually
> it's slope will 'evolve' to the critical point where a
> single grain of sand falling on it may have no effect, or
> it may create a transforming avalanche.

Or many gradations in between. Why so discrete? Minor perturbations are
more common than landscape transforming events. That's why Goldschmidt's
systemic mutations were so difficult to digest or the revolutionary
upheavals of Gould-Eldredge's punq-eq or Kuhn's paradigm shifts.

> And there's no way to predict which grain of sand it will be.
> Or no way to predict which input causes the world changing output.

Or the more mundane minor slides.

> But a world changing or dramatic landscape change is
> entirely inevitable, and this is important, almost
> REGARDLESS of the initial conditions
>
> If you randomly drop enough grains of sand in the same
> place, eventually a critical slope will form, and
> an evolutionary process will spontaneously emerge.

Yet evolution is mundanely alleles changing in frequency in a population
over generational time. We get antiobitic resistance in bacteria, sickle
cell anemia in populations exposed to malaria, lactase persistence in
adult humans exposed to dairy.

On a more dramatic scale we get the discrete developmental changes
underlying external pouches of pocket gophers.

> The difference between a linear frame of reference and
> non-linear view isn't an easy transformation to take.

Without real world example yours is empty rhetoric. Stu Kauffman you're
not.

> It completely alters how the terms 'simple' and 'complex'
> are defined.
>
> Evolving systems reside near the 'messy middle' as
> the famous physicist Neil Turok recently said.
>
> So does complexity.
>
> Perimeter Lecture: Neil Turok on "The Astonishing Simplicity
> of Everything"
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/oct/03/perimeter-lecture-neil-turok-on-the-astonishing-simplicity-of-everything
>
>
>
>
> In a linear view we tend to complexity as a linear
> sliding scale from zero to infinite. So increasing
> complexity is merely analogous to being increasingly
> complicated.
>
> Complexity has...one minimum and...one maximum in a linear
> or input side frame of reference.
>
> simple >>>>>>>>>>> complex
>
>
> HOWEVER from a non-linear, output or behavioral frame
> simplicity has...TWO minimums and complexity...one maximum
>
> simple >>>>>>>> complex <<<<<<< simple
>
> As in...
>
> static >>>>>>>> dynamic <<<<<<< chaotic
> genetics >>>>>>>> evolution <<<<<<< natural selection

Where's drift? Or neutral alleles?

> laws >>>>>>>> democracy <<<<<<< freedom
> gravity >>>>>>>> universe <<<<<<< cosmic expansion
>
> The messy middle!
>
>
> Static behavior, as in a fixed rule or a solid is
> considered simple behavior as it can be described
> with very little information.

Or as Kauffman discussed in _At Home in the Universe_ the evolutionarily
stable state.

> Chaotic behavior, as in freedom or a gas is..also
> considered simple behavior for the same reason.
> For instance the simple gas law describes the
> behavior of a gas.

Or the red queen running in place.

Given your profound knowledge of advance maths and dynamic systems (such
as talk.origins), do you care to model a prediction on how long it will
take this thread to surpass 500 posts? Based on previous experience, my
intuitive guess is not long. Dr. Dr. threads tend to snowball. He is
like your grain of sand that creates an avalanche and transforms the
landscape.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/13/2015 02:50 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:08:07 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>
> Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

500+ posts here we come ;-)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:39:27 PM UTC-8, Dexter wrote:
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8,
> > wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan
> > > Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

<snip>

> ______________________________________________
>
> So, you're a physician and an engineer (big yawn).
>
> You've also told us in at least 5 posts what you're going
> to do. Why don't you just do it already?

The mathematics is straightforward but not trivial, take a look at my last post to jonathan where I've started doing the analysis. In that post I described how to identify the trials in the rmns phenomenon. Once you identify the trials and the possible outcomes for the trials, you can do the next step in the mathematics.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:44:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > The question is:
> > "Are birds descended from reptiles?"; not "Was the reptile population
> > transformed into a bird population by the rmns pehomemon?''

<snip>

> If you want to create new alleles, you need mutations,

Or panspermia, or a god to introduce the appropriate genes
or ...

> so for example if reptile scales are to be transformed into feathers, all the > genes involved need the appropriate mutations and selection

Yes, we know, you do not like selection. However, there are lots
of theories of evolution that do not involve selection.
The question remains "Are birds descended from reptiles?"
You are not claiming that birds cannot be descended from reptiles,
just claiming that one theory of how this might happen does not
work.

--
William Hughes

[*Hemidactylus*]

Be patient. We still have 500+ posts to go on this thread. How long
before Google Groups starts puking out thread breakers?

[TimR]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 1:46 PM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
> >
> Three years ago, actually. But the good Dr. seems to be starting from
> scratch again, without acknowledging the flaws in his argument that went
> unanswered the last time.
>

I always had this sneaky suspicion he posted with another login, Zoe.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/13/2015 02:41 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:49:26 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> <snip>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It is mathematically irrational to believe that a reptile population can be transformed into a bird population by the rmns phenomenon.
>>
>>
>> But that was not the question. The question is:
>> "Are birds descended from reptiles?"; not "Was the reptile population
>> transformed into a bird population by the rmns pehomemon?''
> If you want to create new alleles, you need mutations, so for example if reptile scales are to be transformed into feathers, all the genes involved need the appropriate mutations and selection is required to carry out this genetic transformation. If you know of some other way to create new alleles, let us know.

Hmmm..., I seem to remember a little something about unequal crossovers
resulting in gene duplications, where one gene then keeps its current
function as the other is free to diverge.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

On Friday, 13 November 2015 21:24:26 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:59:27 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 November 2015 20:39:24 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > > > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
> > >
> > > The multiplication rule of probabilities is what determines whether an evolutionary process has any reasonable probability of occurring. This is very commonly demonstrated with the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
> >
> > I, contrary to most other posters in this thread, wasn't familiar with your line of argumentation, but even without reading their posts this assertion would immediately have made me highly suspicious of your reasoning, for the exact same reason they raise: what makes you think it's a good model for all of evolution? I suspect it may be because you deal with drugs resistance on a daily basis as part of your work. You tell me. But at any rate, you need to show that this massive extrapolation is valid.
> The reason you are not familiar with this line of argumentation is that our educational system does not train student in the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. A good mathematical model of a physical phenomenon enables one to predict the behavior of the phenomenon. The model I will present to you governs every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns.

No, the reason is that they remember your previous stint on this site, while I joined only a few months ago.

> >
> > >Do you understand why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV when the use of single drug therapy gives resistant variants in days?
> > Yes.
> Explain your answer in detail because if you can do this correctly, you will demonstrate some understanding of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection.

If you just use one drug at a time, most viruses will die, but the few that don't (because they were preadapted) will quickly repopulate the patient's organism and form an almost entirely resistant population. Then you throw a second drug at them and the cycle begins anew, until you end up with a strain that is resistant to every known antibiotic.
With a combination of drugs, on the other hand, it becomes likely that, even given the huge number of viruses the patient harbours, none of them will happen to have the alleles that grant resistance to every component of the combination. This is the link to the multiplication rule. You don't allow them build up their resistance progressively.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It's not whether one likes or dislikes selection, it is whether one can explain correctly how random mutation and natural selection works. This gives the correct answer whether bird could have descended from reptiles. The correct explanation of rmns also shows how to deal with drug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds and how to create durable cancer treatments. William, what is the physical meaning of selection?
>
> --
> William Hughes

[Ernest Major]

That counts as a mutation. The boundary case would be intragenic
recombination.

Another source of new alleles in a population is sexual (gene flow - and
introgression) and non-sexual horizontal/lateral gene transfer.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Are you assuming that multiple, simultaneous mutations are required to
turn a reptile into a bird? Because the fossil record shows the gradual
accumulation of different birdlike characters in the lineage leading up
to them.

[James Beck]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:00:28 -0500, Carl Kaufmann <cwkau...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 2015-11-13 10:08, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>
>

>And which rule would that be? Please state it explicitly.

Pandora

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 5:19:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:04:25 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:44:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > > > The question is:
> > > > "Are birds descended from reptiles?"

> It's not whether one likes or dislikes selection, it is whether one can explain correctly how random mutation and natural selection
works. This gives the correct answer whether bird could have descended from reptiles.

No Knowing whether rmns is a viable theory
does not give the correct answer to whether birds could have descended from
reptiles. Perhaps rmns is a viable theory, but it so happens that
rmns did not happen. Perhaps rmns is not a viable theory, but birds
descended from reptiles in some other fashion.

--
William Hughes

[RSNorman]

The good Doctor Doctor previously demonstrated that he is quite
capable of running through several 1000+ posts on multiple threads.
The only surprise is that we egg him on to do that.

My guess is that soon he will unleash his tirade on evolutionists
teaching bad genetics to medical students so they overprescribe single
antibiotics resulting in bacterial resistance and the death of
millions upon millions of innocent victimis. All laid on our
doorstep.

There is a ratchet effect at work in biological systems that render
calculating probabilities by simple multiplication invalid; events are
not independent. This, by the way, is NOT "Muller's ratchet".

See, for example,

http://syntheticdaisies.blogspot.com/2013/02/ratchets-in-nature-short-review.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10816.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21698757
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/12/1510282112.abstract

http://www.ratclifflab.biology.gatech.edu/index_htm_files/Libby&Ratcliff%20Ratcheting.pdf
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1528/2405
(this last is cultural evolution)

And, of course, "Life's Ratchet" reviews at
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/lifes-ratchet-b.html

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:14:26 PM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> On Friday, 13 November 2015 21:24:26 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:59:27 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > > On Friday, 13 November 2015 20:39:24 UTC+1, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-8, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
> > > > > So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
> > > >
> > > > The multiplication rule of probabilities is what determines whether an evolutionary process has any reasonable probability of occurring. This is very commonly demonstrated with the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
> > >
> > > I, contrary to most other posters in this thread, wasn't familiar with your line of argumentation, but even without reading their posts this assertion would immediately have made me highly suspicious of your reasoning, for the exact same reason they raise: what makes you think it's a good model for all of evolution? I suspect it may be because you deal with drugs resistance on a daily basis as part of your work. You tell me. But at any rate, you need to show that this massive extrapolation is valid.
> > The reason you are not familiar with this line of argumentation is that our educational system does not train student in the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. A good mathematical model of a physical phenomenon enables one to predict the behavior of the phenomenon. The model I will present to you governs every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns.
>
> No, the reason is that they remember your previous stint on this site, while I joined only a few months ago.

There is nothing for them to remember because they never addressed my original arguments because they didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) the mathematics. What has changed since then is that my work is now peer reviewed and published. I'm here to see whether the closed minds of evolutionism can be pried open by the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection.

>
> > >
> > > >Do you understand why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV when the use of single drug therapy gives resistant variants in days?
> > > Yes.
> > Explain your answer in detail because if you can do this correctly, you will demonstrate some understanding of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection.
>
> If you just use one drug at a time, most viruses will die, but the few that don't (because they were preadapted) will quickly repopulate the patient's organism and form an almost entirely resistant population. Then you throw a second drug at them and the cycle begins anew, until you end up with a strain that is resistant to every known antibiotic.

The treatments for HIV do not kill the virus, they inhibit the reproduction of the virus. The treatments consist of protease inhibitors and reverse transcriptase inhibitors but selection pressures don't have to kill the replicator, inhibiting replication also will also impair an evolutionary process. You are correct that when single drug therapy is used, variants that have some degree of resistance to that single drug are still able to replicate and if those variants can replicate sufficiently, their numbers can increase so that further beneficial mutations can occur on variants further improving their fitness to replicate. Single drug therapy only requires a variant to follow a single trajectory on a fitness landscape.

> With a combination of drugs, on the other hand, it becomes likely that, even given the huge number of viruses the patient harbours, none of them will happen to have the alleles that grant resistance to every component of the combination. This is the link to the multiplication rule. You don't allow them build up their resistance progressively.

Roughly correct except that even with single drug therapy, evolving lineages must still deal with the multiplication rule of probabilities in order for the lineage to accumulate beneficial mutations. When using combination therapy, you are forcing the replicators to take multiple evolutionary trajectories simultaneously, you are imposing the multiplication rule of probabilities on the population two or more times when selection is acting at multiple genetic loci simultaneously. Consider that a good treatment for HIV can still leave the patient with 40-50 viral particles per ml blood. Try estimating the viral population size in a patient based on their total blood volume. That estimate will not include viruses outside the circulatory system.

[Jonathan]

On 11/13/2015 1:00 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 12:30 PM, jonathan wrote:

>> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication
>>> rule of probabilities.
>>>
>>
>>

>> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
>> relationships where cause and effect dominates.
>

> You are probably better off avoiding the vortex of Dr. Dr. We all are.

>
>> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
>> so linear probability doesn't apply.
>>

>> Nonlinear system
>> From Wikipedia,
>>
>> In physics and other sciences, a nonlinear system, in
>> contrast to a linear system, is a system which does not
>> satisfy the superposition principle – meaning that the
>> output of a nonlinear system is not directly proportional
>> to the input.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
>>
>>
>> For instance what is the probability of a falling
>> grain of sand being the one that starts the avalanche?
>
> Isn't the more important point in what happens after the grain initiates
> the sand flow? It's more likely that there will be a minor displacement
> of sand, but not improbable that there will be a major avalanche. This
> is something of a power law.
>
>> This is the statistical mathematical relationship
>> at the heart of evolution.
>
> Or there's more short-jumps than long jumps. I think Kaufman made this
> point in _At Home in the Universe_. As a matter of fact, upon recently
> re-reading this book I am struck by how humble and reasonable Kaufman's
> arguments were. And he seemed to focus more on Darwinian landscapes than
> actual meat and potatoes of self-organization. I found his observations
> based on N-K modeling interesting, such as being placed somewhere being
> Red Queen chaos and the order of evolutionary stable strategies. As for
> self-organization there's the textbook case of the micelle or lipid
> bilayer with hydrophobic and hydrophilic components. Selection can work
> with this but not create it.
>
> In fact modern complexity science draws from the same well as D'Arcy
> Thompson and Goethe well before. Nothing new there.
>
>> Self-organized criticality
>> From Wikipedia
>>
>> Self-organized criticality is one of a number of important
>> discoveries made in statistical physics and related fields
>> over the latter half of the 20th century, discoveries which
>> relate particularly to the study of complexity in nature.
>>
>> For example, the study of cellular automata, from the early
>> discoveries of Stanislaw Ulam and John von Neumann through
>> to John Conway's Game of Life and the extensive work of
>> Stephen Wolfram, made it clear that complexity could be
>> generated as an emergent feature of extended systems with
>> simple local interactions.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality
>
> Daniel Dennett (note the second "t") started his book _Freedom Evolves_
> with the basic foundations on Conway's Game of Life.
>
> It would be better if you gave us your own perspective on complexity
> than copy-paste from websites. I could do better reading Kaufman's _At
> Home in the Universe_ again or Gleick's _Chaos_. Or maybe some Mandelbrot.
>




Gleick's book did it for me. But the first thing that
caused me to be so interested in self-organization
is an experience when I first got on usenet.

I stumbled into a 'rebel' newsgroup in the nineties
when the legal character of the Internet was still
unclear and many were afraid of the free-for-all
aspects.

A dozen or so posters at this ng were thumbing their
noses at law enforcement in any way they could think of.
And they could think of some rather antagonistic ways
of getting their attention.

Their goal was complete internet freedom of speech
with no bounds at all. And their method was to
create the ability to be completely anonymous
and encrypted, while very publicly /pretending/
to be an 'underground ring' committing the most
horrible crimes.

It was the perhaps greatest Internet troll
of all.

Here's how they did it.

They /pretended/ to start an underground conspiracy to
commit certain heinous crimes, and then every day,
in the same ng bragged about it as vocally as possible.
Constantly ridiculing law enforcement's inability to
track them down and shut them up.

They also developed and posted an NG encryption faq
designed to teach how to elude law enforcement.

A rather effective one-two punch.

It quickly spun completely out of control and
turned into law enforcement panic.

This ng became a test case for law enforcement
to see if they could control Internet content.
Or if the terrorists and perverts of the world
would soon be running loose and straight into
everyone's living room.

Since they were so completely anonymous, the easiest
path for the LEA's was to infiltrate the group
by pretending to be sympathetic. But the regs
of the ng made it a requirement that to be part of
this 'underground conspiracy' the newcomers must pretend
to commit the same underground crimes and join in
with the ridicule of law enforcement impotence.

Of course that's no problem for an undercover agent.
But that set off a dynamic that was almost
incomprehensible.

One agency after another starting joining
in the hunt.

But you can't trace an undercover cop.

And that inability to find a real crime or bust
even one person despite massive efforts only
spurred them on.

They couldn't believe anyone would claim
to be committing serious crimes, risk so much
if they weren't doing...something illegal.

Even though it was in fact all a hoax.

So one Law enforcement agency after another
started pouring in their own entrapment
attempts. Pretty soon all the regs were cops
law enforcement completely took over the ng
but no one knew that, undercover cops don't
advertise their presence even to other agencies
around the world or among other states.

At one point there were more task forces
actively trying to shut this ng down then
there were regulars. Dozens of task forces
from all over the world.

Just one task force involved thirteen states
and four foreign nations. The FBI dedicated
a 100 /full time/ agents even setting up a desk
in every single FBI field office trying to
geographically isolate the source of each regular.

They even brought in CEOS, the world
satellite observing network to the task
and still the ng and pseudo-conspiracy
went on as always, even growing as time
went on.

Congress got involved and started passing laws.
In one year some 90 pieces of legislation was
proposed.

New York State started confiscating servers.
The state of Washington debated rescinding
their state Bill of Rights to pass retroactive
laws to get at these regulars/undercover cops.

MI-5 built a facility to store all Internet
traffic for seven years for possible future
retroactive enforcement once suitable laws
were passed. The NSA wrote the carnivore program
to search emails to get at this 'underground
conspiracy'.

Still, the ng went on as always.

You can't bust an undercover agent, hence their
frustration in busting even one person. And none
of the various agencies knew who was who, and
who wasn't.

Finally the US Justice Dept realized this and started
a task force to /coordinate all the task forces/
going after this newsgroup.

It comprised 60 task forces and some 3000 separate
law enforcement agencies.

Every time I commented to that ng my feet
and hands literally shook in fear.

I countered that by not being anon at all, but
quite open as to my identity and using only
Web TV so all my activity was easily monitored
and traced.

Finally, they realized the only way
to defeat dedicated encryption was
to forget about it, try another way and
BAN all adult speech on the internet
instead of going after individuals.

The largest single attempt to silence
free speech in American history was
PASSED by Congress and signed into
law by Clinton. Any adult speech became a
federal offense with a five year mandatory
minimum sentence first offense, each offense.
Even a four letter word.

Called the Communications Decency Act.


Communications Decency Act
From Wikipedia,

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), also known
by some legislators as the "Great Internet Sex Panic of 1995",
was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress
to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997,
in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the
United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency
provisions of the Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act



When the US Supreme Court famously overturned
this law, it gave the Internet First Amendment
Protection for the first, and all time.

A glorious outcome! Essentially spreading the
freedoms of the US to much of the world.

After the decision, the ng simply went away
for lack of interest.

And one of the most interesting aspects is
that to this day, all the original regulars
that started this 'life of it's own' are
still unknown, even to each other, due to the
urgency of staying anon no matter what.

No one will ever know who they were.
No one can know.

Such is the character of Creation!
The perfect storm!

And ever since then I've been studying
the mathematics of panics to understand
how it happened, how it all happens.



Jonathan



"I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us — don’t tell!
They ’d banish us, you know."



~By E Dickinson






s

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think reflexively that all creationists (and crypto poseurs) think in
terms of limited sorts of point mutation. Every change is a mutation I
guess on different scales. But we are left with these gene families like
the Hox clusters that came from multiple rounds of
duplication-divergence (in the sense of Susumu* Ohno)

And not sure how random mutation as Dr. Dr. argues is. I recall some
biasing at base level:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transversion

And some regions of chromosomes are "hotter" than others.

There's some randomness is regards to the beneficial outcome for the
organismal POV, but I guess at some point everything is determined, if
not overdetermined.

> Another source of new alleles in a population is sexual (gene flow - and
> introgression) and non-sexual horizontal/lateral gene transfer.

I was going to say something about bacteria sharing plasmids but deleted
it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid-mediated_resistance

If we are talking about plain old genetic changes in organisms there are
endogenous retrovirus and retrotransposons, but these might not result
in beneficial outcomes to host, merely to themselves. Ed Steele had
incorporated these sorts of vectors in his theory about the evolution of
immunity in _Lamarck's Signature_ years ago.

The immune system itself is interesting (thanks to Susumu* Tonegawa) in
its curious ontogenetic mutation-selection process as a means to
advantage in the arms race against antigen possessing microbes. There's
shuffling events and point mutational events that generate diversity,
where on the other side bacteria share plasmids and viruses like HIV
change quickly at rates well surpassing the life time of the host.

*-Susumu is a really cool name :-)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

We'll deal with recombination after we finish the explanation of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. Until then, something for you to consider is that HIV does recombination yet this phenomenon has no significant effect on the evolution of drug resistance. There is a mathematical explanation for this.

[Ernest Major]

On 13/11/2015 22:10, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> There is nothing for them to remember because they never addressed my original arguments because they didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) the mathematics. What has changed since then is that my work is now peer reviewed and published. I'm here to see whether the closed minds of evolutionism can be pried open by the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection.

If your work is now peer reviewed and published why have you failed to
provide us with a citation?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:54:28 PM UTC-8, James Beck wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:00:28 -0500, Carl Kaufmann

> wrote:
>
> >On 2015-11-13 10:08, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >>
> >
> >And which rule would that be? Please state it explicitly.
>
> Pandora

I already posted this response to Carl but here it is again for you James,

If A and B are events in a sample space S and P(A) ≠ 0 and P(B) ≠ 0, then
P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B|A) = P(B)P(A|B)
If the events A and B are such that P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B) they are called independent events.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/13/15 10:33 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

>> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote in
>> news:e0397a20-991b-4fd2...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:29:29 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

>>>> On 11/13/15 7:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the
>>>>> multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>>>>

>>>> Whoa. I remember this guy.
>>>>
>>>> The need to put "MD PhD" after your name indicates a deep insecurity.
>>>
>>> John, if I remember correctly, you are the one who claimed that when
>>> you double the population size, you double the probability that a
>>> beneficial mutation will occur. Oh yes, my deep insecurity drove me to
>>> be licensed in both medicine and engineering. Are you finally ready to
>>> learn how to do this mathematics correctly?
>>
>> Shouldn't you learn how to write grammatical English before you attempt to
>> teach other people how to do maths?

>
> I promise to try and improve my grammar if you try to improve your
> mathematical skills.

If you are who I remember, your own math skills are less than nonexistent.

Hint: If your math says, "X cannot happen", and X happens, it is not the
fault of X.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[*Hemidactylus*]

Will we be dealing with recombination within the next 1000-2000 posts?

[*Hemidactylus*]

???

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.6307/abstract

???

[Mark Isaak]

As I recall, it was genetic drift he did not like. By pretending it did
not exist, his math became much easier. Hopelessly wrong, but easier.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/13/2015 01:57 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:

> On 11/13/2015 1:46 PM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
>> So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of
>> evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
>>

> Three years ago, actually. But the good Dr. seems to be starting from
> scratch again, without acknowledging the flaws in his argument that went
> unanswered the last time.
>

> Chief among these was why repeated catastrophic selection - his example
> is a pathogen in the presence of antibiotics - is an appropriate model
> for all of evolution. But there were so many more.

Alan Kleinman, Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance,
Statistics in Medicine, 2015, 34, 11, 1977

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.6429/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.6307/abstract

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Every evolutionary process done by the rmns phenomenon must overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities. If the selection pressure targets only a single genetic locus then the evolutionary process must only overcome the multiplication rule one at a time, if selection is targeting multiple genetic loci simultaneously, then every genetic locus has it's own multiplication rule to deal with. The probabilities drop off multiplicatively for every genetic locus targeted by selection.

Your interpretation of the fossil record is not in agreement with the basic science and mathematics of the rmns phenomenon nor with all the empirical evidence given by every real, measurable and repeatable of rmns.

[Rolf]

"Alan Kleinman MD PhD" <klei...@sti.net> skrev i melding
news:087793d6-b967-48cc...@googlegroups.com...
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule
> of probabilities.
>

Am I right when I assume we agree that evolution is a fact and that the
history of life on this planet is as well described by science as current
knowledge allows?

I come to think of the parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/13/15 11:38 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:59:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 1:46 PM, The Masked Lapavenger wrote:
>>> So, when do we get to see your demonstration that the theory of
>>> evolution is incompatible with the multiplication rule of probabilities?
>>>
>> Three years ago, actually. But the good Dr. seems to be starting from
>> scratch again, without acknowledging the flaws in his argument that went
>> unanswered the last time.

> I have to start from scratch because you didn't get it the first time around.

>>
>> Chief among these was why repeated catastrophic selection - his example
>> is a pathogen in the presence of antibiotics - is an appropriate model
>> for all of evolution. But there were so many more.

> What determines when selection becomes catastrophic? In order to
> answer this question correctly, you need to correctly describe how
> the rmns phenomenon works when selection is not catastrophic.

Any halfway decent textbook on population genetics should answer that
question for you, as well as inform you on numerous other relevant points.

The question is, are you interested in learning? Or have you convinced
yourself that you know everything already.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are you this repetitive in your published articles?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

rmns certainly does occur, I have to deal with the consequences of this phenomenon in my medical practice. And the key to understanding how drug resistance microbes, herbicide resistant weed and why cancer treatments fail requires understanding the basic science and mathematics of the random mutation and natural selection phenomenon. But this phenomenon can not transform a reptile population into a bird population.

[Dexter]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> On 11/13/2015 03:34 PM, Dexter wrote:

> > Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >

> > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-8,
> > > wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-4,

> > > > Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > > > > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is

> > > > > the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> > > >

> > > > Oh, the doctor doctor is back. It should be noted
> > > > that his argument (which is only slightly more
> > > > sophisticated that the usual tornado in a junkyard
> > > > making a 747) is an argument against evolution by
> > > > natural selection, not an argument against
> > > > evolution and that he himself does not understand
> > > > the distinction.
> > > I say and post many things but I have never argued
> > > against "evolution", my argument is against the
> > > theory of evolution. And what I will do here is give
> > > you a mathematically precise definition of how
> > > evolution by rmns phenomenon operates. And this
> > > mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and
> > > repeatable examples of rmns. Once you understand
> > > this, you will start to understand why the theory of
> > > evolution is not true.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Dr^2 position on evolution is unclear. He will
> > > > not say if he thinks reptiles are the ancestors of
> > > > birds, only that the needed gene changes could not
> > > > happen through natural selection. He believes in
> > > > "common descent" but it turns out that he has his
> > > > own idiosyncratic definition of the term.

> > > It is mathematically irrational to believe that a

> > > reptile population can be transformed into a bird
> > > population by the rmns phenomenon. I will give you a
> > > mathematically precise definition of how "common
> > > descent" is associated with the rmns phenomenon. But
> > > first, we will go through the preliminaries before we
> > > start doing the mathematics in detail.
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > So, you're a physician and an engineer (big yawn).
> >
> > You've also told us in at least 5 posts what you're
> > going to do. Why don't you just do it already?
>
> Be patient. We still have 500+ posts to go on this
> thread. How long before Google Groups starts puking out
> thread breakers?

______________________________________________

Yet another MD/PhD (An engineer, too. What a surprise.)
who thinks this qualifies him to expound on areas well
outside his expertise. And why is it that so often
engineers believe they're uniquely qualified to overturn
the theory that undergirds all of biology?



--
- There is no harm in being a fool; harm lies in being a
fool at the top of your lungs. (Author Unknown)

[Jonathan]

On 11/13/2015 3:52 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-8, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 1:04 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-8, jonathan wrote:

>>>> On 11/13/2015 10:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Algebra? Evolution doesn't always follow simple linear
>>>> relationships where cause and effect dominates.
>>>>

>>>> Change in an evolving system is non-linear in character
>>>> so linear probability doesn't apply.
>>

>>> Probability theory is linear?????? jonathan, what is the probability of
>>> rolling two 1's with the roll of two dice? What is the probability of
>>> rolling three 1's with the roll of three dice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are the dice fair and independent of each other?


> Let's assume that the dice are independent of each other, on the
> other hand, it doesn't matter whether the dice are fair.
> The joint probability of rolling two 1's is going to be the
> product of the two individual probabilities and the joint probability
> of rolling three 1's is again going to be the product of the three
> individual probabilities. If it so happens that they are fair dice,
> the joint probabilities for the two examples will be (1/6)^2 and (1/6)^3
> respectively, both non-linear relationships. Probability theory is
> inherently nonlinear because of the multiplication rule of probabilities.



Non-linear dynamics takes the form of a feedback loop
where the output is fed back into the input over-and-over.

On the blackboard one can assume there is no error
and complete independence of the variable. But in
the real world neither of those has happened even once
in the entire universe, and never will.

Even an tiny error in /each iteration/ can cause an
function to diverge to infinity, or converge to zero
over time.

Each 'roll of the dice' can produce results that span
the possibilities. Non-linear or critical behavior
would be best seen in the analogy of the Mona-Lisa
smile, where each observer would tend to see different
things.




>> Please review the link I provided about non-linear dynamics.
>> I'm not talking about non-linear equations, but dynamics.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
>>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I was wondering if our graduate student of probability theory was still here. If I remember correctly, you almost got the mathematics of random recombination right. Tell us what happens if a population has to have two or more ratchet effects at work simultaneously? It's not difficult to compute the probabilities of multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously, that is not difficult if you can write the probability equation for a single selection pressure.

Oh, and by the way, the teaching of the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection is nonexistent in our educational system.
<snip>

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Perhaps you'll tell us what it is about your theory that
constrains the descent of birds from /reptiles/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
will get you there

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I've already touched on this in this discussion but whether I do the mathematics soon will depend on how long it takes for you to learn the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. If you are really in a hurry, ask RSNorman how to do this mathematics because I showed him how to do this several years ago in previous discussions.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

There you go

[RonO]

On 11/13/2015 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

Unfortunately for you that only applies to independent events. Think
about it. Why did Dembski's test fail when the assumption was
independent events that occurred all at once. The tornado through a
junkyard claims are bogus. Just ask Behe. He claims that the flagellum
is IC because of a specific order of unselected steps and how well
matched the interacting parts have to be, but he hasn't determined a
single unselected step for the creation of the flagellum and he doesn't
have a working definition of well matched. Behe and Dembski understand
that the evolution of these systems is not due to independent events.
Evolution keeps building on what came before.

It is exactly the argument for why you exist when it is so improbable
that all your ancestors existed. The simple fact is that if your
ancestors had not existed you would not exist and the probability is a
lot more likely than you can calculate if you expected independent events.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I do know the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. Are you interested in learning?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:34:25 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

You need some memory help Mark, I showed you how drift works using Thomas Schneider's EV computer program.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The constraint is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Once you understand the basic science and mathematics or random mutation and natural selection, this constraint becomes obvious.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I've had to deal with drug resistant microbes for years and this is due to the failure of biologist to correctly describe the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. Engineers are highly trained in mathematics as well. Read the papers I've published and learn how rmns operates.

[RonO]

On 11/13/2015 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>

It looks like the reason you are still posting junk like this is because
you haven't posted since 2012.

This is a short summary of what has happened to IDiocy in the last
decade or so. I can get you references if you want them.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/-F7DNhzSLlw/ojcpYzJfAwAJ

The ID perps at the Discovery Institute really have started a couple God
and IDiocy web sites in the last year or so. They now have claims up
like theistic evolution is as bad as atheism linked to from those web
sites.

The last bait and switch occurred in 2013 on both Louisiana and Texas
IDiots that wanted to put IDiocy into textbook supplements, and the ID
perps did remove the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools from their education policy statement that
same year.

Catch up and don't get left behind.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:34:26 PM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> >
>
> Unfortunately for you that only applies to independent events. Think
> about it. Why did Dembski's test fail when the assumption was
> independent events that occurred all at once. The tornado through a
> junkyard claims are bogus. Just ask Behe. He claims that the flagellum
> is IC because of a specific order of unselected steps and how well
> matched the interacting parts have to be, but he hasn't determined a
> single unselected step for the creation of the flagellum and he doesn't
> have a working definition of well matched. Behe and Dembski understand
> that the evolution of these systems is not due to independent events.
> Evolution keeps building on what came before.

As long as mutations are random independent events, the multiplication rule of probabilities will apply for computing the joint probabilities of these events occurring. You just have to be able to recognize how population sizes, mutation rates and generations affect these probabilities.

>
> It is exactly the argument for why you exist when it is so improbable
> that all your ancestors existed. The simple fact is that if your
> ancestors had not existed you would not exist and the probability is a
> lot more likely than you can calculate if you expected independent events.
>

It is not difficult to compute the probabilities of beneficial mutations accumulating through a lineage of common descent. And the accumulation of these beneficial mutations is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Adherents to the theory of evolution are slow to learn the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionists have some catching up to do.

[John Harshman]

So, same as the last time. You just repeat your mantras no matter what
anyone says.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:49:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

The question is:
"Are birds descended from reptiles?"

> rmns certainly does occur

Irrelevant. The question is whether species change by rmns is a viable
theory.

Knowing whether species change by rmns is a viable theory
does not give the correct answer to whether birds descended from
reptiles. Perhaps species change by rmns is a viable theory,
but it so happens that species change by rmns did not happen.
Perhaps species change by rmns is not a viable theory, but birds

descended from reptiles in some other fashion.

-William Hughes

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John, some mantras are true. Doesn't drug resistance occur by rmns? Don't cancer treatments fail due to rmns? In October, I was co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. Many of the oncologists have no idea how selection works and what to do when their cancer treatment fails. This is a stark failure of the field of biology to correctly describe the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. When you are ready to listen, I'll do the mathematics for you and correlate the mathematics with the empirical evidence. Perhaps you will be the first evolutionary biologist who actually understands how the rmns phenomenon operates.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What I can tell you with mathematical certainty is that rmns can not transform reptiles into birds. And it is the responsibility of biologist to correctly describe how the rmns phenomenon operates. There are far to many societal problems (drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, failure of cancer treatment) due to the rmns phenomenon for the phenomenon not to be properly understood. But apparently evolutionists do not want to understand this phenomenon because it counters your belief system.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:24:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:29:25 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Will we be dealing with recombination within the next 1000-2000 posts?
>
>I've already touched on this in this discussion but whether I do the mathematics soon will depend on how long it takes for you to learn the basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. If you are really in a hurry, ask RSNorman how to do this mathematics because I showed him how to do this several years ago in previous discussions.

The good doctor doctor forgets how I demonstrated his numerous errors.
There were literally many thousands of posts in that historic era
about all this and we seem doomed simply to repeat all that once more.

[RonO]

All not true. Just think what kind of argument that you would have if
you could claim independent events and make it stick.

What happened to the ISCID if what you claim could possibly be true?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

With the demise of the ID Network and the ISCID we both know who the
slow learner is. Why be in such denial that reality can't penetrate?

Why did the ID network give up if what you claim could be demonstrated?
Why did the ISCID die? You can't even access their IDiot journal
because they had their web page set up so that Wayback could not archive
the site.

The ID perps really did remove the statement that they had a scientific

theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy

statement. I can give you the links if you need them.

The creationist scams passed you by years ago.

Ron Okimoto

[Inez]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:54:31 PM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:34:26 PM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > On 11/13/2015 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately for you that only applies to independent events. Think
> > about it. Why did Dembski's test fail when the assumption was
> > independent events that occurred all at once. The tornado through a
> > junkyard claims are bogus. Just ask Behe. He claims that the flagellum
> > is IC because of a specific order of unselected steps and how well
> > matched the interacting parts have to be, but he hasn't determined a
> > single unselected step for the creation of the flagellum and he doesn't
> > have a working definition of well matched. Behe and Dembski understand
> > that the evolution of these systems is not due to independent events.
> > Evolution keeps building on what came before.
> As long as mutations are random independent events, the multiplication rule of probabilities will apply for computing the joint probabilities of these events occurring.<

For them occurring simultaneously, not at all. If a failure to mutate is not lethal then there's no trouble.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:39:28 PM UTC-8, RSNorman wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:24:06 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You would have posted my numerous errors if you could but you can't. The difference now is this work is now peer reviewed and published. You would think that with your graduate level studies in probability theory that you would understand this mathematics. It only requires an introductory course in probability theory to understand the rmns phenomenon as does the mathematics of random recombination. Are you having trouble remembering when I showed you how to do the mathematics of random recombination? I did that to show you why despite the fact the HIV does recombination that it has no effect on the evolution of drug resistance. I'm pretty sure that I can find these posts. That mathematics was peer reviewed and published as well.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Ron, random mutations are independent events and the joint probability of any of these events occurring will always be governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities. You are stuck with that mathematical and empirical fact of life.

I don't know what ISCID is.

[Steve]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:41:43 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 11/13/2015 5:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:34:26 PM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2015 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> The reason the theory of evolution is not true is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you that only applies to independent events. Think
>>> about it. Why did Dembski's test fail when the assumption was
>>> independent events that occurred all at once. The tornado through a
>>> junkyard claims are bogus. Just ask Behe. He claims that the flagellum
>>> is IC because of a specific order of unselected steps and how well
>>> matched the interacting parts have to be, but he hasn't determined a
>>> single unselected step for the creation of the flagellum and he doesn't
>>> have a working definition of well matched. Behe and Dembski understand
>>> that the evolution of these systems is not due to independent events.
>>> Evolution keeps building on what came before.
>> As long as mutations are random independent events, the multiplication rule of probabilities will apply for computing the joint probabilities of these events occurring. You just have to be able to recognize how population sizes, mutation rates and generations affect these probabilities.
>>>
>>> It is exactly the argument for why you exist when it is so improbable
>>> that all your ancestors existed. The simple fact is that if your
>>> ancestors had not existed you would not exist and the probability is a
>>> lot more likely than you can calculate if you expected independent events.
>>>
>> It is not difficult to compute the probabilities of beneficial mutations accumulating through a lineage of common descent. And the accumulation of these beneficial mutations is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Is your argument that the accumulation of a particular set of
mutations that turns, say, a group of reptiles into birds, is
extremely improbable? This is true but irrelevant since evolution
doesn't have a goal of producing birds or anything else. Similarly a
particular order of a shuffled deck of cards is extremely unlikely,
but shuffle a deck as many times as you like and you get one of those
extremely unlikely orders every time.