Evolutionists and Antibiotic Resistance

[Bill Rogers]

Among Dr.Dr.Kleinman MD,PhD's stranger claims is the claim that evolutionists, by misunderstanding "rmns," have caused the spread of antibiotic resistance and the failure of cancer chemotherapy, by advocating monotherapies, or by not advocating combination therapies.

That's very strange. On the one hand Dr.Dr. thinks that evolutionists vastly overestimate the ability of "rmns" to produce phenotypic change, mocking the "scales to feathers crowd." On the other hand, he seems to think that the same people who attribute, in his mind, miraculous powers to "rmns," vastly *underestimate* its ability to produce drug resistance.

And that's even stranger given that the evolution of drug resistance is a canonical example of selection, taught in any evolutionary biology course. It's also something that anyone who's worked in molecular biology has observed daily when doing transfection and cloning experiments. Typical selection protocols can involve selection of doubly resistant transfectants, too. So somehow, all these biologists who work with singly and multiply resistant strains of bacteria in the lab, and who attribute speciation and large phenotypic changes to "rmns" never noticed that patients treated with antibiotics might yield antibiotic resistant bacteria?

And it's an even stranger claim, given that medical textbooks back in the 1980's were already teaching the "multiplication rule of probabilities" as a rationale for combination antibiotic therapy.

Clinicians may have been slow to adopt combination therapies, but if so, it certainly was not because some evolutionary biologist told them not to worry about the evolution of drug resistance.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

It seems that Dr.Kleinman is woefully misinformed on a great many levels.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:25:04 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> Among Dr.Dr.Kleinman MD,PhD's stranger claims is the claim that evolutionists, by misunderstanding "rmns," have caused the spread of antibiotic resistance and the failure of cancer chemotherapy, by advocating monotherapies, or by not advocating combination therapies.

You apparently are not aware of Jawetz's work on antibiotic antagonism and synergism that still has significant influence in the training of physicians and the pressure to use single drug therapy. The cliche of "don't use bacteriostatic and bacteriocidal drugs together" is still a common phrase used. Your lack of clinical medical experience restricts your ability to draw any reasonable conclusions about antibiotic protocols.

>
> That's very strange. On the one hand Dr.Dr. thinks that evolutionists vastly overestimate the ability of "rmns" to produce phenotypic change, mocking the "scales to feathers crowd." On the other hand, he seems to think that the same people who attribute, in his mind, miraculous powers to "rmns," vastly *underestimate* its ability to produce drug resistance.

Anyone here want to explain how reptiles can grow wings and feathers by rmns? Anyone here want to explain how antibiotic resistance occurs?

>
> And that's even stranger given that the evolution of drug resistance is a canonical example of selection, taught in any evolutionary biology course. It's also something that anyone who's worked in molecular biology has observed daily when doing transfection and cloning experiments. Typical selection protocols can involve selection of doubly resistant transfectants, too. So somehow, all these biologists who work with singly and multiply resistant strains of bacteria in the lab, and who attribute speciation and large phenotypic changes to "rmns" never noticed that patients treated with antibiotics might yield antibiotic resistant bacteria?

I've never met a biologist, student of biology, physician or anyone in a related field who understands how rmns works. But if you think than rmns works in some kind of non-canonical manner, go for it, let's hear your explanation.

>
> And it's an even stranger claim, given that medical textbooks back in the 1980's were already teaching the "multiplication rule of probabilities" as a rationale for combination antibiotic therapy.

You can go back to the 1950's and find Edward Tatum's Nobel Laureate lecture where he correctly described the main governing principle of rmns. I understand that the medical system can be very slow to change and I attribute this to the failure of the physician training in the basic sciences. But 30 years slow?

>
> Clinicians may have been slow to adopt combination therapies, but if so, it certainly was not because some evolutionary biologist told them not to worry about the evolution of drug resistance.

What evolutionary biologist ever correctly described how rmns works? You can easily see your confusion on the subject. You try to use the mathematics of survival of the fittest to describe rmns.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hey Bill, you got a tiger supporting you. A tiger who has no idea how reptiles grow feathers and wings but he knows they do it. This tiger is obviously a typical biologist with no idea how rmns works.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You have never posted the actual calculations behind your theory. Not even once.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I've posted the math many times. I actually derived the equations here on TO about 5-6 years ago before I wrote the papers and published the work. You are just a newbie and haven't seen the equations posted recently. And all the math is correlated with real empirical examples of rmns. I posted the links to the papers "Kleinman confuses probability with informal statistics" thread. You really need to rethink your interpretation of the fossil record and consider the mechanisms of genetic transformation.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:25:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 8:25:04 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > > > Among Dr.Dr.Kleinman MD,PhD's stranger claims is the claim that evolutionists, by misunderstanding "rmns," have caused the spread of antibiotic resistance and the failure of cancer chemotherapy, by advocating monotherapies, or by not advocating combination therapies.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's very strange. On the one hand Dr.Dr. thinks that evolutionists vastly overestimate the ability of "rmns" to produce phenotypic change, mocking the "scales to feathers crowd." On the other hand, he seems to think that the same people who attribute, in his mind, miraculous powers to "rmns," vastly *underestimate* its ability to produce drug resistance.
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's even stranger given that the evolution of drug resistance is a canonical example of selection, taught in any evolutionary biology course. It's also something that anyone who's worked in molecular biology has observed daily when doing transfection and cloning experiments. Typical selection protocols can involve selection of doubly resistant transfectants, too. So somehow, all these biologists who work with singly and multiply resistant strains of bacteria in the lab, and who attribute speciation and large phenotypic changes to "rmns" never noticed that patients treated with antibiotics might yield antibiotic resistant bacteria?
> > > > >
> > > > > And it's an even stranger claim, given that medical textbooks back in the 1980's were already teaching the "multiplication rule of probabilities" as a rationale for combination antibiotic therapy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clinicians may have been slow to adopt combination therapies, but if so, it certainly was not because some evolutionary biologist told them not to worry about the evolution of drug resistance.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that Dr.Kleinman is woefully misinformed on a great many levels.
> > > Hey Bill, you got a tiger supporting you. A tiger who has no idea how reptiles grow feathers and wings but he knows they do it. This tiger is obviously a typical biologist with no idea how rmns works.
> >
> > You have never posted the actual calculations behind your theory. Not even once.
> I've posted the math many times.

No, you have not. You can't even post a link to the actual calculations.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Check those links in the "Kleinman confuses probability with informal statistics" thread, they have the full derivations of the equations, peer-reviewed and published. You won't understand the math if you don't understand introductory probability theory. I suspect you don't because anyone who understands introductory probability theory will understand why it is ridiculous to believe that reptiles grow feathers and wings.

[erik simpson]

That's as lame as Peter Nyikos' endless back references to back references.
Post them now, and we can all see what you've got.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are a space scientist, let's see if you can derive the equations yourself. Hint: The first step in the derivation is to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring in a single replication.

[erik simpson]

You've graduated from being a boring crank to a full-bore troll. Show us what
you've got, if you're not afraid of eating some feathered reptile.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I'm not interested in spoon-feeding a space scientist. If you want to see the equations this time, you will have to derive them yourself. I've already described how to do the first two steps of the derivation. Now if you understand introductory probability theory, do the math yourself and prove yourself as a hard mathematical scientist.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <32308f4d-09f9-4593...@googlegroups.com>,

No one is disputing that you've posted your equations, and full
derivations of those equations is hardly necessary since they're just
simple grade 10 math.

What you haven't posted despite repeated requests is actual calculations
using those equations which supports your claim that various experiments
obey your math.

That means showing that your equations are capable of making numerical
predictions about any of the experiments which you have referenced which
actually match the outcomes of those experiments. Moreover, you need to
show that these equations predict something about those experiments
which is not predicted by existing evolutionary theories.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <32308f4d-09f9-4593...@googlegroups.com>,

Tell that to fraidy cat. And I do agree, the derivation of the equations only requires an understanding of the fundamentals of probability theory.

>
> What you haven't posted despite repeated requests is actual calculations
> using those equations which supports your claim that various experiments
> obey your math.

Plug in a mutation rate and you can see what number of replications are required for a reasonable probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. The fact that the colonies in the Kishony experiment are visible without magnification indicates that the number of replications is quite large for that event to occur. The Lenski experiment has many more replications per beneficial mutation but the vast majority of those replications were for lineages that are going extinct. It's the cost of natural selection in a competitive environment.

>
> That means showing that your equations are capable of making numerical
> predictions about any of the experiments which you have referenced which
> actually match the outcomes of those experiments. Moreover, you need to
> show that these equations predict something about those experiments
> which is not predicted by existing evolutionary theories.

When and if Kishony runs his experiment with two drugs this math predicts that it will require exponentially larger populations for the double beneficial mutation for each evolutionary step. For the single drug experiment and a mutation rate of e-8, it takes about e8 replications for each beneficial mutation. For the same mutation rate and two drugs, on the order of e16 replications will be required for the double beneficial mutation to occur. I don't think his mega-plate will be large enough to demonstrate the double-drug experiment. You can not do this prediction with the Haldane or Kimura models.

[jillery]

How clever of you, to jump the track from calculations to equations.

Yes, you have posted your equations.

No, you have never posted your calculations, meaning your equations
applied to real examples giving comparable results. Nor have you
posted any explanation of how your equations predict the outcomes of
the Lenksi and Kishony experiments.

There's a difference.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

Hay Kleinman, your probability argument that failed the scientific
creationists over 30 years ago wasn't rated as good as the "best"
evidence for IDiocy that also failed the scientific creationists over 30
years ago. Why didn't the old tornado through a junk yard probability
creationist argument make the grade by the creationist's own standards.
The ID perps have been working on this junk for over 22 years at the
IDiot think tank and they don't seem to think that incorrectly claiming
that biological evolution is a series of independent events is the way
to go. It may be due to the fact that biological evolution is not a
series of independent events and that life forms evolve from what
already exists.

So why aren't you upset with the ID perps? Why aren't you telling the
world how wrong the ID perps are? Why aren't you wallowing in the
greatness of the gift that they have given you? Didn't you want to know
the best evidence for IDiocy? Better, why aren't you demonstrating that
they are wrong in rating your junk lower than the other known
creationist failures. Shouldn't you be doing some sort of comparative
analysis with the other known creationist failures? Really, why was
your probability argument rated lower than abiogenesis denial and fossil
gap no transitional fossil creationist denial?

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 21Mar 2018, Andre G. Isaak wrote
(in article<agisaak-CB8FBC...@news.eternal-september.org>):

And he never will.

[Wolffan]

On 21Mar 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<a3652b11-3c77-4aa0...@googlegroups.com>):

And here he is in Full Emergency Dodge Mode. No calculations in sight, but
plenty of excuses.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:57:12 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Apparently not.

>> That means showing that your equations are capable of making numerical
>> predictions about any of the experiments which you have referenced which
>> actually match the outcomes of those experiments. Moreover, you need to
>> show that these equations predict something about those experiments
>> which is not predicted by existing evolutionary theories.
>>
>> Andre
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:25:04 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:57:12 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Plug in a mutation rate and population size and out pops the probability for a particular mutation occurring. It's that easy.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Do you still think that mutations are not random independent events?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> On 21Mar 2018, Andre G. Isaak wrote
> (in article<agisaak-CB8FBC...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> > In article<32308f4d-09f9-4593...@googlegroups.com>,

Been there, done that. For the Kishony experiment, plug in the mutation rate and you get that probability of a beneficial mutation as a function of population size. And it works the same for all examples of rmns. It's simple algebra, as Bill Rogers says, the mathematics is juvenile, that's how easy it is.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:

Obviously, you haven't read the papers I've published on the subject. All the numbers have been crunched and the probability curves plotted for single selection pressures and multiple simultaneous selection pressures as a function of mutation rate. The math is very easy. Do I need to spoon feed you?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Then show the calculations. You should already have them.

[Wolffan]

On 22Mar 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<efd7f326-b91f-4287...@googlegroups.com>):

Excellent. Show the actual, real, calculations.

[jillery]

Of course, if it were really that easy, then you should have no
problem doing it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The first link gives a description of the mathematics for those not trained in the mathematics of probability theory, that's you.
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
The following link gives the derivation and application of the mathematics for a single selection pressure targeting a single gene. The Weinreich paper, "Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins" was used as the example for the derivation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
The following link gives the derivation and application for multiple selection pressures targeting multiple genes simultaneously using Bill Rogers' paper "Failure of artesunate-mefloquine combination therapy for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in southern Cambodia" as the empirical model for this paper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
The following paper gives the derivation and application of the mathematics of recombination using hiv as the empirical example.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25645658
Read and understand these papers and then you will understand why reptiles cannot turn into birds despite your misinterpretation of the fossil record.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

[Bill Rogers]

It's sort of funny that you are single-handedly trying to save the world from the ineffective monotherapies supposedly advocated by evolutionists who don't understand "rmns," and yet you can't be bothered to set up your own website where you could show drafts of your papers without a paywall, or show the detailed numerical results of your model applied to specific experiments, or even to the evolution of birds from non-avian dinosaurs. Inevitably it creates the impression that there's no there there.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It's not my job to save the world. You could read my papers for 6 bucks, about the same amount you pay every morning for your coffee and learn how rmns works. But even then, I've posted the mathematics numerous times here on TO, I even did the original derivation of the math here on TO. But when you have full timers like you who are arrogant and unteachable and content to live off the back of taxpayers, what website would convince you? You suck as a physician and you suck as a researcher and your understanding of evolution is confused and wrong which explains why you don't write papers on durable treatments for malaria. Anyone with a spreadsheet could do a detailed numerical result for any experiment on rmns. You should try it for your work on malaria.

[Bill Rogers]

I'm not in the least offended that you tell me I'm confused or that I suck as a clinician or researcher. But that you think I'm fool enough to spend $6 on coffee every morning - now that really hurts.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

There you go, you have finally found your calling as a comedian.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>There you go, you have finally found your calling as a comedian.

Of course, your's is a doubles act. He's the straight-man, you're the
babbling fool.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 9:05:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >There you go, you have finally found your calling as a comedian.
>
>
> Of course, your's is a doubles act. He's the straight-man, you're the
> babbling fool.

I'm sure Bill's fan club is laughing all the way to the grave with their drug-resistant infections.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I'm sure Bill's fan club is laughing all the way to the grave with their drug-resistant infections.

Sight unseen, I bet Bill's fan club has no more drug-resistant
infections than the choir to which you preach.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure Bill's fan club is laughing all the way to the grave with their drug-resistant infections.
>
>
> Sight unseen, I bet Bill's fan club has no more drug-resistant
> infections than the choir to which you preach.

Read his paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628668/ where he failed to find a durable treatment for malaria. Bill didn't even have enough sense to understand how he biased his selection conditions for his study. If Bill was a good clinical physician, he would have been interested in which of his patients got multidrug-resistant infections and why. But he squandered the opportunity.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure Bill's fan club is laughing all the way to the grave with their drug-resistant infections.
>>
>>
>> Sight unseen, I bet Bill's fan club has no more drug-resistant
>> infections than the choir to which you preach.
>Read his paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628668/ where he failed to find a durable treatment for malaria. Bill didn't even have enough sense to understand how he biased his selection conditions for his study. If Bill was a good clinical physician, he would have been interested in which of his patients got multidrug-resistant infections and why. But he squandered the opportunity.

Non-sequiturs "R" Allie.

[Wolffan]

On 23Mar 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<75ee57b5-d5c3-4156...@googlegroups.com>):

and none of then give any actual calculations. You have failed to show your
work.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You haven't been paying attention to my posts for very long. Bill knows and understands the math from previous posts. He even called the mathematics juvenile. I laugh because this math only requires an understanding of introductory probability theory and should have long ago been explained by biologists but sadly it has not. If Bill had understood this math previously, he might have made some headway with his drug resistance problem and malaria. But instead, Bill focused on the mathematics of survival of the fittest which does not describe the improvement in fitness which is what malaria is doing when it evolves resistance to drugs. It is one of several key blunders Bill has made in his attempt to understand evolution.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:00:12 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>:

Watch; he'll change "calculations" to "the math", and think
you'll miss the fact that they're different things.
--

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

[Wolffan]

On 24Mar 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<20ebac4b-89d4-42c1...@googlegroups.com>):

You have still failed to show your work

[Wolffan]

On 24Mar 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<ud3dbdtkmaafb9d38...@4ax.com>):

he already did

[RonO]

Do you still think that after one mutation arises that you can calculate
the probability of two mutations arising using your multiplicative rule?
Your own source told you that you could not. What a bone head. When
you are wrong you are just wrong, nothing is going to change that fact.
Really, your bogus probability argument didn't make the top 6 it is
worse than all the other creationist failures on the list. The reason
is simple, biological evolution doesn't work that way.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:16:44 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Watch; he'll change "calculations" to "the math", and think
>> you'll miss the fact that they're different things.
>
>he already did

Great minds think alike.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:16:44 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>:

>On 24Mar 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
>(in article<ud3dbdtkmaafb9d38...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:00:12 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

[Ref Allie's cites, none of which contain any math at all]:

>> > and none of then give any actual calculations. You have failed to show your
>> > work.

>> Watch; he'll change "calculations" to "the math", and think
>> you'll miss the fact that they're different things.

>he already did

Noted. The fact that it's his perpetual tapdance made my
prediction rather easy.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What's the probability of a particular mutation occurring at a particular site in one replication?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What source was that? You are fabricating again.

> What a bone head. When
> you are wrong you are just wrong, nothing is going to change that fact.
> Really, your bogus probability argument didn't make the top 6 it is
> worse than all the other creationist failures on the list. The reason
> is simple, biological evolution doesn't work that way.

Oh really, how does biological evolution work? Explain to us the Lenski and Kishony experiments.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

> What source was that? You are fabricating again.s

What a sad and dishonest bonehead. It was your wiki source and what did
it tell you? You are the one that put up the source and it blew up in
your face. I doubt that you don't remember. So why try to lie about it
at this time?

>> What a bone head. When
>> you are wrong you are just wrong, nothing is going to change that fact.
>> Really, your bogus probability argument didn't make the top 6 it is
>> worse than all the other creationist failures on the list. The reason
>> is simple, biological evolution doesn't work that way.
> Oh really, how does biological evolution work? Explain to us the Lenski and Kishony experiments.

Biological evolution builds on what came before. That is why it is
called evolution instead of special creation. You have ancestors, some
of your ancestors were fish, some were ape-like mammals, and some were
other species of Homo like Homo erectus.

Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
you are and get it over with.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

This claim coming from someone who believes fish turn into mammals. You have lost contact with reality.

>
> >> What a bone head. When
> >> you are wrong you are just wrong, nothing is going to change that fact.
> >> Really, your bogus probability argument didn't make the top 6 it is
> >> worse than all the other creationist failures on the list. The reason
> >> is simple, biological evolution doesn't work that way.
> > Oh really, how does biological evolution work? Explain to us the Lenski and Kishony experiments.
>
> Biological evolution builds on what came before. That is why it is
> called evolution instead of special creation. You have ancestors, some
> of your ancestors were fish, some were ape-like mammals, and some were
> other species of Homo like Homo erectus.

What you fail to do is explain how biological evolution builds on what came before. I've had to explain how biological evolution works. While biologists are making up stories how fish turn into mammals and search for fossils that fit their pre-conceived notion, they fail to explain how biological evolution works. This has caused incredible harm to many people.

>
> Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
> that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
> one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
> It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
> calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
> first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
> can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
> two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
> the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
> obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
> yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
> you are and get it over with.

Back to your blunder that mutations are not random independent events. Will you ever learn?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >

[RonO]

What a loon. Organisms exist, new mutations happen and are either
selected for, against or drift. That is how biological evolution builds
on what already exists. All mutations have to work within the existing
organism in order to be passed on. If it is lethal or prevents the
organism from reproducing it is not passed on.

Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
understand how biological evolution works?

>>
>> Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
>> that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
>> one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
>> It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
>> calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
>> first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
>> can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
>> two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
>> the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
>> obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
>> yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
>> you are and get it over with.
> Back to your blunder that mutations are not random independent events. Will you ever learn?

I never made that claim. I only claim that they are not independent
events once one mutation has happened. That in no way negates the fact
that both mutations could be arbitrary (considered to be your type of
random).

Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
reality?

Ron Okimoto

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

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Believing that fish turn into mammals is really looney. And you have no idea how biological evolution works.

>
> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
> understand how biological evolution works?

You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.

>
> >>
> >> Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
> >> that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
> >> one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
> >> It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
> >> calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
> >> first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
> >> can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
> >> two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
> >> the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
> >> obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
> >> yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
> >> you are and get it over with.
> > Back to your blunder that mutations are not random independent events. Will you ever learn?
>
> I never made that claim. I only claim that they are not independent
> events once one mutation has happened. That in no way negates the fact
> that both mutations could be arbitrary (considered to be your type of
> random).

Your claims are based on your mathematically irrational beliefs. That's why you don't understand how biological evolution works.

>
> Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
> independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
> has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
> and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
> reality?

All the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave according to the mathematics I've presented. You have no empirical examples which contradict this mathematics. Too bad you never had any training in the hard mathematical sciences, you might be able to understand why you are wrong.

[RonO]

What a bonehead. It is just an example of how evolution builds on what
came before. Fish existed before mammals. Do you get it? Why deny
reality like this. You are wrong about how evolution works. Your
calculations are more relevant to special creation than to evolution.
That is a fact.

>>
>> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
>> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
>> understand how biological evolution works?
> You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.

Why lie about reality? What does it get you? Are HIV virus specially
created every generation? How does their evolution work? Where do any
new mutations have to occur? Don't HIV virus already exist? Why lie to
yourself like this. You know why combination therapy works better than
single treatment. It is because of how biological evolution works.
That is why you are wrong. Really, think about it and you may realize
how stupid you are.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
>>>> that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
>>>> one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
>>>> It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
>>>> calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
>>>> first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
>>>> can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
>>>> two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
>>>> the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
>>>> obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
>>>> yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
>>>> you are and get it over with.
>>> Back to your blunder that mutations are not random independent events. Will you ever learn?
>>
>> I never made that claim. I only claim that they are not independent
>> events once one mutation has happened. That in no way negates the fact
>> that both mutations could be arbitrary (considered to be your type of
>> random).
> Your claims are based on your mathematically irrational beliefs. That's why you don't understand how biological evolution works.

You have the irrational belief. Even though your own reference told you
that you are wrong, what do you keep claiming? The two mutations are no
longer independent if one has already occurred. It is such a simple and
true concept that you have to be really dishonest in how you lie to
yourself about it. It borders on insanity. Really, what sane reason do
you have to keep believing what you do about the multiplicative rule
when you know that you are just wrong.

>>
>> Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
>> independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
>> has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
>> and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
>> reality?
> All the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave according to the mathematics I've presented. You have no empirical examples which contradict this mathematics. Too bad you never had any training in the hard mathematical sciences, you might be able to understand why you are wrong.

I've taken upper division probability theory as an undergraduate when I
didn't have to for my genetics major. We had to derived the equations
that you should be using. It was a math major class. Did you ever take
such a class? Insanity is just what it is. Lying to yourself about
something when your own research has told you that you are wrong is just
insane. You know how you should calculate the probability of the second
mutation occurring in the same lineage, but you never do it. That is
insane or so dishonest that it doesn't matter if you are sane or not.
Really, calculate the probability of the second mutation occurring a few
hours after the first mutation occurred and there are a hundred thousand
bacteria with the first mutation. Go for it. That is why Behe and Snoke
did not use your stupid math to calculate their probabilities.

Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
occurred.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

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

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

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You leave out the part of how evolution builds on what came before. So a genius like you should have no trouble explaining how that happens.

>
> >>
> >> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
> >> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
> >> understand how biological evolution works?
> > You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.
>
> Why lie about reality? What does it get you? Are HIV virus specially
> created every generation? How does their evolution work? Where do any
> new mutations have to occur? Don't HIV virus already exist? Why lie to
> yourself like this. You know why combination therapy works better than
> single treatment. It is because of how biological evolution works.
> That is why you are wrong. Really, think about it and you may realize
> how stupid you are.

What is stupid is to believe that fish turn into mammals. And not only is it is stupid, it is harmful because it ignores any explanation of how this happens. But a genius like you will explain to us how this occurs. We are all sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to hear your wisdom.

Believing that fish turn into mammals is across the border. But you, the genius will explain to us how this happens.

>
> >>
> >> Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
> >> independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
> >> has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
> >> and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
> >> reality?
> > All the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave according to the mathematics I've presented. You have no empirical examples which contradict this mathematics. Too bad you never had any training in the hard mathematical sciences, you might be able to understand why you are wrong.
>
> I've taken upper division probability theory as an undergraduate when I
> didn't have to for my genetics major. We had to derived the equations
> that you should be using. It was a math major class. Did you ever take
> such a class? Insanity is just what it is. Lying to yourself about
> something when your own research has told you that you are wrong is just
> insane. You know how you should calculate the probability of the second
> mutation occurring in the same lineage, but you never do it. That is
> insane or so dishonest that it doesn't matter if you are sane or not.
> Really, calculate the probability of the second mutation occurring a few
> hours after the first mutation occurred and there are a hundred thousand
> bacteria with the first mutation. Go for it. That is why Behe and Snoke
> did not use your stupid math to calculate their probabilities.

Wow, upper division probability theory. So tell us how random dependent mutations turn fish into mammals. This is going to be interesting.

>
> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
> occurred.

Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.

[RonO]

Why lie like this. You were told this before. Nothing was left out.

All new mutations occur in existing organisms. What do you not get? If
the mutation is lethal or causes the organism to not reproduce that
mutation is not replicated. If the mutation is favorable or not bad
enough to keep the organism from reproducing it can be passed down to
future generations. This is how biological evolution obviously works,

so why lie about reality?

>>
>>>>

>>>> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
>>>> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
>>>> understand how biological evolution works?
>>> You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.
>>
>> Why lie about reality? What does it get you? Are HIV virus specially
>> created every generation? How does their evolution work? Where do any
>> new mutations have to occur? Don't HIV virus already exist? Why lie to
>> yourself like this. You know why combination therapy works better than
>> single treatment. It is because of how biological evolution works.
>> That is why you are wrong. Really, think about it and you may realize
>> how stupid you are.
> What is stupid is to believe that fish turn into mammals. And not only is it is stupid, it is harmful because it ignores any explanation of how this happens. But a genius like you will explain to us how this occurs. We are all sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to hear your wisdom.

I did not say that. I said there were fish before mammals, you know
that there were lobe fin fish, amphibians, reptiles, and reptile like
mammals before there were mammals, so why lie about what I meant so
stupidly? What does lying like this do for you?

Why lie?

Your math is still bogus and your own reference told you that. Why not
believe your own reference? Why not do the correct calculation and
prove it to yourself?

Lies won't get you much of anywhere, so why lie?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
>>>> independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
>>>> has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
>>>> and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
>>>> reality?
>>> All the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave according to the mathematics I've presented. You have no empirical examples which contradict this mathematics. Too bad you never had any training in the hard mathematical sciences, you might be able to understand why you are wrong.
>>
>> I've taken upper division probability theory as an undergraduate when I
>> didn't have to for my genetics major. We had to derived the equations
>> that you should be using. It was a math major class. Did you ever take
>> such a class? Insanity is just what it is. Lying to yourself about
>> something when your own research has told you that you are wrong is just
>> insane. You know how you should calculate the probability of the second
>> mutation occurring in the same lineage, but you never do it. That is
>> insane or so dishonest that it doesn't matter if you are sane or not.
>> Really, calculate the probability of the second mutation occurring a few
>> hours after the first mutation occurred and there are a hundred thousand
>> bacteria with the first mutation. Go for it. That is why Behe and Snoke
>> did not use your stupid math to calculate their probabilities.
> Wow, upper division probability theory. So tell us how random dependent mutations turn fish into mammals. This is going to be interesting.

The class taught be enough to demonstrate that you are wrong, and point
out that your own reference backed me up. What a loser. Why keep lying?

>>
>> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
>> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
>> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
>> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
>> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
>> occurred.
> Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.

Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?

Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

How convincing, that explains how fish turn into mammals. That's one of the best fish stories I've heard.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
> >>>> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
> >>>> understand how biological evolution works?
> >>> You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.
> >>
> >> Why lie about reality? What does it get you? Are HIV virus specially
> >> created every generation? How does their evolution work? Where do any
> >> new mutations have to occur? Don't HIV virus already exist? Why lie to
> >> yourself like this. You know why combination therapy works better than
> >> single treatment. It is because of how biological evolution works.
> >> That is why you are wrong. Really, think about it and you may realize
> >> how stupid you are.
> > What is stupid is to believe that fish turn into mammals. And not only is it is stupid, it is harmful because it ignores any explanation of how this happens. But a genius like you will explain to us how this occurs. We are all sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to hear your wisdom.
>
> I did not say that. I said there were fish before mammals, you know
> that there were lobe fin fish, amphibians, reptiles, and reptile like
> mammals before there were mammals, so why lie about what I meant so
> stupidly? What does lying like this do for you?
>
> Why lie?
>
> Your math is still bogus and your own reference told you that. Why not
> believe your own reference? Why not do the correct calculation and
> prove it to yourself?

So that lobe fin turned into the lobe of your brain?

I got it, a lobe fin turning into the lobe of your brain.

>
> >>
> >> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
> >> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
> >> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
> >> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
> >> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
> >> occurred.
> > Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.
>
> Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
> demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?
>
> Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
> lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
> the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
> the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
> The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
> yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
> are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?

Good fish story, you've done a great job explain how a fin lobe has turned into the lobe of your brain.

[RonO]

Insanity is a legal excuse. Degenerate liar is the likely scenario in
this case.

Do you think your bogus comment changes reality in any way? Why don't
you acknowledge what your own reference told you? It isn't so difficult
to tell the truth once in a while.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
>>>> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
>>>> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
>>>> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
>>>> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
>>>> occurred.
>>> Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.
>>
>> Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
>> demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?
>>
>> Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
>> lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
>> the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
>> the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
>> The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
>> yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
>> are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?
> Good fish story, you've done a great job explain how a fin lobe has turned into the lobe of your brain.

Insanity is a legal defense, and isn't much of an excuse around here
when you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.

Why don't you make the calculation? You are the one that claims to
understand the math, so demonstrate that you do understand the math.
Telling the truth every once in a while shouldn't be that difficult, so
why not try it just once? Make the calculation that you are running
from and demonstrate why you have to lie about it in such an insane fashion.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

No, it is an illustration of this nonsense that you peddle and these silly ideas you put forward that do nothing solve the problem of drug resistance. You are a mathematically incompetent nitwit who believes silly ideas.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
> >>>> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
> >>>> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
> >>>> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
> >>>> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
> >>>> occurred.
> >>> Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.
> >>
> >> Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
> >> demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?
> >>
> >> Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
> >> lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
> >> the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
> >> the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
> >> The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
> >> yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
> >> are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?
> > Good fish story, you've done a great job explain how a fin lobe has turned into the lobe of your brain.
>
> Insanity is a legal defense, and isn't much of an excuse around here
> when you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.

Believing that fish turn into mammals is a sure sign that someone has lost contact with reality. If you are not looney, someone should do a drug screen on you.

>
> Why don't you make the calculation? You are the one that claims to
> understand the math, so demonstrate that you do understand the math.
> Telling the truth every once in a while shouldn't be that difficult, so
> why not try it just once? Make the calculation that you are running
> from and demonstrate why you have to lie about it in such an insane
> fashion.

It wouldn't help you. You have lost the ability to distiguish reality from fantasy. Next you'll be telling us fish came from sponges and sponges came from soaking up the primordial soup. But you have no idea how antibiotic resistance comes about.

[RonO]

It is a degenerate lie to allow you to somehow run from what you can't
deal with. Just do the calculation that you have run from for how long?
Running isn't any solution. Reality doesn't change you just become
more and more dishonest and look even worse than when you first started
to run. Can you give any excuse for not doing the simple calculation
that you have been running from?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
>>>>>> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
>>>>>> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
>>>>>> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
>>>>>> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
>>>>>> occurred.
>>>>> Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.
>>>>
>>>> Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
>>>> demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?
>>>>
>>>> Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
>>>> lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
>>>> the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
>>>> the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
>>>> The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
>>>> yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
>>>> are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?
>>> Good fish story, you've done a great job explain how a fin lobe has turned into the lobe of your brain.
>>
>> Insanity is a legal defense, and isn't much of an excuse around here
>> when you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.
> Believing that fish turn into mammals is a sure sign that someone has lost contact with reality. If you are not looney, someone should do a drug screen on you.

Running from reality is insanity at this point. Why not do the
calculation and determine that you are obviously wrong? Running doesn't
change reality. Lying about what other people claim isn't doing you any
good. It doesn't change reality.

>>
>> Why don't you make the calculation? You are the one that claims to
>> understand the math, so demonstrate that you do understand the math.
>> Telling the truth every once in a while shouldn't be that difficult, so
>> why not try it just once? Make the calculation that you are running
>> from and demonstrate why you have to lie about it in such an insane
>> fashion.
> It wouldn't help you. You have lost the ability to distiguish reality from fantasy. Next you'll be telling us fish came from sponges and sponges came from soaking up the primordial soup. But you have no idea how antibiotic resistance comes about.

Projection is so rampant in anti science creationists that you have to
wonder if it is part of some syndrome. You are the one that can't deal
with reality or you would just do the simple calculation and get it over
with. Running and lying about the situation doesn't change reality.
Insanity may be a legal defense, but it doesn't help you out on TO
because you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.

Just do the calculation and determine for yourself that your own
reference was correct and that you are just plain wrong.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

This is the link again that will calculate the probability for you.
Just enter the parameters and get your answer. Compare it to what you
claim and come to your own conclusions.

What good does runnning do for you. You will be just as wrong tomorrow,
and a year from now. Eternity won't change your reality.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Do you want the calculation of fish turning to mammals or reptiles growing feathers and wings? Just plug the numbers into STAT TREK. That will tell the whole fish story.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember you can use STAT TREK to calculate the probability for 100,000
> >>>>>> trials or less. The program won't work for more and you would have to
> >>>>>> do the calculations manually. I could tell you how to do that if you
> >>>>>> want to calculate the probability when there are a billion bacteria with
> >>>>>> the first mutation. That would be a few days after the first mutation
> >>>>>> occurred.
> >>>>> Do you remember the binomial distribution from your upper division course in probability theory? Tell us how fish turn into mammals. This is going to be a good fish story.
> >>>>
> >>>> Poor guy all that is left are the lies. Why not do the calculation and
> >>>> demonstrate to yourself how wrong you are?
> >>>>
> >>>> Lying about reality is stupid and gets you no where. No matter what you
> >>>> lie about, you will still be just as wrong as you are now. You could do
> >>>> the calculation. The web link will calculate it for you if you put in
> >>>> the parameters. If you need to know what to imput just let me know.
> >>>> The sad thing is that you know that you are wrong, but you can't bring
> >>>> yourself to do something simple that would demonstrate how wrong you
> >>>> are. Is that utter dishonesty or insanity, and does it matter?
> >>> Good fish story, you've done a great job explain how a fin lobe has turned into the lobe of your brain.
> >>
> >> Insanity is a legal defense, and isn't much of an excuse around here
> >> when you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.
> > Believing that fish turn into mammals is a sure sign that someone has lost contact with reality. If you are not looney, someone should do a drug screen on you.
>
> Running from reality is insanity at this point. Why not do the
> calculation and determine that you are obviously wrong? Running doesn't
> change reality. Lying about what other people claim isn't doing you any
> good. It doesn't change reality.

Oh, so you don't believe fish turn into mammals? Maybe it's crabs that turn into mammals. You are awfully crabby.

>
> >>
> >> Why don't you make the calculation? You are the one that claims to
> >> understand the math, so demonstrate that you do understand the math.
> >> Telling the truth every once in a while shouldn't be that difficult, so
> >> why not try it just once? Make the calculation that you are running
> >> from and demonstrate why you have to lie about it in such an insane
> >> fashion.
> > It wouldn't help you. You have lost the ability to distiguish reality from fantasy. Next you'll be telling us fish came from sponges and sponges came from soaking up the primordial soup. But you have no idea how antibiotic resistance comes about.
>
> Projection is so rampant in anti science creationists that you have to
> wonder if it is part of some syndrome. You are the one that can't deal
> with reality or you would just do the simple calculation and get it over
> with. Running and lying about the situation doesn't change reality.
> Insanity may be a legal defense, but it doesn't help you out on TO
> because you have to compete with other creationists like Pags.

OK, I'll do the math for you.
Primordial Soup + Time = Ron O
And we all know where the lobes of your brain came from, lateral transfer from a fish. Who could doubt this reality?

>
> Just do the calculation and determine for yourself that your own
> reference was correct and that you are just plain wrong.
>
> http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

That can't be correct. Mutations are not random independent events. The binomial distribution is for random independent events.
The correct calculation is:
Lobe fish + cauliflower = Ron O's brain
Do not doubt the reality of this math.

>
> This is the link again that will calculate the probability for you.
> Just enter the parameters and get your answer. Compare it to what you
> claim and come to your own conclusions.

The mathematics is indisputable, fish turn into mammals, a saw it on the sea and turf menu. Do you know when you eat broccoli you are committing cannibalism? It is indisputable.

>
> What good does runnning do for you. You will be just as wrong tomorrow,
> and a year from now. Eternity won't change your reality.

Who is running? I've just done the math for your evolution and ancestory.com says you are related to a lobe fish and cauliflower. It is indisputable.

[RonO]

Until you stop this insanity and stop running from reality this type of
bogus effort is just a sign of insanity.

All you have to do is do the calculation that you have been running from
for what? Has it been a year? Over half a year, at least. You have
been given the means to do it and you know it is what you would have to
do in order to calculate the probability, so why not do it?

Why keep running and lying about everything? Reality isn't going to
change by lying about junk that doesn't matter.

Just reread what you just wrote. What does it have to do with the fact
that you are just plain wrong. You have know that fact since you put up
your reference and it told you that you were wrong. You know it because
if you did the calculation that you keep running from you would know for
certain that you are wrong. So why keep running? Put yourself out of
this misery that you have fallen into and just do what is right for once
and get it all over with.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Don't be silly, it is indisputable that you are related to a lobe fish and cauliflower. STAT TREK told us so. And it is true, you are also related to okra. Are you from Okrahoma?

[RonO]

The insanity defense is stupid. All you have to do is do the
calculation that you know that you should do. You have run from reality
for months. Just do something honest and decent and surprise yourself.
You won't have to lie about this junk after you do what you know you
should do.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Fish to mammals, reptiles grow feathers and wings and Ron is related to okra, how could I not do what is right?

[RonO]

Just do the calculation and you won't have to lie to yourself like this
anymore. It has to be pretty sad for you to keep running in denial when
you know that you are running in denial. What could possibly make
anybody do something like this? Aren't you just a little ashamed of
yourself for what you are doing? Reality isn't going to change, and you
will still be running for eternity. You will never be correct. Doesn't
that mean anything to you?

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

What is the probability of the second mutation occurring in the same
lineage as the first mutation a few hours after the first mutation has
occurred when there are 100,000 individuals of that lineage in
existence. STAT trek will allow you to make that calculation, so why
don't you do it. I could tell you how to do it several days after the
first mutation happens and the population is over a billion, but just a
few hours should be enough to tell you how wrong you are. Why isn't the
probability what you claim using the multiplicative rule? It is because
evolution builds on what already exists. Life forms are not created de
novo every generation. That is just a fact of nature. You are wrong
and you will never be right.

Don't you have anyone that you trust that could tell you the straight
dope? You know that you could demonstrate it for yourself by doing the
calculation, but you refuse and would rather run and keep lying to
yourself. What good is that ever going to do you?

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 26 Mar 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<4b895263-e361-42d1...@googlegroups.com>):

you have failed to show your work

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 6:00:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 3/30/2018 7:24 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 3/30/2018 6:28 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 3/30/2018 5:42 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/30/2018 4:09 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 12:50 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 12:16 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:55:02 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 10:14 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:50:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 7:41 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2018 8:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 6:45:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2018 4:37 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 3:45:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2018 9:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 8:25:04 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Among Dr.Dr.Kleinman MD,PhD's stranger claims is the claim that evolutionists, by misunderstanding "rmns," have caused the spread of antibiotic resistance and the failure of cancer chemotherapy, by advocating monotherapies, or by not advocating combination therapies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's very strange. On the one hand Dr.Dr. thinks that evolutionists vastly overestimate the ability of "rmns" to produce phenotypic change, mocking the "scales to feathers crowd." On the other hand, he seems to think that the same people who attribute, in his mind, miraculous powers to "rmns," vastly *underestimate* its ability to produce drug resistance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's even stranger given that the evolution of drug resistance is a canonical example of selection, taught in any evolutionary biology course. It's also something that anyone who's worked in molecular biology has observed daily when doing transfection and cloning experiments. Typical selection protocols can involve selection of doubly resistant transfectants, too. So somehow, all these biologists who work with singly and multiply resistant strains of bacteria in the lab, and who attribute speciation and large phenotypic changes to "rmns" never noticed that patients treated with antibiotics might yield antibiotic resistant bacteria?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's an even stranger claim, given that medical textbooks back in the 1980's were already teaching the "multiplication rule of probabilities" as a rationale for combination antibiotic therapy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinicians may have been slow to adopt combination therapies, but if so, it certainly was not because some evolutionary biologist told them not to worry about the evolution of drug resistance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that Dr.Kleinman is woefully misinformed on a great many levels.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Bill, you got a tiger supporting you. A tiger who has no idea how reptiles grow feathers and wings but he knows they do it. This tiger is obviously a typical biologist with no idea how rmns works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You keep on claiming that fish turn into mammals. It gives us all an idea of your mental state. It actually makes the claim that reptiles grow feathers and wings almost sound rational, almost. These claim would almost be amusing if they weren't so harmful.

[RonO]

You keep running from reality. Why not do the calculation and prove to
yourself that you are wrong? You know what the issue actually is. You
know that the fish thing is only a poly to allow you to keep running
away in denial. What good is it doing for you? It is just a dishonest
form of denial. You can't face reality.

Just do the calculation yourself. That was the issue before you ran
away and tried this stupid dodge. Just go up this thread and determine
that for yourself. You know that the only reason that you won't do the
calculation is because you know that you are wrong and that you will
never be right. This is your reality.

Can you get anyone that you trust to tell you just what you are doing?
It is stupid and dishonest and I don't know what it gets you to keep
doing it. Reality will not change. You will always be wrong no matter
how long you babble about fish.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns. You flunked your introductory course in probability theory when you claimed that mutations are not random independent events. It is stupidity like your that has led to drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weed, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. But keep claiming that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. People will recognize that you are either incredibly stupid or insane or most likely both.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.

We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The calculations are trivially easy. Just plug in a mutation rate and a number of replications and you get the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. This math is easily applicable to the Kishony experiment but is applicable to any example of rmns.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
> >
> > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
> The calculations are trivially easy.

Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You still have never posted your calculations. I doubt that you ever will.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You keep thinking that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. That goes well with your tin hat work on antennas. You certainly won't explain how drug resistance occurs. That doesn't fit with your stupid misinterpretation of the fossil record.

[erik simpson]

And you keep thinking that insults and changes in subject will pass for YOUR
results. They don't. The idea that you will turn into a scientist is even more
ridiculous.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/2/18 9:13 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>>> You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
>>
>> We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.

> The calculations are trivially easy. . . .

You have demonstrated, in probably more than 100 posts now, that they
are too much trouble for you.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/2/18 9:13 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
> >>
> >> We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
>
> > The calculations are trivially easy. . . .
>
> You have demonstrated, in probably more than 100 posts now, that they
> are too much trouble for you.

I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:
P(A)P(B)P(C)=(1-(1-p)^(N))*(1-(1-p)^(NA))*(1-(1-p)^(NAB))
where p is the mutation rate, N is the number of replications of the drug-sensitive variant for the probability of mutation A occurring and NA is the number of replications of the variant with mutation A (the variant which grows in the first low concentration region) for the probability of mutation B occurring on one of its members, and NAB is the number of replictions of the variant with mutations A and B (the variant which grows in the second higher concentration region) for the probability of mutation C (the variant which grows in the third higher concentration region) occurring on one of its members. And so on for each evolutionary step.
.
If you want to do calculations for these equations, you can plug in the mutation rate (as accurately as known) and for a given number of replications, compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring at each evolutionary step. Or you can use the mean value for the binomial distribution to compute the number of replications required for one beneficial mutation to occur. This is the governing mathematics for all evolutionary processes where only a single selection pressure is acting at a time. The mathematics of rmns for multiple simultaneous selection pressures is only slightly more complex but the governing equations can easily be written if you understand introductory probability theory.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

These aren't insults, these are correct evaluations of those who think that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. And now we have a space scientist that doesn't know how to do a probability calculation. The real insult is to those who suffer from drug-resistant infections and less than durable cancer treatments. That the kind of insult that idiots like you cause. Your stupidity harms others, that is the real insult.

[jillery]

You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
Your choice.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>The calculations are trivially easy.

Then you have no excuse for not posting your calculations post haste,
as you promised. Or show yourself to be just another lying troll.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You have still never posted your calculations. When can we expect to happen? Before or after the heat death of the universe? My money's on after.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I'll once again post the mathematics

Those are equations, not calculations. I know you know the
difference.

>If you want to do calculations for these equations,

That's your job. Post your calculations post haste, as you promised.
Or be known as just another lying troll.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I'll once again post the mathematics

Those are equations, not calculations. I know you know the
difference.

>If you want to do calculations for these equations,

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I'll once again post the mathematics

Those are equations, not calculations. I know you know the
difference.

>If you want to do calculations for these equations,

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> > > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
> >> > >
> >> > > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
> >> > The calculations are trivially easy.
> >>
> >> Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.
> >
> >Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.
>
>
> You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
> post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
> Your choice.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >The calculations are trivially easy.
>
>
> Then you have no excuse for not posting your calculations post haste,
> as you promised. Or show yourself to be just another lying troll.
> Your choice.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> >> > > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
>> >> > The calculations are trivially easy.
>> >>
>> >> Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.
>> >
>> >Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.
>>
>>
>> You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
>> post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
>> Your choice.
>I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:
>P(A)P(B)P(C)=(1-(1-p)^(N))*(1-(1-p)^(NA))*(1-(1-p)^(NAB))
>where p is the mutation rate,

Per genome per replication, right? But you seem to be using mutation
rates that are per *site* per replication.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> >> > > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
> >> >> > The calculations are trivially easy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.
> >> >
> >> >Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
> >> post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
> >> Your choice.
> >I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:
> >P(A)P(B)P(C)=(1-(1-p)^(N))*(1-(1-p)^(NA))*(1-(1-p)^(NAB))
> >where p is the mutation rate,
>
> Per genome per replication, right? But you seem to be using mutation
> rates that are per *site* per replication.

p is the frequency (probability) of an error at a given site in the genome for a single replication.

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
<snip>

> I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:
> P(A)P(B)P(C)=(1-(1-p)^(N))*(1-(1-p)^(NA))*(1-(1-p)^(NAB))
> where p is the mutation rate, N is the number of replications of the drug-sensitive variant for the probability of mutation A occurring and NA is the number of replications of the variant with mutation A (the variant which grows in the first low concentration region) for the probability of mutation B occurring on one of its members, and NAB is the number of replictions of the variant with mutations A and B (the variant which grows in the second higher concentration region) for the probability of mutation C (the variant which grows in the third higher concentration region) occurring on one of its members. And so on for each evolutionary step.
> .
> If you want to do calculations for these equations, you can plug in the mutation rate (as accurately as known) and for a given number of replications, compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring at each evolutionary step. Or you can use the mean value for the binomial distribution to compute the number of replications required for one beneficial mutation to occur. This is the governing mathematics for all evolutionary processes where only a single selection pressure is acting at a time. The mathematics of rmns for multiple simultaneous selection pressures is only slightly more complex but the governing equations can easily be written if you understand introductory probability theory.

Indeed, the calculations are trivially easy, just as you say. And they match the fossil record to a tee. They show that the probability of a transition between non-avian dinosaurs and birds within 20 million years is quite reasonable.

[Vincent Maycock]

So with all those sites mutating, shouldn't you have a lot more errors
per replication than the ~10^-9 that you've been using?

[Mark Isaak]

I counted thirty posts just today in which you replied to the request
for calculations by refusing to supply calculations. (I may have missed
a few.) If the calculations were trivially easy, I'm sure it would be
easier for you to post them once rather than to make excuses hundreds of
times.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

For example, a genome of 3e9 will have about 3 mutations for a mutation rate of e-9 in one replication. But beneficial mutations need to occur at particular sites, not any site.

[RonO]

On 4/2/2018 9:07 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 3:45:05 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 9:18 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 6:00:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2018 7:24 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 6:28 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 5:42 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 4:09 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 12:50 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 12:16 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:55:02 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 10:14 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:50:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 7:41 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2018 8:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 6:45:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2018 4:37 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 3:45:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2018 9:46 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 8:25:04 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Among Dr.Dr.Kleinman MD,PhD's stranger claims is the claim that evolutionists, by misunderstanding "rmns," have caused the spread of antibiotic resistance and the failure of cancer chemotherapy, by advocating monotherapies, or by not advocating combination therapies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's very strange. On the one hand Dr.Dr. thinks that evolutionists vastly overestimate the ability of "rmns" to produce phenotypic change, mocking the "scales to feathers crowd." On the other hand, he seems to think that the same people who attribute, in his mind, miraculous powers to "rmns," vastly *underestimate* its ability to produce drug resistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's even stranger given that the evolution of drug resistance is a canonical example of selection, taught in any evolutionary biology course. It's also something that anyone who's worked in molecular biology has observed daily when doing transfection and cloning experiments. Typical selection protocols can involve selection of doubly resistant transfectants, too. So somehow, all these biologists who work with singly and multiply resistant strains of bacteria in the lab, and who attribute speciation and large phenotypic changes to "rmns" never noticed that patients treated with antibiotics might yield antibiotic resistant bacteria?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's an even stranger claim, given that medical textbooks back in the 1980's were already teaching the "multiplication rule of probabilities" as a rationale for combination antibiotic therapy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinicians may have been slow to adopt combination therapies, but if so, it certainly was not because some evolutionary biologist told them not to worry about the evolution of drug resistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that Dr.Kleinman is woefully misinformed on a great many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Bill, you got a tiger supporting you. A tiger who has no idea how reptiles grow feathers and wings but he knows they do it. This tiger is obviously a typical biologist with no idea how rmns works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hay Kleinman, your probability argument that failed the scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists over 30 years ago wasn't rated as good as the "best"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for IDiocy that also failed the scientific creationists over 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago. Why didn't the old tornado through a junk yard probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist argument make the grade by the creationist's own standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ID perps have been working on this junk for over 22 years at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDiot think tank and they don't seem to think that incorrectly claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that biological evolution is a series of independent events is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go. It may be due to the fact that biological evolution is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> series of independent events and that life forms evolve from what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why aren't you upset with the ID perps? Why aren't you telling the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world how wrong the ID perps are? Why aren't you wallowing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatness of the gift that they have given you? Didn't you want to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best evidence for IDiocy? Better, why aren't you demonstrating that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong in rating your junk lower than the other known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist failures. Shouldn't you be doing some sort of comparative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis with the other known creationist failures? Really, why was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your probability argument rated lower than abiogenesis denial and fossil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gap no transitional fossil creationist denial?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you still think that mutations are not random independent events?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you still think that after one mutation arises that you can calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the probability of two mutations arising using your multiplicative rule?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own source told you that you could not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What source was that? You are fabricating again.s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a sad and dishonest bonehead. It was your wiki source and what did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it tell you? You are the one that put up the source and it blew up in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your face. I doubt that you don't remember. So why try to lie about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This claim coming from someone who believes fish turn into mammals. You have lost contact with reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a bone head. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong you are just wrong, nothing is going to change that fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, your bogus probability argument didn't make the top 6 it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse than all the other creationist failures on the list. The reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is simple, biological evolution doesn't work that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really, how does biological evolution work? Explain to us the Lenski and Kishony experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Biological evolution builds on what came before. That is why it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called evolution instead of special creation. You have ancestors, some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your ancestors were fish, some were ape-like mammals, and some were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other species of Homo like Homo erectus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you fail to do is explain how biological evolution builds on what came before. I've had to explain how biological evolution works. While biologists are making up stories how fish turn into mammals and search for fossils that fit their pre-conceived notion, they fail to explain how biological evolution works. This has caused incredible harm to many people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a loon. Organisms exist, new mutations happen and are either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selected for, against or drift. That is how biological evolution builds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what already exists. All mutations have to work within the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism in order to be passed on. If it is lethal or prevents the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism from reproducing it is not passed on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that fish turn into mammals is really looney. And you have no idea how biological evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a bonehead. It is just an example of how evolution builds on what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came before. Fish existed before mammals. Do you get it? Why deny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality like this. You are wrong about how evolution works. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations are more relevant to special creation than to evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You leave out the part of how evolution builds on what came before. So a genius like you should have no trouble explaining how that happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why lie like this. You were told this before. Nothing was left out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All new mutations occur in existing organisms. What do you not get? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mutation is lethal or causes the organism to not reproduce that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutation is not replicated. If the mutation is favorable or not bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to keep the organism from reproducing it can be passed down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future generations. This is how biological evolution obviously works,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so why lie about reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convincing, that explains how fish turn into mammals. That's one of the best fish stories I've heard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why lie about how biological evolution works? It is descent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modification. What do you think that means? How could you not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand how biological evolution works?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have preconceived wrong ideas how biological evolution works. That's why you don't understand why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why lie about reality? What does it get you? Are HIV virus specially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created every generation? How does their evolution work? Where do any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new mutations have to occur? Don't HIV virus already exist? Why lie to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself like this. You know why combination therapy works better than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single treatment. It is because of how biological evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why you are wrong. Really, think about it and you may realize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how stupid you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is stupid is to believe that fish turn into mammals. And not only is it is stupid, it is harmful because it ignores any explanation of how this happens. But a genius like you will explain to us how this occurs. We are all sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to hear your wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say that. I said there were fish before mammals, you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there were lobe fin fish, amphibians, reptiles, and reptile like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mammals before there were mammals, so why lie about what I meant so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidly? What does lying like this do for you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why lie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your math is still bogus and your own reference told you that. Why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe your own reference? Why not do the correct calculation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove it to yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that lobe fin turned into the lobe of your brain?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own source told you that when the events were temporally separated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could not use your multiplicative rule. This is because once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one mutation happens it doesn't have to happen again every generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets past down the generations. This is why you would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate the probability of the two mutations happening a few days the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first mutation had occurred (50 or so generations for bacteria). You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can demonstrate that I am wrong by calculating the probability of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two mutations occurring once there are a hundred million bacteria with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first mutation, or a billion bacteria with the first mutation. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously is not what you claim that it is. Go for it. Stop lying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself and actually do something worth doing and demonstrate how wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are and get it over with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to your blunder that mutations are not random independent events. Will you ever learn?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never made that claim. I only claim that they are not independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events once one mutation has happened. That in no way negates the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both mutations could be arbitrary (considered to be your type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claims are based on your mathematically irrational beliefs. That's why you don't understand how biological evolution works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the irrational belief. Even though your own reference told you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are wrong, what do you keep claiming? The two mutations are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer independent if one has already occurred. It is such a simple and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true concept that you have to be really dishonest in how you lie to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself about it. It borders on insanity. Really, what sane reason do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have to keep believing what you do about the multiplicative rule
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you know that you are just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that fish turn into mammals is across the border. But you, the genius will explain to us how this happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies won't get you much of anywhere, so why lie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why lie about this? You know that your calculation depends on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independence of the two events. They are no longer independent if one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has already happened. That is just how evolution works. You are wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your own reference told you that you were wrong, so why lie about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave according to the mathematics I've presented. You have no empirical examples which contradict this mathematics. Too bad you never had any training in the hard mathematical sciences, you might be able to understand why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've taken upper division probability theory as an undergraduate when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't have to for my genetics major. We had to derived the equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you should be using. It was a math major class. Did you ever take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a class? Insanity is just what it is. Lying to yourself about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something when your own research has told you that you are wrong is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insane. You know how you should calculate the probability of the second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutation occurring in the same lineage, but you never do it. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insane or so dishonest that it doesn't matter if you are sane or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, calculate the probability of the second mutation occurring a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours after the first mutation occurred and there are a hundred thousand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bacteria with the first mutation. Go for it. That is why Behe and Snoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not use your stupid math to calculate their probabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, upper division probability theory. So tell us how random dependent mutations turn fish into mammals. This is going to be interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The class taught be enough to demonstrate that you are wrong, and point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that your own reference backed me up. What a loser. Why keep lying?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got it, a lobe fin turning into the lobe of your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Insanity is a legal excuse. Degenerate liar is the likely scenario in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think your bogus comment changes reality in any way? Why don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> you acknowledge what your own reference told you? It isn't so difficult
>>>>>>>>>>>> to tell the truth once in a while.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is an illustration of this nonsense that you peddle and these silly ideas you put forward that do nothing solve the problem of drug resistance. You are a mathematically incompetent nitwit who believes silly ideas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a degenerate lie to allow you to somehow run from what you can't
>>>>>>>>>> deal with. Just do the calculation that you have run from for how long?
>>>>>>>>>> Running isn't any solution. Reality doesn't change you just become
>>>>>>>>>> more and more dishonest and look even worse than when you first started
>>>>>>>>>> to run. Can you give any excuse for not doing the simple calculation
>>>>>>>>>> that you have been running from?
>>>>>>>>> Do you want the calculation of fish turning to mammals or reptiles growing feathers and wings? Just plug the numbers into STAT TREK. That will tell the whole fish story.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you stop this insanity and stop running from reality this type of
>>>>>>>> bogus effort is just a sign of insanity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you have to do is do the calculation that you have been running from
>>>>>>>> for what? Has it been a year? Over half a year, at least. You have
>>>>>>>> been given the means to do it and you know it is what you would have to
>>>>>>>> do in order to calculate the probability, so why not do it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why keep running and lying about everything? Reality isn't going to
>>>>>>>> change by lying about junk that doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just reread what you just wrote. What does it have to do with the fact
>>>>>>>> that you are just plain wrong. You have know that fact since you put up
>>>>>>>> your reference and it told you that you were wrong. You know it because
>>>>>>>> if you did the calculation that you keep running from you would know for
>>>>>>>> certain that you are wrong. So why keep running? Put yourself out of
>>>>>>>> this misery that you have fallen into and just do what is right for once
>>>>>>>> and get it all over with.
>>>>>>> Don't be silly, it is indisputable that you are related to a lobe fish and cauliflower. STAT TREK told us so. And it is true, you are also related to okra. Are you from Okrahoma?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The insanity defense is stupid. All you have to do is do the
>>>>>> calculation that you know that you should do. You have run from reality
>>>>>> for months. Just do something honest and decent and surprise yourself.
>>>>>> You won't have to lie about this junk after you do what you know you
>>>>>> should do.
>>>>> Fish to mammals, reptiles grow feathers and wings and Ron is related to okra, how could I not do what is right?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just do the calculation and you won't have to lie to yourself like this
>>>> anymore. It has to be pretty sad for you to keep running in denial when
>>>> you know that you are running in denial. What could possibly make
>>>> anybody do something like this? Aren't you just a little ashamed of
>>>> yourself for what you are doing? Reality isn't going to change, and you
>>>> will still be running for eternity. You will never be correct. Doesn't
>>>> that mean anything to you?
>>>>
>>>> http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
>>>>
>>>> What is the probability of the second mutation occurring in the same
>>>> lineage as the first mutation a few hours after the first mutation has
>>>> occurred when there are 100,000 individuals of that lineage in
>>>> existence. STAT trek will allow you to make that calculation, so why
>>>> don't you do it. I could tell you how to do it several days after the
>>>> first mutation happens and the population is over a billion, but just a
>>>> few hours should be enough to tell you how wrong you are. Why isn't the
>>>> probability what you claim using the multiplicative rule? It is because
>>>> evolution builds on what already exists. Life forms are not created de
>>>> novo every generation. That is just a fact of nature. You are wrong
>>>> and you will never be right.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you have anyone that you trust that could tell you the straight
>>>> dope? You know that you could demonstrate it for yourself by doing the
>>>> calculation, but you refuse and would rather run and keep lying to
>>>> yourself. What good is that ever going to do you?
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>> You keep on claiming that fish turn into mammals. It gives us all an idea of your mental state. It actually makes the claim that reptiles grow feathers and wings almost sound rational, almost. These claim would almost be amusing if they weren't so harmful.
>>>
>>
>> You keep running from reality. Why not do the calculation and prove to
>> yourself that you are wrong? You know what the issue actually is. You
>> know that the fish thing is only a poly to allow you to keep running
>> away in denial. What good is it doing for you? It is just a dishonest
>> form of denial. You can't face reality.
>>
>> Just do the calculation yourself. That was the issue before you ran
>> away and tried this stupid dodge. Just go up this thread and determine
>> that for yourself. You know that the only reason that you won't do the
>> calculation is because you know that you are wrong and that you will
>> never be right. This is your reality.
>>
>> Can you get anyone that you trust to tell you just what you are doing?
>> It is stupid and dishonest and I don't know what it gets you to keep
>> doing it. Reality will not change. You will always be wrong no matter
>> how long you babble about fish.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns. You flunked your introductory course in probability theory when you claimed that mutations are not random independent events. It is stupidity like your that has led to drug-resistant infections, herbicide-resistant weed, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. But keep claiming that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. People will recognize that you are either incredibly stupid or insane or most likely both.
>

You are a lying degenerate that can't accept reality so you have to
claim that other people have the problem. Projection is such a way of
life for you that I don't know how creationists like you can live with
yourselves. To project your foibles onto someone else means that you
know how badly off you are. It is the strangest psychological defense
mechanism that humans have. Really, to do it you have to know what you
are so that you can claim that someone else has the issue. What kind of
defense mechanism is that?

Just do the calculation and prove to yourself how wrong you are and move
on. That is what an honest and sane person would do. You are just
plain wrong. Nothing that you will ever do will change that. You can
blame everyone else, but it is all on you. Your own reference told you
that you were wrong. You know that you are wrong because you will not
do the calculation, even though you know that it is the correct way to
do the calculation. There is even a web page that will do the
calculation for you.

Lying about reality isn't going to change reality. You can lie until
doomsday and you will still just be lying.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Fish turn into mammals, reptiles grow feathers and wings, life spontaneously occurs in some imaginary primordial soup? You have lost contact with reality. And you certainly have no idea how rmns works. You are wrong and harmful.

[RonO]

Lying isn't any way to fix your problem. Running in denial isn't going
to solve anything. You are just wrong. Demonstrate it to yourself and
move on to something that you don't have to lie about. Where is lying
going to get you? You know that you are wrong, so why not do the right
thing?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

In your mathematically irrational mind, the right thing is believing fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. In the real world, correctly understanding how rmns works is the way to reduce and prevent drug-resistant infections and produce more durable cancer treatments. Your way is absolutely wrong and harmful.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:03:35 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>Fish turn into mammals, reptiles grow feathers and wings, life spontaneously occurs in some imaginary primordial soup? You have lost contact with reality. And you certainly have no idea how rmns works. You are wrong and harmful.

Instead of spamming multiple posts with your non-sequitur spam above.
give your explanation for the origins of mammals and birds and life. I
bet you can't do that, either.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> >> > > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
>> >> > The calculations are trivially easy.
>> >>
>> >> Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.
>> >
>> >Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.
>>
>>
>> You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
>> post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
>> Your choice.
>I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:

Ok, so you chose just another lying troll. I would have gone with
posting the calculations myself, but apparently your mileage varies.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:20:03 AM UTC-7, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> >> > > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > You are too stupid and harmful to recognize the calculations which govern rmns.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > We can see the equations just fine. We don't see any calculations, because you have never posted any.
> >> >> > The calculations are trivially easy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then there should be no problem for you to post your calculations. Please do so.
> >> >
> >> >Read them on the other thread Fraidy cat.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have never posted any calculations to T.O. Post your calculations
> >> post haste, as you promised. Or be known as just another lying troll.
> >> Your choice.
> >I'll once again post the mathematics which governs rmns for a single selection pressure such as the Kishony experiment or the Lenski experiment:
>
>
> Ok, so you chose just another lying troll. I would have gone with
> posting the calculations myself, but apparently your mileage varies.

Did you finally get an elementary student in to tutor you? See, math isn't so hard.