Examples of natural selection in the wild for Dr. Dr. Alan

[John Harshman]

Dr. Dr. Alan has claimed that populations cannot "respond efficiently"
to selection if there are "multiple selection pressures", and also that
populations in the wild are subject to multiple selection pressures.
Therefore populations in the wild cannot respond efficiently to
selection. Experiments in natural selection in the wild are
counterexamples to Dr. Dr. Alan's claims.

A good review of experiments in natural selection in the wild can be
found in

Losos JB. Improbable destinies: Fate, chance, and the future of
evolution. 2017. Riverhead Books, New York.


These references are taken from the book: (One could easily find more by
perusing the relevant journals. I suggest Evolution as the likely most
fertile.)

Kettlewell HBD. The evolution of melanism: The study of a recurring
necessity with special reference to industrial melanism in the
Lepidoptera. 1973. Oxford U. Press, Oxford, UK.

Endler JA. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata.
1980. Evolution 34: 76-91.

Reznick D, Endler JA. The impact of predation on life history evolution
in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). 1982. Evolution 36: 160-177.

O'Steen S, Cullum AJ, Bennett AF. Rapid evolution of escape ability in
Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). 2002. Evolution 56: 776-784.

Losos JB, Schoener TW, Spiller DA. Predator-induced behavioral shifts
and natural selection in field-experimental lizard populations. 2004.
Nature 432: 505-508.

Losos JB et al. Rapid temporal reversal in predator-driven natural
selection. 2006. Science 314: 1111.

Snaydon RW. Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. I.
The response of Anthoxanthum odoratum populations to soils. 1970.
Evolution 24: 257-269.

Snaydon RW, Davies MS. Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic
environment. II. Morphological variation in Anthoxanthum odoratum. 1972.
Evolution 26: 390-405.

Turley EN et al. Contemporary evolution of plant growth rate following
experimental removal of herbivores. 2013. Am. Nat. 181: S21-S34.

Didiano TJ et al. Experimental test of plant defence evolution in four
species using long-term rabbit exclosures. 2014. J. Ecol. 102: 584-594.

Agarwal AA. Insect herbivores drive real-time ecological and
evolutionary change in plant populations. 2012. Science 338: 113-116.

Bataillon T et al. A replicated climate change field experiment reveals
rapid evolutionary response in an ecologically important soil
invertebrate. 2016. Global Change Biol. 22: 2370-2379.

Soria-Carrascal V et al. Stick insect genomes reveal natural selection's
role in parallel speciation. 2014. Science 344: 738-742.

Barrett RDH, Rogers SM, Schluter D. Natural selection on a major armor
gene in threespine stickleback. 2008. Science 322: 255-257.

Barrett RDH et al. Rapid evolution of cold tolerance in stickleback.
2011. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 278: 233-238.

Colosimo PF et al. 2005. Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks
by repeated fixation of Extodysplasin alleles. 2005. Science 307: 1928-1933.

Rennison DJ. Detecting the drivers of divergence: identifying and
estimating natural seleciton in threespine stickleback. 2016. PhD
dissertation, U. of British Columbia.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John, I'm starting to wonder if you have ever paid any attention to anything I've written. When have I said that there are no examples of natural selection in the wild? In fact, I have said many times there are many selection pressures acting simultaneously in the wild including starvation, thermal stress, disease, predation, toxins, dehydration... What I have said previously and what I again say now is that you have no real, measurable or repeatable examples of rmns where the population is evolving against multiple selection pressures simultaneously with any efficiency. These examples can be in the wild or in the lab.
.
Selection of a black moth in a dark environment or a white moth in a light environment is simply selection for alleles already existing in the population.
.
If any of your examples show the formation of new alleles by rmns in response to a selection pressure, point out which ones do this. Identify the selection pressure, the genes targeted by the selection pressure and the mutations required for adaptation. Otherwise, this is going to be a shortlived thread.

[John Harshman]

Efficiency needs a definition. I'd say that "within a few generations"
is pretty efficient. You disagree? And you have agreed that there are
multiple selection pressures involved in natural situations. So there we
have it. Efficient selection when there are multiple selection
pressures, which you say doesn't happen.

> Selection of a black moth in a dark environment or a white moth in a
> light environment is simply selection for alleles already existing in
> the population.

So? That's what natural selection is. You have consistently confused
selection with mutation.

> If any of your examples show the formation of new alleles by rmns in
> response to a selection pressure, point out which ones do this.
> Identify the selection pressure, the genes targeted by the selection
> pressure and the mutations required for adaptation. Otherwise, this
> is going to be a shortlived thread.

New alleles don't form by "rmns". New alleles form by mutation. Mutation
doesn't happen in response to a selection pressure; mutation is random
with respect to selection. Some of these papers do discuss the actual
genes targeted. Some of them discuss polygenic traits, and others
discuss multiple traits that certainly are influenced by different loci.
You will have to look.

[RonO]

You are obviously just wrong. Every species in existence is under
multiple selection pressures every day. Just look at the difference
between night and day. You have to have some weird boneheaded denial of
reality to not understand that. Just take the example of the guppies
(there were several). These fish have to extract oxygen from the water,
they have to balance their water intake and waste. They have to eat.
They have to reproduce. They have to avoid predators (multiple
different types, just think even water beetles prey on them). In spite
of all of this what happens? This doesn't even take into account
seasonal differences.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

> .
> Selection of a black moth in a dark environment or a white moth in a light environment is simply selection for alleles already existing in the population.

What a bonehead. When the lichen died off and the branches were covered
with coal dust and ash the environment obviously changed. Dark moths
were selected for under those conditions, but what else was going on.
The moths still had to survive the winters. They still had to suffer
day and night changes, hot and cold. Their offspring had to find
something to eat etc. etc. These populations were obviously under
multiple selection pressures every day. What do you think living is?

You are confusing studies that link certain environmental conditions to
certain changes as general examples of natural selection. These are
just examples where we have some type of idea of what the particular
selection pressure was for that particular trait. If you knew anything
you would know that natural selection is also acting on multiple other
traits at the same time. It is called biology learn something about it.

Look at your own example of bacterial antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotics are not the only selective pressure on those bacteria. They
have to reproduce and find food. They have to withstand multiple
environmental shifts through their life cycles. Natural selection on
all the other traits does not stop just because you put antibiotics into
the environment. This is obviously a case where you just do not know
what you are talking about.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I don't discuss these issues with crackpots who think that mutations are not random independent events.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Certainly, every mutation potentially forms a new allele but the adaptation process requires ns in order to improve the probability of another mutation on that new allele. And to address your confusion on efficiency pertaining to rmns; the efficiency of rmns is dependent on the complexity of the selection conditions. Selection conditions which require more than a single beneficial mutation to improve reproductive fitness become multiplicatively less likely to occur. To give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of one of these events occurring.

[John Harshman]

True. But how common are such conditions? Apparently they aren't very
common in the wild. I bet they aren't very common at all. And your math
covers only the special case in which there is no selection going on.
Selection is what you call "amplification", and your model doesn't deal
with amplification.

By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
mutations is beneficial.

> To
> give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation
> might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the
> beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might
> require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of
> one of these events occurring.

Yes, or you could make up any other number or pair of numbers and those
would fit equally well and would not say anything about natural
selection, only mutation.

I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
have provided. Correct?

[John Harshman]

You don't discuss these issues at all, with anyone.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If these conditions you claim are common in the wild, you should be able to name them, tell us the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to them. I don't ask much of you, do I, John?

>
> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
> mutations is beneficial.

I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.

>
> > To
> > give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation
> > might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the
> > beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might
> > require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of
> > one of these events occurring.
>
> Yes, or you could make up any other number or pair of numbers and those
> would fit equally well and would not say anything about natural
> selection, only mutation.

Those numbers are based on mutation rates. HIV which has a mutation rate in the range of e4-e5 needs only about e10 replications for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. That's why 3 selection pressures are required to make rmns "grind" to a halt.

>
> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
> have provided. Correct?

Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to the selection conditions.
.
I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this claim and I'll read it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Anytime you want to discuss rmns, I'm up for it. I'll debate how natural selection works as well and how you measure it. I really don't mind when you try to nitpick my equations because I want to be precise and coherent (at least to most people, perhaps not you) when describing what they represent. This is a very good exercise for me. I have a good understanding of my work but I need to work on how to explain it to those who have no understanding of the rmns phenomenon.

[John Harshman]

Try looking at the references I gave you.

>> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
>> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
>> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
>> mutations is beneficial.

> I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
> would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
> singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
> are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.

Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.

>>> To
>>> give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation
>>> might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the
>>> beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might
>>> require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of
>>> one of these events occurring.
>>
>> Yes, or you could make up any other number or pair of numbers and those
>> would fit equally well and would not say anything about natural
>> selection, only mutation.

> Those numbers are based on mutation rates. HIV which has a mutation
> rate in the range of e4-e5 needs only about e10 replications for
> there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation.
> That's why 3 selection pressures are required to make rmns "grind" to
> a halt.

Still just mutation, not selection.

>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
>> have provided. Correct?

> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
> the selection conditions.

Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?

> I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection
> conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns
> does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a
> real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this
> claim and I'll read it.

Wouldn't any example of selection acting quickly in the wild be a
contradiction of your claim? If not, why not?

[John Harshman]

It's hardly a nitpick to point out that your equations that supposedly
cover "rmns" cover only "rm" and never "ns". That sounds more like a
basic flaw.

[RonO]

Did you say that when you were looking in the mirror?

Denial is stupid and dishonest. What does that make a crackpot like
you? Your own reference told you that you had the math wrong, and you
never did calculate the probability that you were interested in. It was
your scenario, so why did you run?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Your response makes me think one of two things are going on. The first possibility is that you have read your own references, the second possibility is that you have read them but none are pertinent to rmns. What I did when you posted you list is did a word search on the list for the word "mutation". The word is in none of your references.

>
> >> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
> >> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
> >> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
> >> mutations is beneficial.
>
> > I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
> > would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
> > singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
> > are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.
> Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
> terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.

Ok, what's your recommended word? Semi-beneficial? conditional-beneficial?

>
> >>> To
> >>> give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation
> >>> might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the
> >>> beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might
> >>> require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of
> >>> one of these events occurring.
> >>
> >> Yes, or you could make up any other number or pair of numbers and those
> >> would fit equally well and would not say anything about natural
> >> selection, only mutation.
>
> > Those numbers are based on mutation rates. HIV which has a mutation
> > rate in the range of e4-e5 needs only about e10 replications for
> > there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation.
> > That's why 3 selection pressures are required to make rmns "grind" to
> > a halt.
> Still just mutation, not selection.

You are right on that part. rmns is a cyclical process, beneficial mutation/amplification of the beneficial mutation process. The work of Haldane and Kimura addresses the second half of the cycle after the beneficial mutation has occurred. My mathematics address both halves of the cycle. The probability of the beneficial mutation occurring based on the number of replications required for that mutation.

>
> >> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
> >> have provided. Correct?
>
> > Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
> > pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
> > the selection conditions.
> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?

Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the selection pressure by rmns.

>
> > I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection
> > conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns
> > does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a
> > real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this
> > claim and I'll read it.
>
> Wouldn't any example of selection acting quickly in the wild be a
> contradiction of your claim? If not, why not?

Not at all. I'm quite aware that populations can live in environments with multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. It this idea that these populations can engage in directional selection and improve fitness by rmns that doesn't make sense. All real examples of rmns demonstrate this and this substantiates my model.

[John Harshman]

Why do you think it's relevant that "mutation" doesn't occur in any of
the titles? Are you still confusing mutation and selection?

>>>> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
>>>> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
>>>> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
>>>> mutations is beneficial.
>>
>>> I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
>>> would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
>>> singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
>>> are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.
>> Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
>> terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.

> Ok, what's your recommended word? Semi-beneficial? conditional-beneficial?

The usual term would be "neutral". Of course the selection value of any
mutation depends on the environment, and the same mutation could be
neutral, beneficial, or deleterious in different environments.

>>>>> To
>>>>> give you a numerical sense of this, a single beneficial mutation
>>>>> might require e6 replications to have a reasonable probability of the
>>>>> beneficial mutation occurring. A double beneficial mutation might
>>>>> require e12 replications before there is a reasonable probability of
>>>>> one of these events occurring.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, or you could make up any other number or pair of numbers and those
>>>> would fit equally well and would not say anything about natural
>>>> selection, only mutation.
>>
>>> Those numbers are based on mutation rates. HIV which has a mutation
>>> rate in the range of e4-e5 needs only about e10 replications for
>>> there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation.
>>> That's why 3 selection pressures are required to make rmns "grind" to
>>> a halt.
>> Still just mutation, not selection.

> You are right on that part. rmns is a cyclical process, beneficial
> mutation/amplification of the beneficial mutation process. The work
> of Haldane and Kimura addresses the second half of the cycle after
> the beneficial mutation has occurred. My mathematics address both
> halves of the cycle. The probability of the beneficial mutation
> occurring based on the number of replications required for that
> mutation.

No, your mathematics addresses only mutation, not selection. As you
point out, the selection is the "amplification" part of that cycle. You
don't deal with "amplification" at all.

>>>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
>>>> have provided. Correct?
>>
>>> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
>>> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
>>> the selection conditions.
>> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
>> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?

> Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all
> variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the
> selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the
> selection pressure by rmns.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

>>> I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection
>>> conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns
>>> does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a
>>> real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this
>>> claim and I'll read it.
>>
>> Wouldn't any example of selection acting quickly in the wild be a
>> contradiction of your claim? If not, why not?

> Not at all. I'm quite aware that populations can live in environments
> with multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. It this idea
> that these populations can engage in directional selection and
> improve fitness by rmns that doesn't make sense. All real examples of
> rmns demonstrate this and this substantiates my model.

So wouldn't a demonstration of directional selection in the wild falsify
your claim, whether or not the actual mutations, genes, etc. were known?
Aren't the references real examples?

[Steady Eddie]

WOW. Good point, Alan. You get the whole picture!
Adaptation in the wild is mainly a function of differential selection of alleles already in the genome.
There is TONS of room on the genome for the creator to install plenty of variation within each kind.
Darwinists, as they do with any inconvenient facts, call it junk.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Because I asked for examples of rmns.

>
> >>>> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
> >>>> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
> >>>> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
> >>>> mutations is beneficial.
> >>
> >>> I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
> >>> would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
> >>> singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
> >>> are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.
> >> Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
> >> terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.
>
> > Ok, what's your recommended word? Semi-beneficial? conditional-beneficial?
>
> The usual term would be "neutral". Of course the selection value of any
> mutation depends on the environment, and the same mutation could be
> neutral, beneficial, or deleterious in different environments.

"neutral" is not adequate because it doesn't address the possibility of recombination. I think conditional-beneficial helps make the distinction.

Move to the right on the x-axis and you get amplification.

>
> >>>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
> >>>> have provided. Correct?
> >>
> >>> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
> >>> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
> >>> the selection conditions.
> >> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
> >> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?
>
> > Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all
> > variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the
> > selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the
> > selection pressure by rmns.
> What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

It has to do with rmns. I understand you only want to talk about ns. But without rm, all you are doing is removing variants from a population without creating any new alleles.

>
> >>> I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection
> >>> conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns
> >>> does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a
> >>> real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this
> >>> claim and I'll read it.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't any example of selection acting quickly in the wild be a
> >> contradiction of your claim? If not, why not?
>
> > Not at all. I'm quite aware that populations can live in environments
> > with multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. It this idea
> > that these populations can engage in directional selection and
> > improve fitness by rmns that doesn't make sense. All real examples of
> > rmns demonstrate this and this substantiates my model.
>
> So wouldn't a demonstration of directional selection in the wild falsify
> your claim, whether or not the actual mutations, genes, etc. were known?
> Aren't the references real examples?

ns alone only removes those variants from a population who don't have sufficient fitness to continue to replicate. Any improvement in fitness after this initial application of the selection pressure will require beneficial mutations.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I deal with the same issues in my medical practice. When I use an antibiotic that only kills 99% of the bacterial variants, I have a treatment failure unless the patient's immune system kills the remaining bacteria (and that situation does occur). This is why when I am treating people with impaired immune systems, I use multi-drug therapy to improve the probability of complete resolution of the infection. It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples long ago.

[John Harshman]

"rmns" isn't a thing. It's a term you invented to conflate mutation with
selection. Anyway, can't you at least try the abstracts?

>>>>>> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
>>>>>> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
>>>>>> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
>>>>>> mutations is beneficial.
>>>>
>>>>> I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
>>>>> would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
>>>>> singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
>>>>> are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.
>>>> Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
>>>> terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.
>>
>>> Ok, what's your recommended word? Semi-beneficial? conditional-beneficial?
>>
>> The usual term would be "neutral". Of course the selection value of any
>> mutation depends on the environment, and the same mutation could be
>> neutral, beneficial, or deleterious in different environments.

> "neutral" is not adequate because it doesn't address the possibility
> of recombination. I think conditional-beneficial helps make the
> distinction.

The demand that one's private terminology be used in place of the
standard terminology of the field is one symptom of the crank.

Sure, and you don't deal with that at all. Your math doesn't incorporate
any representation of "moving to the right".

>>>>>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
>>>>>> have provided. Correct?
>>>>
>>>>> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
>>>>> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
>>>>> the selection conditions.
>>>> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
>>>> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?
>>
>>> Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all
>>> variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the
>>> selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the
>>> selection pressure by rmns.
>> What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

> It has to do with rmns. I understand you only want to talk about ns.
> But without rm, all you are doing is removing variants from a
> population without creating any new alleles.

So? Anyway, according to you "ns" isn't removal of variants, it's
increase of variants, "amplification". Did you forget that already?

>>>>> I will stipulate to the fact that there are multiple selection
>>>>> conditions acting simultaneously in the wild environment. But rmns
>>>>> does not work efficiently in this type of environment. Produce a
>>>>> real, measurable and repeatable example of this that contradicts this
>>>>> claim and I'll read it.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't any example of selection acting quickly in the wild be a
>>>> contradiction of your claim? If not, why not?
>>
>>> Not at all. I'm quite aware that populations can live in environments
>>> with multiple selection pressures acting simultaneously. It this idea
>>> that these populations can engage in directional selection and
>>> improve fitness by rmns that doesn't make sense. All real examples of
>>> rmns demonstrate this and this substantiates my model.
>>
>> So wouldn't a demonstration of directional selection in the wild falsify
>> your claim, whether or not the actual mutations, genes, etc. were known?
>> Aren't the references real examples?

> ns alone only removes those variants from a population who don't have
> sufficient fitness to continue to replicate. Any improvement in
> fitness after this initial application of the selection pressure will
> require beneficial mutations.

Again with the removal of variants. Why are you changing your story now?
I would certainly agree that after all existing variation is exhausted,
one would need mutations to keep selection going. But so what? "rm" and
"ns" are separate processes. You can't turn them into one, seamless
"rmns". Natural selection can proceed "efficiently" when there are
multiple "selection pressures". That's what you denied. Do you now admit
that was wrong?

[John Harshman]

On 9/16/17 3:54 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in
> the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many
> species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the
> wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was
> commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples
> long ago.

I posted them at the start of this very thread.

Anyway, species generally survive for 1-5 million years, even those that
eventually go extinct without descendants. Are you saying that they only
experience selection pressures at the very end of their lifespans?
Because we had previously agreed that most populations experience
multiple selection pressures most of the time. Shouldn't almost wild
populations be collapsing due to selection pressure? Shouldn't none of
them last for millions of years?

Or is it your claim that all species were separately created 6000 years
ago and have been going rapidly down hill ever since?

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

[...]

>> WOW. Good point, Alan. You get the whole picture!
>> Adaptation in the wild is mainly a function of differential selection of alleles already in the genome.
>> There is TONS of room on the genome for the creator to install plenty of variation within each kind.
>> Darwinists, as they do with any inconvenient facts, call it junk.
>I deal with the same issues in my medical practice. When I use an antibiotic that only kills 99% of the bacterial variants, I have a treatment failure unless the patient's immune system kills the remaining bacteria (and that situation does occur). This is why when I am treating people with impaired immune systems, I use multi-drug therapy to improve the probability of complete resolution of the infection. It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples long ago.

Really? Since you admit almost all species have gone extinct, then
how do you explain to people like Steadly why his presumptive Designer
keeps changing his presumptive mind?

And do you also believe in Steadly's conjecture that species are
created with all the genes they will ever need from the beginning? If
so, how do you square that with all those extinctions? After all, if
they had all the genes they needed, why did they go extinct? Did
Steadly's presumptive designer forget some presumptive genes in those
extinct species?

I would ask Steadly these questions, but he's into writing on the
walls with his own excrement, and other infantile behavior typical of
a village IDiot. Will you act as an example of adult behavior, or
continue to parrot your "rmns" spam?

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/16/17 3:54 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in
> > the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many
> > species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the
> > wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was
> > commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples
> > long ago.
>
> I posted them at the start of this very thread.

They just aren't examples of rmns.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I read your initial post and I've already stipulated that populations can be under multiple selection pressures without going extinct. Do any of your examples demonstrate the formation of new alleles? If so I'll read the paper.

>
> >>>>>> By the way, I will remind you that your definition of "beneficial" is
> >>>>>> faulty, since a mutation that doesn't by itself improve fitness is not
> >>>>>> beneficial. In the scenario you describe, only a combination of
> >>>>>> mutations is beneficial.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'll give you an itsy bitsy teeny weeny point here John. The mutation
> >>>>> would only be beneficial if the selection condition was acting
> >>>>> singly. Armor for a hand grenade would not be of much benefit if you
> >>>>> are cooked by a flamethrower. You need insulated armor.
> >>>> Finally. Took years, but Alan has agreed that one little bit of his
> >>>> terminology is wrong. Be sure to use it correctly from here on.
> >>
> >>> Ok, what's your recommended word? Semi-beneficial? conditional-beneficial?
> >>
> >> The usual term would be "neutral". Of course the selection value of any
> >> mutation depends on the environment, and the same mutation could be
> >> neutral, beneficial, or deleterious in different environments.
>
> > "neutral" is not adequate because it doesn't address the possibility
> > of recombination. I think conditional-beneficial helps make the
> > distinction.
> The demand that one's private terminology be used in place of the
> standard terminology of the field is one symptom of the crank.

Simply calling it a "neutral" mutation does not give a detailed enough description. What if you have a population with two variants, one with a conditional-beneficial mutation at a genetic locus for one selection pressure and a different variant with a second conditional-beneficial mutation at a different genetic locus for a different selection pressure and the variants doing recombination gives an improved fitness offspring?

The graphs were constructed using the derived equations.

>
> >>>>>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
> >>>>>> have provided. Correct?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
> >>>>> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
> >>>>> the selection conditions.
> >>>> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
> >>>> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?
> >>
> >>> Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all
> >>> variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the
> >>> selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the
> >>> selection pressure by rmns.
> >> What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
>
> > It has to do with rmns. I understand you only want to talk about ns.
> > But without rm, all you are doing is removing variants from a
> > population without creating any new alleles.
> So? Anyway, according to you "ns" isn't removal of variants, it's
> increase of variants, "amplification". Did you forget that already?

Wow, where did you get that? I don't know how many times I've said this on this forum. Selection reduces the diversity of populations, mutations increase the diversity of populations. Those variants that are not removed from the population by the selection conditions are candidates for beneficial mutations but they have to have sufficient reproductive fitness to achieve amplification to give a reasonable probability of that mutation.

John, take a nap.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> WOW. Good point, Alan. You get the whole picture!
> >> Adaptation in the wild is mainly a function of differential selection of alleles already in the genome.
> >> There is TONS of room on the genome for the creator to install plenty of variation within each kind.
> >> Darwinists, as they do with any inconvenient facts, call it junk.
> >I deal with the same issues in my medical practice. When I use an antibiotic that only kills 99% of the bacterial variants, I have a treatment failure unless the patient's immune system kills the remaining bacteria (and that situation does occur). This is why when I am treating people with impaired immune systems, I use multi-drug therapy to improve the probability of complete resolution of the infection. It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples long ago.
>
>
> Really? Since you admit almost all species have gone extinct, then
> how do you explain to people like Steadly why his presumptive Designer
> keeps changing his presumptive mind?

It's not my admission, that 99% number comes from wikipedia.

>
> And do you also believe in Steadly's conjecture that species are
> created with all the genes they will ever need from the beginning? If
> so, how do you square that with all those extinctions? After all, if
> they had all the genes they needed, why did they go extinct? Did
> Steadly's presumptive designer forget some presumptive genes in those
> extinct species?

What I believe based on scientific analysis that rmns cannot work efficiently with more than a single selection pressure at a time. And therefore cannot perform the genetic transformations necessary for the theory of evolution to be a reasonable model. If you are looking for a philosophical explanation for the extinctions that have occurred, we are no longer in the Garden of Eden.

>
> I would ask Steadly these questions, but he's into writing on the
> walls with his own excrement, and other infantile behavior typical of
> a village IDiot. Will you act as an example of adult behavior, or
> continue to parrot your "rmns" spam?

Aren't you in a sweet mood today.

[John Harshman]

Yes, but you also said that they usually go extinct.

> Do
> any of your examples demonstrate the formation of new alleles? If so
> I'll read the paper.

You should have read them before publishing your paper if you want it to
be a general model of evolution.

What if you do? It just means that the alleles at the two loci have
different fitnesses in combination than they do separately.

Of course they were. But the equations don't deal with selection. You
really have difficulty understanding the simplest things.

>>>>>>>> I assume you have no intention of looking at any of the references I
>>>>>>>> have provided. Correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not unless they pertain to rmns and they name the selection
>>>>>>> pressures, the genes targeted and the mutations required to adapt to
>>>>>>> the selection conditions.
>>>>>> Some of them do. But why would that be necessary? Don't you think
>>>>>> selection can be relaiably inferred from less complete data?
>>>>
>>>>> Selection pressures kill or impair the replication of some or all
>>>>> variants in a population. Just because some variants survive the
>>>>> selection pressures doesn't mean they are continuing to adapt to the
>>>>> selection pressure by rmns.
>>>> What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
>>
>>> It has to do with rmns. I understand you only want to talk about ns.
>>> But without rm, all you are doing is removing variants from a
>>> population without creating any new alleles.
>> So? Anyway, according to you "ns" isn't removal of variants, it's
>> increase of variants, "amplification". Did you forget that already?

> Wow, where did you get that? I don't know how many times I've said
> this on this forum. Selection reduces the diversity of populations,
> mutations increase the diversity of populations. Those variants that
> are not removed from the population by the selection conditions are
> candidates for beneficial mutations but they have to have sufficient
> reproductive fitness to achieve amplification to give a reasonable
> probability of that mutation.

That isn't compatible with your claim that selection is increased
population size. Try to keep your story straight.

Shall I get off your lawn?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 10:28:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

A fatal flaw exists in your references. I believe only the
last lists any sort of degree (which we know is of paramount
importance to the good DrDr), and that one only refers to a
*dissertation*, not as yet an actual conferred degree.

Please add "BSEE" to my sig below; thanks.
--

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

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> WOW. Good point, Alan. You get the whole picture!
>> >> Adaptation in the wild is mainly a function of differential selection of alleles already in the genome.
>> >> There is TONS of room on the genome for the creator to install plenty of variation within each kind.
>> >> Darwinists, as they do with any inconvenient facts, call it junk.
>> >I deal with the same issues in my medical practice. When I use an antibiotic that only kills 99% of the bacterial variants, I have a treatment failure unless the patient's immune system kills the remaining bacteria (and that situation does occur). This is why when I am treating people with impaired immune systems, I use multi-drug therapy to improve the probability of complete resolution of the infection. It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples long ago.
>>
>>
>> Really? Since you admit almost all species have gone extinct, then
>> how do you explain to people like Steadly why his presumptive Designer
>> keeps changing his presumptive mind?
>It's not my admission, that 99% number comes from wikipedia.

Not the point. How do you reconcile Steadly's presumptive Designer
with the fact that 99% of all species have gone extinct?

>> And do you also believe in Steadly's conjecture that species are
>> created with all the genes they will ever need from the beginning? If
>> so, how do you square that with all those extinctions? After all, if
>> they had all the genes they needed, why did they go extinct? Did
>> Steadly's presumptive designer forget some presumptive genes in those
>> extinct species?
>What I believe based on scientific analysis that rmns cannot work efficiently with more than a single selection pressure at a time. And therefore cannot perform the genetic transformations necessary for the theory of evolution to be a reasonable model. If you are looking for a philosophical explanation for the extinctions that have occurred, we are no longer in the Garden of Eden.

Again, not the point. You claim some allegiance to Steadly. Steadly
claims species were created with all of the alleles they would ever
need. So how do you reconcile your recognition that almost all
species have gone extinct with Steadly's claim that all species were
created with all the genes they would ever need?

>> I would ask Steadly these questions, but he's into writing on the
>> walls with his own excrement, and other infantile behavior typical of
>> a village IDiot. Will you act as an example of adult behavior, or
>> continue to parrot your "rmns" spam?
>Aren't you in a sweet mood today.

Whether or not I am, are you going to answer the questions without
invoking rmns?

[Dr. Andre G. Isaak Phd AAAS LSA SPQR]

In article <l0ftrc987v0il3a1b...@4ax.com>,

Good point.

Andre

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

[John Harshman]

You do Alan a disservice. He wants to impress us with his degrees, but
he isn't impressed himself by degrees. All he cares is whether you
understand the physics of the rmns phenomenon and the multiplication
rule of probabilities. If you think any significant amount of evolution
actually happens, you obviously don't understand and your degrees are
all worthless.

[jillery]

SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:20:22 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Don't carry a BSEE to a PhD fight.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Not me, that's Wikipedia. And their claim makes sense since that's what selection pressures do, kill or impair the reproduction of some or all members of a population.

Right-o, that what happens when selection conditions require two beneficial mutation to occur simultaneously to improve fitness. Some selection conditions require 3 or more beneficial mutations to improve fitness, HIV to combination therapy for example.

The equations don't deal with selection in the way you are used to (relative fitness). This is why you don't understand how rmns works. This evolutionary phenomenon is not dependent on relative fitness but on absolute fitness to reproduce. Understand rubberband?

Absolute fitness is measured by total number of replications.

No, but stop smoking the lawn, it's making you confused.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:10:59 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> WOW. Good point, Alan. You get the whole picture!
> >> >> Adaptation in the wild is mainly a function of differential selection of alleles already in the genome.
> >> >> There is TONS of room on the genome for the creator to install plenty of variation within each kind.
> >> >> Darwinists, as they do with any inconvenient facts, call it junk.
> >> >I deal with the same issues in my medical practice. When I use an antibiotic that only kills 99% of the bacterial variants, I have a treatment failure unless the patient's immune system kills the remaining bacteria (and that situation does occur). This is why when I am treating people with impaired immune systems, I use multi-drug therapy to improve the probability of complete resolution of the infection. It is actually rare that populations survive selection pressures in the wild. This is why I tell these posters to google "how many species have gone extinct". It is even rarer that populations in the wild adapt to these selection pressures by rmns. If it was commonplace, John and his cohort would have posted these examples long ago.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? Since you admit almost all species have gone extinct, then
> >> how do you explain to people like Steadly why his presumptive Designer
> >> keeps changing his presumptive mind?
> >It's not my admission, that 99% number comes from wikipedia.
>
>
> Not the point. How do you reconcile Steadly's presumptive Designer
> with the fact that 99% of all species have gone extinct?

Like I said, we are not in the Garden of Eden anymore. Things die.

>
>
> >> And do you also believe in Steadly's conjecture that species are
> >> created with all the genes they will ever need from the beginning? If
> >> so, how do you square that with all those extinctions? After all, if
> >> they had all the genes they needed, why did they go extinct? Did
> >> Steadly's presumptive designer forget some presumptive genes in those
> >> extinct species?
> >What I believe based on scientific analysis that rmns cannot work efficiently with more than a single selection pressure at a time. And therefore cannot perform the genetic transformations necessary for the theory of evolution to be a reasonable model. If you are looking for a philosophical explanation for the extinctions that have occurred, we are no longer in the Garden of Eden.
>
>
> Again, not the point. You claim some allegiance to Steadly. Steadly
> claims species were created with all of the alleles they would ever
> need. So how do you reconcile your recognition that almost all
> species have gone extinct with Steadly's claim that all species were
> created with all the genes they would ever need?

I think what Eddie would say is that when sin entered the world, it brought death along with it. You do understand that living things die? From a scientific point of view, living things do die.

>
>
> >> I would ask Steadly these questions, but he's into writing on the
> >> walls with his own excrement, and other infantile behavior typical of
> >> a village IDiot. Will you act as an example of adult behavior, or
> >> continue to parrot your "rmns" spam?
> >Aren't you in a sweet mood today.
>
>
> Whether or not I am, are you going to answer the questions without
> invoking rmns?

Whether you like it or not, rmns sometimes allows lineages to adapt to the pressures which cause death.

[John Harshman]

You misunderstand what Wikipedia says. And multiple selection pressures
would only lead to extinction if they killed, in aggregate, more of the
population than reproduction creates, and that's not generally the case.

Remember that the average extinct species lasted for several million
years before going extinct.

Yes, and many selection conditions require only one beneficial mutation,
responding to any of the various selection pressures, to improve
fitness. And that's what most often happens, and that's what you deny.

Incidentally, you've gone back to "beneficial" for mutations that have
no benefit individually, which you promised you wouldn't do.

Your first six words are correct. Then it goes downhill. You equations
don't deal with absolute fitness either.

Nope. Increase in number of replications per unit time or per generation.

You win. You're a more curmudgeony old man than I am.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

How could I deny this with all the emprical examples of rmns in the wild that you haven't produced. And all the empirical examples from the lab, the fields of medicine, agriculture, pest control... that contradict your claim. You are a very convincing debater.

>
> Incidentally, you've gone back to "beneficial" for mutations that have
> no benefit individually, which you promised you wouldn't do.

Are you talking about all those neutral mutations which cause reptile to grow feathers.

You should write a letter to the editor.

That's the rate in increase of the absolute fitness. That's like saying n and dn/dt are the same thing. The probability of a beneficial mutation is only dependent on the total number of replications, not the change in the number of replications over time. Read up on sample spaces.

Get out. I'm one of the least cranky posters on this forum. And most of the curmudgeons posting on this forum aren't even amusing, they are mostly boring.

[John Harshman]

I think we've established that you intend to ignore the evidence I've
produced.

>> Incidentally, you've gone back to "beneficial" for mutations that have
>> no benefit individually, which you promised you wouldn't do.

> Are you talking about all those neutral mutations which cause reptile to grow feathers.

This sort of snide comment just makes you look like a smug ignoramus.
Not attractive.

See previous comment.

No, it's like saying that you think fitness is n when it's really dn/dt.
The probability of a mutation is not selection. One should certainly
model selection if one wants to deal with selection, but you don't.

Well, you are in fact mostly boring.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL! They're taking issue with your predicting the plentitude of extinctions! :)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John, I promise if you produce any evidence of rmns in the wild I won't ignore it. I will ignore examples of ns acting alone. We all know that ns acting alone simply removes variants from the population with insufficient fitness to reproduce in the given environment.

>
> >> Incidentally, you've gone back to "beneficial" for mutations that have
> >> no benefit individually, which you promised you wouldn't do.
>
> > Are you talking about all those neutral mutations which cause reptile to grow feathers.
>
> This sort of snide comment just makes you look like a smug ignoramus.
> Not attractive.

You mean all those conditional-beneficial mutations which cause reptiles to grow feathers?

Hey, if you think I'm wrong, you should correct this affront to your philosophical bent. Don't tell me, tell the people who publish my work.

Like I say, write a letter to the editor. I'm sure they would like to hear from someone who thinks that doubling population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring and who thinks that the joint probability of random independent events occurring is computed using the addition rule.

I know John, mathematics is a boring subject for those who don't understand it.

[jillery]

Based on your answers, I condude that you haven't told Steadly about
extinctions and death. No wonder he thinks you agree with him.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...

I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
better than not enough.


Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.

[Burkhard]

Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>
> I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
> better than not enough.
>
>
> Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.
>

I raise you a blackboard monitor

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 02:08:07 -0600, "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

>In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>
>I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
>better than not enough.
>
>
>Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.

Don't forget LOL.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John, I'm going on a hiatus from TO for a while. It's not because our discussions haven't been fun even though they have been going in circles for a while. It's because I'm going to fire up the word processing app and do a little more writing inspired by these discussions. Try to overcome your preconceived ideas and notions and take a course in introductory probability theory and then we can pick up the discussion at a later date after I complete my next publication.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/17/17 4:35 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

>> [...]

>> Not the point. How do you reconcile Steadly's presumptive Designer
>> with the fact that 99% of all species have gone extinct?
> Like I said, we are not in the Garden of Eden anymore. Things die.

This raises a separate issue I have often wondered about.

As you say, things die. In fact, things are designed to die. Who or
what did the designing?

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 12:57:17 -0700, the following appeared

Ah, of course! Thanks for the correction.

>> Please add "BSEE" to my sig below; thanks.
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:11:44 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dr. Andre G. Isaak Phd AAAS LSA
SPQR" <agi...@gm.invalid>:

Thanks, Senator (or is that "Centurion"?)

"SPQR", forsooth... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:08:33 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

I see your blackboard monitor and raise you a hall monitor
with a water-cooled .30 cal, a la Funky Winkerbean.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:01:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

According to Wiki, SPQR stands for "The Senate and People of Rome". So
no Centurion, but he could be a people.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:05:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:08:33 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>
>>Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>> In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>>>
>>> I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
>>> better than not enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.
>>>
>>
>>I raise you a blackboard monitor
>
>I see your blackboard monitor and raise you a hall monitor
>with a water-cooled .30 cal, a la Funky Winkerbean.

I'm guessing you two grew up in different neighborhoods.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <dk60sclankj1iafl8...@4ax.com>,

Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutamus!

Andreas

[John Harshman]

OK. Don't let the modem hit you on the ass.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:28:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 02:08:07 -0600, "Andre G. Isaak"
><agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>>
>>I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
>>better than not enough.
>>
>>
>>Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.
>
>
>Don't forget LOL.

....and ROFL; redundancy is always appreciated.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:17:28 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>In article <dk60sclankj1iafl8...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:01:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Thanks, Senator (or is that "Centurion"?)
>> >
>> >"SPQR", forsooth... ;-)
>>
>>
>> According to Wiki, SPQR stands for "The Senate and People of Rome". So
>> no Centurion, but he could be a people.
>
>Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutamus!

And Illegitimati non carborundum!

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:12:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:05:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:08:33 +0100, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>>
>>>Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>>>>
>>>> I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
>>>> better than not enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I raise you a blackboard monitor
>>
>>I see your blackboard monitor and raise you a hall monitor
>>with a water-cooled .30 cal, a la Funky Winkerbean.
>
>
>I'm guessing you two grew up in different neighborhoods.

Sounds like. You *are* familiar with the Funky Winkerbean
comic?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:12:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I learned it as "The Senate and People of the Republic of
Rome", but it looks like that is incorrect, and your
definition is more valid.

> So
>no Centurion, but he could be a people.

Hey, Centurions is people too!

[John Harshman]

Not exactly, but close. Senatus Populusque Romani = Roman Senate and People.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:07:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:12:43 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:05:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:08:33 +0100, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>>>
>>>>Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> In article <4mltrcdnhg4rr0g8j...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> SPQR? I suppose when in Rome...
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the entire point was that too many abbreviations was always
>>>>> better than not enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Herr Dr. Dr. Andre Isaak, SJ, OBE, POTUS, BYOB, FLOTUS, LMAO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I raise you a blackboard monitor
>>>
>>>I see your blackboard monitor and raise you a hall monitor
>>>with a water-cooled .30 cal, a la Funky Winkerbean.
>>
>>
>>I'm guessing you two grew up in different neighborhoods.
>
>Sounds like. You *are* familiar with the Funky Winkerbean
>comic?

I be familiar with the orignal Funky. According to Wiki, that strip
suffered two reboots and a time-shift, and I have no idea to which of
those alternate realities you might be referring.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:06:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

It's all Greek to me.

Whenever I translate Latin, I am reminded of this scene from Life of
Brian:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAfKFKBlZbM>

I am sooo greatful I didn't have to learn Latin to graduate.

>> So
>>no Centurion, but he could be a people.
>
>Hey, Centurions is people too!

Senators is people too, too, but they be more equal than other people
people. And of course, Caesar is first among equals people.

[jillery]

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAfKFKBlZbM>

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but I don't watch random youtube videos. What was it?

[erik simpson]

It's just a scene from "Life of Brian"

[John Harshman]

Romanes eunt domus?

[erik simpson]

That's the one.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:27:14 -0700, John Harshman

See, you're smarter than you thought.

[jillery]

Since you play the spoiler, at least be accurate. It's a particular
scene from Life of Brian. My impression most everybody on T.O. has
seen it multiple times.

[erik simpson]

Didn't mean to spoil: it's one of my favorite movies, and I suspect that a lot
of people here are pretty familiar with it, although there are most likely some
who find it blasphemous or worse.

[John Harshman]

Well, I certainly do. That's part of its appeal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:11:47 -0400, the following appeared

Same here.

>>> So
>>>no Centurion, but he could be a people.
>>
>>Hey, Centurions is people too!
>
>
>Senators is people too, too, but they be more equal than other people
>people. And of course, Caesar is first among equals people.

"He's dead, jill."

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:12:23 -0400, the following appeared

I missed that, so I have no idea which it might have been. I
was referring to the depiction of the Hall Monitor in a
sandbag bunker with a .30 cal Browning, something which
seemed oddly appropriate for some schools.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:27:14 -0700, the following appeared

That's the one.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:16:28 -0700, the following appeared

The grammar lesson clip from "The Life of Brian"; IMHO, one
of the funniest scenes in the movie.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:36:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

Damn! Beat me, and in the exact same words!

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:35:09 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:10:05 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/17/17 5:59 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 9/17/17 4:24 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 8:50:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/16/17 6:56 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/16/17 3:43 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 2:35:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 9/16/17 2:18 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/17 12:58 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/17 11:37 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/17 10:45 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

Logic dictates what can or cannot exist. When a contradiction is identified in a sentence, or when an incorrect inference is identified, what's being said is that the sentence cannot be true.

"Invisible theistic Intelligence created unintelligent causation process (RMNS)."

The effect cannot be used to infer the cause and the adjectival description of the effect falsifies an intelligent cause.

The remedy: Describe the effect in corresponding teleological terms.

Ray