More on evolution of antibiotic resistance

[Bill Rogers]

The same lab that produced that nice video of bacteria evolving resistance have a lot of their papers un-paywalled. It will be no surprise to anyone that there's more to the evolution of multi-drug resistance than sequential selection by single drugs.

Here are a couple of papers looking at how the specifics of drug interactions modulate the evolution of resistance. In some cases it's faster to evolve resistance to drug combinations than to either of the single drugs.

http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Michel_Yeh_2008.pdf
http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Hegreness_2008.pdf

A paper on the "morbidostat" a device that monitors bacterial growth over the course of evolutionary experiments and dynamically increases the drug concentration so that the bacteria are constantly under selection, even as they develop resistance.

http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Toprak_2012.pdf

Here's a review of the applications of rapid sequencing to evolution of resistance

http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Palmer_2013.pdf

And an interesting paper on stress conditions that reduce the deleterious effect of otherwise deleterious mutations.

http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Kishony_2003.pdf

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I find it particularly interesting that you have papers showing that antagonistic two drug combinations do not evolve drug resistance as quickly as synergistic two drug combinations. Since Jawetz who wrote the original studies on antibiotic antagonism and synergism later stated this was a rare effect. But the point that you need to consider that with the huge population sizes achieved by bacterial populations, the probabilities of double beneficial mutations will be significant whether it is for antagonistic or synergistic drugs. This is why 3 or more drugs will be required to suppress rmns. This will especially be the case with immune compromised patients.

[jasonsm...@gmail.com]

It was rather interesting to watch bacteria's evolution, from the one side. On the other hand I used to think that modern diversity of antibiotics ( http://www.nextdaypharm.com/antibiotics_drugs_online/ ) protects us and we live in a kind of safety, but we actually don't.

[RonO]

What I find that is sort of sad and not very interesting in terms of
reality is that all you have shown is what is possible. You only make
claims as to what is not possible, but you have no examples of your
impossible event ever happening. How do you account for that fact?
What does it mean for your argument? How can your argument against
biological evolution be at all valid if what you claim is impossible has
never been observed, and all we have observed is what you acknowledge is
possible?

You can't deny that evolution happens because your own example
demonstrates that it does happen. You only claim that under certain
conditions multiple drug resistance will not happen, but you know that
it has already happened multiple times. Your only claim is that
something very improbable has to happen when that very improbable event
has never been observed to occur.

What kind of argument is that?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/17/2016 8:45 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> The same lab that produced that nice video of bacteria evolving resistance have a lot of their papers un-paywalled. It will be no surprise to anyone that there's more to the evolution of multi-drug resistance than sequential selection by single drugs.
> >>
> >> Here are a couple of papers looking at how the specifics of drug interactions modulate the evolution of resistance. In some cases it's faster to evolve resistance to drug combinations than to either of the single drugs.
> >>
> >> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Michel_Yeh_2008.pdf
> >> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Hegreness_2008.pdf
> >>
> >> A paper on the "morbidostat" a device that monitors bacterial growth over the course of evolutionary experiments and dynamically increases the drug concentration so that the bacteria are constantly under selection, even as they develop resistance.
> >>
> >> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Toprak_2012.pdf
> >>
> >> Here's a review of the applications of rapid sequencing to evolution of resistance
> >>
> >> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Palmer_2013.pdf
> >>
> >> And an interesting paper on stress conditions that reduce the deleterious effect of otherwise deleterious mutations.
> >>
> >> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Kishony_2003.pdf
> >
> > I find it particularly interesting that you have papers showing that antagonistic two drug combinations do not evolve drug resistance as quickly as synergistic two drug combinations. Since Jawetz who wrote the original studies on antibiotic antagonism and synergism later stated this was a rare effect. But the point that you need to consider that with the huge population sizes achieved by bacterial populations, the probabilities of double beneficial mutations will be significant whether it is for antagonistic or synergistic drugs. This is why 3 or more drugs will be required to suppress rmns. This will especially be the case with immune compromised patients.
> >
>
> What I find that is sort of sad and not very interesting in terms of
> reality is that all you have shown is what is possible. You only make
> claims as to what is not possible, but you have no examples of your
> impossible event ever happening. How do you account for that fact?
> What does it mean for your argument? How can your argument against
> biological evolution be at all valid if what you claim is impossible has
> never been observed, and all we have observed is what you acknowledge is
> possible?

It's all a part of my engineering mentality. One looks at the laws of physics and then ask what is possible. When one sees something which occurs that transcends those laws we say something impossible has happened. In the english vernacular, we call that a miracle. There are at least two miracles which have happened. The origin of the universe and the origin of life. If you want to claim reptiles can transform into birds by rmns, that would also have to be classified as a miracle.

>
> You can't deny that evolution happens because your own example
> demonstrates that it does happen. You only claim that under certain
> conditions multiple drug resistance will not happen, but you know that
> it has already happened multiple times. Your only claim is that
> something very improbable has to happen when that very improbable event
> has never been observed to occur.

Sure I acknowledge that evolution occurs and have correctly elucidated the physical and mathematical laws which govern rmns. And those physical and mathematical laws show that in order for multiple drug resistance to have a reasonable probability of occurring, the selection pressures must occur sequentially, not simultaneously. The mathematical logic for this is actually quite simple, it is based in the premise that for there to be a reasonable probability of an improbable event to occur, you must do many random trials. Probabilty theory does not tell you what the outcome for a particular random trial will be. Probability theory tells you the relative frequencies of outcomes for random trials if you do those trials many times. The problem for the theory of evolution is that it is based on the premise that improbable events occur at high relative frequencies because of natural selection. But the empirical evidence and governing mathematical principles contradict that premise.

>
> What kind of argument is that?

It's called mathematical logic.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/26/2016 2:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/17/2016 8:45 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>> The same lab that produced that nice video of bacteria evolving resistance have a lot of their papers un-paywalled. It will be no surprise to anyone that there's more to the evolution of multi-drug resistance than sequential selection by single drugs.
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple of papers looking at how the specifics of drug interactions modulate the evolution of resistance. In some cases it's faster to evolve resistance to drug combinations than to either of the single drugs.
>>>>
>>>> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Michel_Yeh_2008.pdf
>>>> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Hegreness_2008.pdf
>>>>
>>>> A paper on the "morbidostat" a device that monitors bacterial growth over the course of evolutionary experiments and dynamically increases the drug concentration so that the bacteria are constantly under selection, even as they develop resistance.
>>>>
>>>> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Toprak_2012.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Here's a review of the applications of rapid sequencing to evolution of resistance
>>>>
>>>> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Palmer_2013.pdf
>>>>
>>>> And an interesting paper on stress conditions that reduce the deleterious effect of otherwise deleterious mutations.
>>>>
>>>> http://kishony.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Kishony_2003.pdf
>>>
>>> I find it particularly interesting that you have papers showing that antagonistic two drug combinations do not evolve drug resistance as quickly as synergistic two drug combinations. Since Jawetz who wrote the original studies on antibiotic antagonism and synergism later stated this was a rare effect. But the point that you need to consider that with the huge population sizes achieved by bacterial populations, the probabilities of double beneficial mutations will be significant whether it is for antagonistic or synergistic drugs. This is why 3 or more drugs will be required to suppress rmns. This will especially be the case with immune compromised patients.
>>>
>>
>> What I find that is sort of sad and not very interesting in terms of
>> reality is that all you have shown is what is possible. You only make
>> claims as to what is not possible, but you have no examples of your
>> impossible event ever happening. How do you account for that fact?
>> What does it mean for your argument? How can your argument against
>> biological evolution be at all valid if what you claim is impossible has
>> never been observed, and all we have observed is what you acknowledge is
>> possible?
> It's all a part of my engineering mentality. One looks at the laws of physics and then ask what is possible. When one sees something which occurs that transcends those laws we say something impossible has happened. In the english vernacular, we call that a miracle. There are at least two miracles which have happened. The origin of the universe and the origin of life. If you want to claim reptiles can transform into birds by rmns, that would also have to be classified as a miracle.

So all you have determined is what is possible in terms of what you can
obviously observe in nature. You do not have an example of what you
claim is imposible. You can only make the claim that it exists, but
where do you demonstrate that what you claim actually had to happen?
Not knowing something is obviously not the same as demonstrating that it
does exist.

Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
in terms of what you do know and what happens?

Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
may be a means where your impossible does happen.

Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?

>>
>> You can't deny that evolution happens because your own example
>> demonstrates that it does happen. You only claim that under certain
>> conditions multiple drug resistance will not happen, but you know that
>> it has already happened multiple times. Your only claim is that
>> something very improbable has to happen when that very improbable event
>> has never been observed to occur.
> Sure I acknowledge that evolution occurs

That is all you have to say. Now you have to demonstrate that your
impossible situation applies. What you will find is that you are stuck
where Behe and everyone else has been stuck at. You can't even
demonstrate that your situation existed. Behe hasn't gotten off first
base with his IC junk because he can't demonstrate that anything is his
type of IC. He only claims that his IC exists. When his critics took
apart various IC systems, what did Behe claim? He claimed that those
were not his type of IC systems, but he never demonstrated that his IC
system ever existed. He put up an untestable definition, but you can't
do anything with a definition you can't verify. You should be able to
tell the difference between claiming and demonstrating.

So like Behe you have to go to your system of choice and show that the
evolutionary steps are what you claim. It is possible to some extent,
and work by researchers like Thorton have been put up (by the IDiots
themselves) demonstrating the evolutionary sequence of proteins, but the
weird thing is that no impossible steps are found when this is done.
Behe's only claims about Thorton's work was that he had demonstrated the
"edge," but all Thorton had done was demonstrate what actually had
happened. Behe was claiming that something that Thorton did not find
was his impossible situation, but Thorton obviously didn't find that.
So you are the one that has to find and verify your impossible
situation. You haven't done that. All that you have is what is
possible, and that you can't deny does happen.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/26/16 12:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

>> [...]

>> What I find that is sort of sad and not very interesting in terms of
>> reality is that all you have shown is what is possible. You only make
>> claims as to what is not possible, but you have no examples of your
>> impossible event ever happening. How do you account for that fact?
>> What does it mean for your argument? How can your argument against
>> biological evolution be at all valid if what you claim is impossible has
>> never been observed, and all we have observed is what you acknowledge is
>> possible?

> It's all a part of my engineering mentality. One looks at the
> laws of physics and then ask what is possible. When one sees
> something which occurs that transcends those laws we say
> something impossible has happened. In the english vernacular,
> we call that a miracle. There are at least two miracles which
> have happened. The origin of the universe and the origin of
> life. If you want to claim reptiles can transform into birds
> by rmns, that would also have to be classified as a miracle.

All of those are extremely mundane compared with the prospect of some
who is certain of his position looking at more evidence and changing his
mind. Now *that* would be a miracle.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:

> The same lab that produced that nice video of bacteria evolving resistance have a lot of their papers un-paywalled.
>

Darwinian evolution is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs. Confirmed mainly by way of the fact that evolution is wholly reliant on inference, not direct observation. If accepted evolution could be seen, as it allegedly occurs, then one could surely expect to find hundreds, if not thousands, of YouTube videos showing evolution in action. But this is not the case: none exist.

Our Evolutionist, Bill Rogers, most assuredly implies evolution confirmed true via "that nice video of bacteria evolving resistance," however. Bacterial resistance is NOT the main object of evolutionary explanation; rather, sexually reproducing animal species are the main object of explanation (Darwin "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859). Bacterial resistance is actually auxiliary phenomena, not primary phenomena like species. If one can observe species evolution occurring then its "evolution" and not evolution.

So mutating bacterial resistance has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and its alleged veracity.

Ray (anti-Evolutionist)

[....]

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Not quite Ron, by correctly doing the mathematics of rmns, it demonstrates how rapidly the probabilities decrease as the complexity of the selection conditions increase. The probabilities drop multiplicatively as the complexity of the selection conditions increase. Natural selection can only slightly alter these odds in limited circumstances. We see this fact in the successful use of three drug therapy targeting only two genes for the treatment of HIV. HIV has all the most advantageous conditions for evolution by rmns, a high mutation rate, large populations, in addition, it also does recombination. When probabilities get vanishingly small, it is reasonable to say this is not possible.

>
> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
> in terms of what you do know and what happens?

You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.

>
> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
> may be a means where your impossible does happen.

Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.

>
> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?

Do you think the laws of physics has changed?

>
> >>
> >> You can't deny that evolution happens because your own example
> >> demonstrates that it does happen. You only claim that under certain
> >> conditions multiple drug resistance will not happen, but you know that
> >> it has already happened multiple times. Your only claim is that
> >> something very improbable has to happen when that very improbable event
> >> has never been observed to occur.
> > Sure I acknowledge that evolution occurs
>
> That is all you have to say. Now you have to demonstrate that your
> impossible situation applies. What you will find is that you are stuck
> where Behe and everyone else has been stuck at. You can't even
> demonstrate that your situation existed. Behe hasn't gotten off first
> base with his IC junk because he can't demonstrate that anything is his
> type of IC. He only claims that his IC exists. When his critics took
> apart various IC systems, what did Behe claim? He claimed that those
> were not his type of IC systems, but he never demonstrated that his IC
> system ever existed. He put up an untestable definition, but you can't
> do anything with a definition you can't verify. You should be able to
> tell the difference between claiming and demonstrating.

The reason the theory of evolution is impossible is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If you don't like Behe's flagellum example for IC, then explain what helicase and gyrase were use for before DNA existed. Give us a rational explanation how the DNA replicase system came about and substantiate this with empirical evidence. There are numerous proteins in the DNA replicase system, each having to be transcribed from DNA and the replication of DNA requires these proteins. How does any form of chemical reaction, rmns, recombination, any law of physics explain how the DNA replicase system came into being?

>
> So like Behe you have to go to your system of choice and show that the
> evolutionary steps are what you claim. It is possible to some extent,
> and work by researchers like Thorton have been put up (by the IDiots
> themselves) demonstrating the evolutionary sequence of proteins, but the
> weird thing is that no impossible steps are found when this is done.
> Behe's only claims about Thorton's work was that he had demonstrated the
> "edge," but all Thorton had done was demonstrate what actually had
> happened. Behe was claiming that something that Thorton did not find
> was his impossible situation, but Thorton obviously didn't find that.
> So you are the one that has to find and verify your impossible
> situation. You haven't done that. All that you have is what is
> possible, and that you can't deny does happen.

I have, you just don't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on evolution, because that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/26/16 12:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What I find that is sort of sad and not very interesting in terms of
> >> reality is that all you have shown is what is possible. You only make
> >> claims as to what is not possible, but you have no examples of your
> >> impossible event ever happening. How do you account for that fact?
> >> What does it mean for your argument? How can your argument against
> >> biological evolution be at all valid if what you claim is impossible has
> >> never been observed, and all we have observed is what you acknowledge is
> >> possible?
>
> > It's all a part of my engineering mentality. One looks at the
> > laws of physics and then ask what is possible. When one sees
> > something which occurs that transcends those laws we say
> > something impossible has happened. In the english vernacular,
> > we call that a miracle. There are at least two miracles which
> > have happened. The origin of the universe and the origin of
> > life. If you want to claim reptiles can transform into birds
> > by rmns, that would also have to be classified as a miracle.
>
> All of those are extremely mundane compared with the prospect of some
> who is certain of his position looking at more evidence and changing his
> mind. Now *that* would be a miracle.

You have no evidence that rmns works any other way than in my peer reviewed and published papers. Didn't you learn any probability theory in your engineering math courses? Or did you major in social engineering?

[Ray Martinez]

So the points seen above completely undermine the main subject Evolutionists Bill Rogers and Alan Kleinman speak about almost continually: mutating bacterial resistance as supporting random mutation-natural selection. Neither can address alleged species evolution; this is why they are on about auxiliary phenomena that's wholly dependent on primary phenomena (sexually reproducing animal species found in the wild.)

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/27/16 7:00 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> You have no evidence that rmns works any other way than in my
> peer reviewed and published papers. Didn't you learn any
> probability theory in your engineering math courses? Or did
> you major in social engineering?

Has it occurred to you that there are a few thousands of people besides
you who have published peer-reviewed papers on evolution? And that most
of them are better at mathematics than you are? And that almost all of
them would love to have the lasting fame that would come with proving
evolution wrong? And that all of them have instead come to the opposite
conclusion? Why do you suppose that is? Some grand conspiracy, or do
you really believe that you are orders of magnitude smarter than anyone
else in the last six generations?

Yes, I have learned probability in my engineering math courses. And in
my biology courses. (And, for that matter, in my psychology courses.)
I also learned something in my courses that you apparently never did: If
you want to apply math to a situation, you first must understand the
situation.

As for the evidence that rmns works, there is a plethora of evidence
that you never look at. The fact that people use it -- that they rely
on it working to get results -- is not even the strongest evidence.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/27/16 7:00 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > You have no evidence that rmns works any other way than in my
> > peer reviewed and published papers. Didn't you learn any
> > probability theory in your engineering math courses? Or did
> > you major in social engineering?
>
> Has it occurred to you that there are a few thousands of people besides
> you who have published peer-reviewed papers on evolution? And that most
> of them are better at mathematics than you are? And that almost all of
> them would love to have the lasting fame that would come with proving
> evolution wrong? And that all of them have instead come to the opposite
> conclusion? Why do you suppose that is? Some grand conspiracy, or do
> you really believe that you are orders of magnitude smarter than anyone
> else in the last six generations?

I haven't proved evolution wrong, I have published the equations which correctly describe how rmns occurs. It is the theory of evolution which is wrong. Lot's of people have their careers invested in the theory of evolution. It doesn't surprise me that they would resist the hard mathematical facts of life.

>
> Yes, I have learned probability in my engineering math courses. And in
> my biology courses. (And, for that matter, in my psychology courses.)
> I also learned something in my courses that you apparently never did: If
> you want to apply math to a situation, you first must understand the
> situation.

So tell us, what is the probability of two beneficial mutations occurring on a lineage. The calculation is easy, it is two binomial probability problems jointly connected by the multiplication rule.

>
> As for the evidence that rmns works, there is a plethora of evidence
> that you never look at. The fact that people use it -- that they rely
> on it working to get results -- is not even the strongest evidence.

Post your evidence social engineer.

[RonO]

Can you fix your line length issue?

This is just an admission of what I said above. What do you not get?
All you have are examples that already happen. You have no examples of
what you claim is impossible. Demonstrate otherwise. Just one example
where you can demonstrate that your argument applies. Why can't you do
that? We have plenty of examples of what does happen.

>>
>> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
>> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
>> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
>> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
>> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
>> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
>> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
>> in terms of what you do know and what happens?
> You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.

You know less about the origin of life in terms of your alternative. We
know how the heavy elements are generated because it has been observed
in super nova observations. So the elements that compose life are no
issue. There is no biochemical reaction that is impossible. Chemistry
is not on your side. You have nothing that is better than what you
claim is not good enough. Go for it. Tell us what your designer is
made of. Tell us how the designer created the elements that life is
made of. Tell us what biochemical reactions your designer did to get
life going.

You obviously have less than what you consider to be nothing.

Lenski's experiments tell us what happens. Where are your experiments
that tell us what your designer did? Why is having junk that isn't as
good as what you claim is not good enough good enough for you? Really,
what do you have equivalent to Lenski's experiments?

Absolutely nothing. What does that tell you?

>>
>> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
>> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
>> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
>> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
>> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
>> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
>> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
>> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
>> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
>> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
>> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
>> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
>> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
>> may be a means where your impossible does happen.
> Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.

It is fact. What you claim is not fact. Where are your examples of the
impossible being required? Behe tried, but failed. You can't go to the
flagellum and figure out the impossible steps. So where are your
impossible steps?

The physics is not on your side if you have no examples of what you
claim. All the physics tell you is that what we have observed to happen
can happen. It can be repeated in the lab. We can go back and track
the mutations needed to change the function of proteins and it all makes
sense and no impossible steps have been identified.

What do you not get. There is no physics that will allow you to just
make junk up if those things never happened.

>>
>> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
>> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?
> Do you think the laws of physics has changed?

Why would it have to change when what you claim has never been
determined to have occurred? The physics can stay the way it has been
for billions of years, and it will not change the fact that you have no
examples of what you claim are impossible things. You are the one that
has to take that physics and biochemistry and determine if the
impossible did happen. This just means that you have to figure out what
happened, and you have no examples of every doing that. We have
examples of people figuring out what happened. They always find that
the steps are reasonable and make sense. What have you found? All your
examples are of what does happen.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't deny that evolution happens because your own example
>>>> demonstrates that it does happen. You only claim that under certain
>>>> conditions multiple drug resistance will not happen, but you know that
>>>> it has already happened multiple times. Your only claim is that
>>>> something very improbable has to happen when that very improbable event
>>>> has never been observed to occur.
>>> Sure I acknowledge that evolution occurs
>>
>> That is all you have to say. Now you have to demonstrate that your
>> impossible situation applies. What you will find is that you are stuck
>> where Behe and everyone else has been stuck at. You can't even
>> demonstrate that your situation existed. Behe hasn't gotten off first
>> base with his IC junk because he can't demonstrate that anything is his
>> type of IC. He only claims that his IC exists. When his critics took
>> apart various IC systems, what did Behe claim? He claimed that those
>> were not his type of IC systems, but he never demonstrated that his IC
>> system ever existed. He put up an untestable definition, but you can't
>> do anything with a definition you can't verify. You should be able to
>> tell the difference between claiming and demonstrating.
> The reason the theory of evolution is impossible is the multiplication rule of probabilities. If you don't like Behe's flagellum example for IC, then explain what helicase and gyrase were use for before DNA existed. Give us a rational explanation how the DNA replicase system came about and substantiate this with empirical evidence. There are numerous proteins in the DNA replicase system, each having to be transcribed from DNA and the replication of DNA requires these proteins. How does any form of chemical reaction, rmns, recombination, any law of physics explain how the DNA replicase system came into being?

You are the one that has to demonstrate that the impossible happened.
The flagellum and gyrase are no such examples. Behe just claimed that
the flagellum was IC. He claimed that the order and arrangement of the
mutations needed were important, but he never demonstrate any order or
arrangement that mattered. You have not. This makes your bogus claims
just as bogus as Behe's.

You have no examples of what you claim is impossible. Just claiming
that it is impossible does not show the steps that were impossible. We
have examples of the possible. We have experiments like Lenski's where
they can go back and determine what happened because they saved bacteria
at the various generations. You need to demonstrate the arrangements of
your mutations and demonstrate that they could never have happened. Go
for it. It isn't impossible. Groups like Thorton's have done it for
several proteins.

Just claiming that it happened is bogus. Do what you claim is not good
enough and show us what happened in the gyrase example or Behe's bogus
flagellum argument. Behe never demonstrated that anything impossible
ever happened. He just kept claiming that he happened. He answered his
critics and told them what he needed to do to determine if his system
was his type of IC, but he never got around to doing what he needed to
do. Never. Where is his definition of well matched? Where did you
determine the order and arrangement of his mutations that mattered?
Behe made the claims that, that would make his system IC, but he never
got around to doing it.

>>
>> So like Behe you have to go to your system of choice and show that the
>> evolutionary steps are what you claim. It is possible to some extent,
>> and work by researchers like Thorton have been put up (by the IDiots
>> themselves) demonstrating the evolutionary sequence of proteins, but the
>> weird thing is that no impossible steps are found when this is done.
>> Behe's only claims about Thorton's work was that he had demonstrated the
>> "edge," but all Thorton had done was demonstrate what actually had
>> happened. Behe was claiming that something that Thorton did not find
>> was his impossible situation, but Thorton obviously didn't find that.
>> So you are the one that has to find and verify your impossible
>> situation. You haven't done that. All that you have is what is
>> possible, and that you can't deny does happen.
> I have, you just don't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on evolution, because that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

You do not understand that we only have what is possible. You do not
have any examples of what you claim is impossible. Evolution obviously
works and when we look into it all we ever find is the possible. What
should that tell you?

Why can't you go to the flagellum and tell us the impossible steps?

Biological evolution is fact. Behe understood that. He only claimed
that his designer had to tweek things a few times. The tweeking seems
to have ended half a billion years ago and Behe has acknowledged that
his designer could be dead, but he still claims that his designer was
needed. He just never got around to demonstrating any of the steps that
the designer had to do.

You are in the same boat. All your examples are what does happen. You
have no examples that support your claims.

What do you not get? Nothing is what you have, not the other way
around. We have working examples of evolution of function, but what do
you have?

You are the one that obviously does not understand the limitations of
your own argument. You have no examples of what you claim had to
happen. What does zero mean for your mathematics?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I click on the post reply button, type my answer in the box, all other formating issues are due to the software.

>
> This is just an admission of what I said above. What do you not get?
> All you have are examples that already happen. You have no examples of
> what you claim is impossible. Demonstrate otherwise. Just one example
> where you can demonstrate that your argument applies. Why can't you do
> that? We have plenty of examples of what does happen.

So you are admitting that reptile can not turn into birds by rmns? Finally!

>
> >>
> >> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
> >> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
> >> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
> >> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
> >> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
> >> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
> >> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
> >> in terms of what you do know and what happens?
> > You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.
>
> You know less about the origin of life in terms of your alternative. We
> know how the heavy elements are generated because it has been observed
> in super nova observations. So the elements that compose life are no
> issue. There is no biochemical reaction that is impossible. Chemistry
> is not on your side. You have nothing that is better than what you
> claim is not good enough. Go for it. Tell us what your designer is
> made of. Tell us how the designer created the elements that life is
> made of. Tell us what biochemical reactions your designer did to get
> life going.

Since you know so much about the origin of life, tell us what the selection pressures were to create the DNA replicase system before DNA existed.

>
> You obviously have less than what you consider to be nothing.

Not right Ron, I know how rmns works, I had my work peer reviewed and published. But at least you finally admit that rmns can not turn reptiles into birds.

>
> Lenski's experiments tell us what happens. Where are your experiments
> that tell us what your designer did? Why is having junk that isn't as
> good as what you claim is not good enough good enough for you? Really,
> what do you have equivalent to Lenski's experiments?

I do the mathematical analysis for these experiments. And my mathematics correctly predicts what will happen. That includes what will happen in the experiment which this thread is based if the experimenters use 2 or 3 drugs in their experiment. I hope they do the experiment because then we may start making progress against antimicrobial drug resistance.

>
> Absolutely nothing. What does that tell you?

Nothing but the correct physics and mathematics or rmns.

>
> >>
> >> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
> >> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
> >> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
> >> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
> >> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
> >> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
> >> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
> >> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
> >> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
> >> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
> >> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
> >> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
> >> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
> >> may be a means where your impossible does happen.
> > Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.
>
> It is fact. What you claim is not fact. Where are your examples of the
> impossible being required? Behe tried, but failed. You can't go to the
> flagellum and figure out the impossible steps. So where are your
> impossible steps?

I like the DNA replicase system as a better example of irreducible complexity. Of course you are going to tell us what the selection pressures were to evolve such a system before DNA existed.

>
> The physics is not on your side if you have no examples of what you
> claim. All the physics tell you is that what we have observed to happen
> can happen. It can be repeated in the lab. We can go back and track
> the mutations needed to change the function of proteins and it all makes
> sense and no impossible steps have been identified.

All real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the physics and mathematics of my published model of rmns. This includes the evolution of HIV to one, two and three drug therapy, the Lenski experiment, the video of bacteria evolving in the family sized agar plate, and any other real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to post any empirical examples which contradict my model. I won't hold my breath for that.

>
> What do you not get. There is no physics that will allow you to just
> make junk up if those things never happened.

Just because you don't understand something, you call it junk? So I guess multidrug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and failed cancer treatments never happened but reptiles do turn into birds by rmns.

>
> >>
> >> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
> >> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?
> > Do you think the laws of physics has changed?
>
> Why would it have to change when what you claim has never been
> determined to have occurred? The physics can stay the way it has been
> for billions of years, and it will not change the fact that you have no
> examples of what you claim are impossible things. You are the one that
> has to take that physics and biochemistry and determine if the
> impossible did happen. This just means that you have to figure out what
> happened, and you have no examples of every doing that. We have
> examples of people figuring out what happened. They always find that
> the steps are reasonable and make sense. What have you found? All your
> examples are of what does happen.

What I can do is take real measured examples of rmns and see the mathematical pattern in this phenomenon. I can then write the equations which describe this pattern. Find a real, measurable and repeatable example of this phenomenon that does not follow this pattern. You will not find one.

That's not my job Ron. My job is to recognize how rmns works, write the governing equations for the phenomenon and compare this with real, measurable and repeatable examples of the phenomenon. If you have any real, measurable and repeatable examples, post them. But you won't because they don't exist. John Harshman has created a scenario in his mind that contradicts my equations but he doesn't have any empirical evidence to support his scenario. Perhaps you can do better, but you won't.

>
> You have no examples of what you claim is impossible. Just claiming
> that it is impossible does not show the steps that were impossible. We
> have examples of the possible. We have experiments like Lenski's where
> they can go back and determine what happened because they saved bacteria
> at the various generations. You need to demonstrate the arrangements of
> your mutations and demonstrate that they could never have happened. Go
> for it. It isn't impossible. Groups like Thorton's have done it for
> several proteins.

And Lenski's experiment is behaving as my equations predict. His experiment is taking more than a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do think his evolutionary process would speed up if he ran his experiments at non-optimal temperature as well as starvation pressure? My equations say no.

>
> Just claiming that it happened is bogus. Do what you claim is not good
> enough and show us what happened in the gyrase example or Behe's bogus
> flagellum argument. Behe never demonstrated that anything impossible
> ever happened. He just kept claiming that he happened. He answered his
> critics and told them what he needed to do to determine if his system
> was his type of IC, but he never got around to doing what he needed to
> do. Never. Where is his definition of well matched? Where did you
> determine the order and arrangement of his mutations that mattered?
> Behe made the claims that, that would make his system IC, but he never
> got around to doing it.

Where are your selection pressures which show how the DNA replicase system evolved before the existence of DNA?

>
> >>
> >> So like Behe you have to go to your system of choice and show that the
> >> evolutionary steps are what you claim. It is possible to some extent,
> >> and work by researchers like Thorton have been put up (by the IDiots
> >> themselves) demonstrating the evolutionary sequence of proteins, but the
> >> weird thing is that no impossible steps are found when this is done.
> >> Behe's only claims about Thorton's work was that he had demonstrated the
> >> "edge," but all Thorton had done was demonstrate what actually had
> >> happened. Behe was claiming that something that Thorton did not find
> >> was his impossible situation, but Thorton obviously didn't find that.
> >> So you are the one that has to find and verify your impossible
> >> situation. You haven't done that. All that you have is what is
> >> possible, and that you can't deny does happen.
> > I have, you just don't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on evolution, because that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
>
> You do not understand that we only have what is possible. You do not
> have any examples of what you claim is impossible. Evolution obviously
> works and when we look into it all we ever find is the possible. What
> should that tell you?

Sure we have an example of what is impossible, the evolution of reptiles into birds. The multiplication rule of probabilities prohibits this.

>
> Why can't you go to the flagellum and tell us the impossible steps?

I like the DNA replicase system as a model for irreducible complexity. I read Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's concept and sent Miller and email several years ago. In that email, I asked Miller what the purpose for helicase and gyrase were before DNA existed. His response was "That's a good question". Perhaps you want to answer that question since you know so much about the origin of life.

>
> Biological evolution is fact. Behe understood that. He only claimed
> that his designer had to tweek things a few times. The tweeking seems
> to have ended half a billion years ago and Behe has acknowledged that
> his designer could be dead, but he still claims that his designer was
> needed. He just never got around to demonstrating any of the steps that
> the designer had to do.

Of course biological evolution is a fact, I published the physics and mathematics of rmns and correctly explain how this phenomenon works. It's the theory of evolution which is not the fact.

>
> You are in the same boat. All your examples are what does happen. You
> have no examples that support your claims.

That's what science does, is explain physical phenomenon. And I have correctly explained the rmns phenomenon. And once you understand the phenomenon, you will understand why rmns can not transform reptiles into birds. It's the multiplication rule of probabilities which prevents this.

>
> What do you not get? Nothing is what you have, not the other way
> around. We have working examples of evolution of function, but what do
> you have?

I do have the correct physics and mathematics of rmns. You evolutionists should have done this mathematics long ago.

>
> You are the one that obviously does not understand the limitations of
> your own argument. You have no examples of what you claim had to
> happen. What does zero mean for your mathematics?

Zero is the virtual value for the probability that rmns transformed a reptile into a bird.

[RonO]

What news reader are you using? Have you thought about trying something
else?

>>
>> This is just an admission of what I said above. What do you not get?
>> All you have are examples that already happen. You have no examples of
>> what you claim is impossible. Demonstrate otherwise. Just one example
>> where you can demonstrate that your argument applies. Why can't you do
>> that? We have plenty of examples of what does happen.
> So you are admitting that reptile can not turn into birds by rmns? Finally!

So you admit that what you have is not as good as what you claim is not
good enough?

Really, what do you think that you are doing? Biological evolution is
fact. Even you know that, so what is your beef? Do you have an
alternative? You obviously don't have what you claim to have. Where is
the impossible evolution that you claim has to happen? Why are your
only examples what can and do happen?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
>>>> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
>>>> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
>>>> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
>>>> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
>>>> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
>>>> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
>>>> in terms of what you do know and what happens?
>>> You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.
>>
>> You know less about the origin of life in terms of your alternative. We
>> know how the heavy elements are generated because it has been observed
>> in super nova observations. So the elements that compose life are no
>> issue. There is no biochemical reaction that is impossible. Chemistry
>> is not on your side. You have nothing that is better than what you
>> claim is not good enough. Go for it. Tell us what your designer is
>> made of. Tell us how the designer created the elements that life is
>> made of. Tell us what biochemical reactions your designer did to get
>> life going.
> Since you know so much about the origin of life, tell us what the selection pressures were to create the DNA replicase system before DNA existed.

You are the one that needs to know more about the origin of life. All I
claim is that we have more evidence for abiogenesis than you have for
your alternative. Go for it and demonstrate that I am wrong. Where is
your evidence?

Where did anyone say that the origin of life have to have gyrases at the
start? Just put up your model of what you think happened. All we know
is that DNA likely did not exist in the first self replicators. All we
see today are the surviving lifeforms. That is how evolution works.
You don't see the ones that haven't made it to today.

All I claim is that real science has more evidence for abiogenesis than
you have for your alternative. That is the only thing that I claim.
Why would I make any claims about gyrases? The first self replicators
likely didn't even have DNA so why would they have gyrases?

Why make such a stupid claim in order to deny reality? Do you have more
evidence than what I put forward for abiogenesis for your alternative.
Go for it and put it forward. We have all the elements. We have all
the chemistry. We have an earth that is billions of years old. Life
did not look like it does today half a billion years ago. Why is that?
We have work such as Thorton's where they have determined what two
mutations were needed to change the estrogen receptors to work with a
new ligand. What do you have? The change that Thorton was dealing with
predated the Cambrian explosion. The steroid receptors duplicated and
evolved before most of the major phyla of animals evolved. What do you
have?

>>
>> You obviously have less than what you consider to be nothing.
> Not right Ron, I know how rmns works, I had my work peer reviewed and published. But at least you finally admit that rmns can not turn reptiles into birds.

Your work didn't demonstrate evolution of any kind that would benefit
your alternative. Why lie to yourself. You have nothing even as good
as what you claim is not good enough. Just because you got published
means jack in this case because you demonstrated nothing that would help
you out. Where is the evidence as good as what you claim is not good
enough for abiogenesis? Put up what you have. Don't just make stupid
claims that don't matter. Put up your evidence. Abiogenesis is among
the weakest of scientific endeavors and can't even compare to biological
evolution and yet you have nothing even as good as that.

>>
>> Lenski's experiments tell us what happens. Where are your experiments
>> that tell us what your designer did? Why is having junk that isn't as
>> good as what you claim is not good enough good enough for you? Really,
>> what do you have equivalent to Lenski's experiments?
> I do the mathematical analysis for these experiments. And my mathematics correctly predicts what will happen. That includes what will happen in the experiment which this thread is based if the experimenters use 2 or 3 drugs in their experiment. I hope they do the experiment because then we may start making progress against antimicrobial drug resistance.

So what? What you need to do is demonstrate that any impossible things
ever had to happen. What do you not get? All you demonstrate is what
does happen. It doesn't matter if you can keep multiple drug resistance
from evolving under certain circumstances because you know that it has
already evolved. What do you not get? Just because you may be able to
prevent something under certain conditions doesn't meant that it already
hasn't happened, and it obviously did happen.

>>
>> Absolutely nothing. What does that tell you?
> Nothing but the correct physics and mathematics or rmns.

Nothing. What does that tell you? Why is it that you have nothing as
good as what you claim is not good enough? What does that nothing tell you?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
>>>> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
>>>> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
>>>> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
>>>> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
>>>> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
>>>> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
>>>> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
>>>> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
>>>> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
>>>> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
>>>> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
>>>> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
>>>> may be a means where your impossible does happen.
>>> Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.
>>
>> It is fact. What you claim is not fact. Where are your examples of the
>> impossible being required? Behe tried, but failed. You can't go to the
>> flagellum and figure out the impossible steps. So where are your
>> impossible steps?
> I like the DNA replicase system as a better example of irreducible complexity. Of course you are going to tell us what the selection pressures were to evolve such a system before DNA existed.

Why does this matter? What we don't know means what? What do you know
that would help you out? Where is the evidence that any impossible
steps had to happen? Just your say so doesn't mean squat.

Why would the DNA replicase system be IC? Do you know anything about
molecular biology?

Do you know that short linear DNA molecules do not need gyrases? Long,
I don't know how long, but likely over 10,000 base-pairs fragments of
DNA do not need gyrases. If the ends are held rigid by excessive length
or DNA compaction you need gyrases. When DNA formed the first circular
molecules gyrases would be a benefit, but all you have to do is nick one
strand and the circle will unwind itself. Look up rolling circle DNA
replication. No gyrases required. Did you know that? Think about it.
Gyrases obviously could evolve after DNA encoded the first DNA encoded
genes. This is just basic molecular biology. That is just a fact.
Beats me who told you differently. When you are talking about the
evolution of DNA replication you are not talking about starting with
histones and nuclear matrix that holds loops of long linear molecules.
It is just a fact that you don't need gyrases to replicate short linear
DNA sequences. How do you think Sanger sequencing works or PCR? Taq
polymerase that is used for the vast majority of PCR DNA amplifications
does not have gyrase and it replicates DNA very well out to several
thousand base-pairs in length. Who told you that gyrase was required
for DNA replication?

Just think for a second or two. Why didn't a biochemist like Behe who
worked with nucleic acids never claim that DNA replication was his type
of IC? There is just too much known about DNA replication for Behe to
make such a stupid claim. Why would you be able to make such a claim?

>>
>> The physics is not on your side if you have no examples of what you
>> claim. All the physics tell you is that what we have observed to happen
>> can happen. It can be repeated in the lab. We can go back and track
>> the mutations needed to change the function of proteins and it all makes
>> sense and no impossible steps have been identified.
> All real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the physics and mathematics of my published model of rmns. This includes the evolution of HIV to one, two and three drug therapy, the Lenski experiment, the video of bacteria evolving in the family sized agar plate, and any other real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to post any empirical examples which contradict my model. I won't hold my breath for that.

All known examples of biological evolution do not violate any physics or
mathematical nonsense. You are the one that needs to demonstrate that
the impossible ever happened. You have never done that. Just making
stupid claims like your gyrase claims is not going to get you very far.
You need to have examples like we have for what actually happens.

The fact is all you have are examples of what does and can happen in nature.

>>
>> What do you not get. There is no physics that will allow you to just
>> make junk up if those things never happened.
> Just because you don't understand something, you call it junk? So I guess multidrug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and failed cancer treatments never happened but reptiles do turn into birds by rmns.

What are you talking about? Evolution of pesticide resistance is fact.
Evolution of mutidrug resistant microbes is fact. The evolution of
herbicide resistance is fact. Random mutation and natural selection is
all that was required. You can even do the experiments in the field or
lab and replicate the fact that biological evolution does happen by
random mutation and natural selection. What you call random is more
likely arbitrary mutations. Mutations just happen and sometimes they do
something that gets selected for. That is just fact.

Do you have any examples where "random" mutations were not what was
selected in any known examples?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
>>>> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?
>>> Do you think the laws of physics has changed?
>>
>> Why would it have to change when what you claim has never been
>> determined to have occurred? The physics can stay the way it has been
>> for billions of years, and it will not change the fact that you have no
>> examples of what you claim are impossible things. You are the one that
>> has to take that physics and biochemistry and determine if the
>> impossible did happen. This just means that you have to figure out what
>> happened, and you have no examples of every doing that. We have
>> examples of people figuring out what happened. They always find that
>> the steps are reasonable and make sense. What have you found? All your
>> examples are of what does happen.
> What I can do is take real measured examples of rmns and see the mathematical pattern in this phenomenon. I can then write the equations which describe this pattern. Find a real, measurable and repeatable example of this phenomenon that does not follow this pattern. You will not find one.

Well then do it. Demonstrate that you have any examples of what you
consider to be impossible in nature. Your gyrase example was bogus, so
you will have to do better than that.

Yes it is. If you claim that some impossible thing had to happen in the
evolution of life it is up to you to demonstrate that it actually
happened and was impossible. Who should do it? You are the one making
the stupid claim.

All you have done is recognize that natural selection does work. Think
about it for just a minute. You have to find examples where it would
not have worked, but all you have are examples of it working.

>>
>> You have no examples of what you claim is impossible. Just claiming
>> that it is impossible does not show the steps that were impossible. We
>> have examples of the possible. We have experiments like Lenski's where
>> they can go back and determine what happened because they saved bacteria
>> at the various generations. You need to demonstrate the arrangements of
>> your mutations and demonstrate that they could never have happened. Go
>> for it. It isn't impossible. Groups like Thorton's have done it for
>> several proteins.
> And Lenski's experiment is behaving as my equations predict. His experiment is taking more than a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do think his evolutionary process would speed up if he ran his experiments at non-optimal temperature as well as starvation pressure? My equations say no.

Why shouldn't Lenski's experiments reflect reality? His bacteria are
evolving naturally. He is only supplying the environment for the
bacteria to evolve in.

Why isn't this enough for you? Where do you need something different?
The bacteria do not have to do anything that amazing. They get
everything that they need from the researchers. They are just adapting
to growth in that particular laboratory condition. They don't have a
world to conquer or millions of niches to exploit.

>>
>> Just claiming that it happened is bogus. Do what you claim is not good
>> enough and show us what happened in the gyrase example or Behe's bogus
>> flagellum argument. Behe never demonstrated that anything impossible
>> ever happened. He just kept claiming that he happened. He answered his
>> critics and told them what he needed to do to determine if his system
>> was his type of IC, but he never got around to doing what he needed to
>> do. Never. Where is his definition of well matched? Where did you
>> determine the order and arrangement of his mutations that mattered?
>> Behe made the claims that, that would make his system IC, but he never
>> got around to doing it.
> Where are your selection pressures which show how the DNA replicase system evolved before the existence of DNA?

Where is your evidence that it had too? It looks like RNA came first,
so you likely should start with RNA replication. They already have self
replicating RNAs.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074552113004262

We don't know when DNA came to be used, but there could have been RNA
before DNA and DNA likely just came in as a genetic storage system that
helped make more RNA, just like it is used as a template to make RNA
today. So you should likely be looking for polymerases that made DNA
from existing RNAs. This DNA obviously could be used to make more of
the RNA that was used as a template to make it. The first DNA did not
have to be double stranded and would be perfectly functional with only a
polymerase that would make a DNA strand from the existing functional
RNA. Remember your claims are so bad that all I have to do is come up
with a plausible scenario and it is over for you, and it doesn't even
have to be that plausible. Face it. That is how bad your argument is.
You really have nothing, and ignorance is not anything worth basing your
alternative on.

Just think about it. Self replicating RNAs evolved. Some of these RNAs
evolved polymerase activity that made RNA from the RNA template. It
would be another way to self replicate, you would just go through a
complementary strand intermediate. The same polymerase would make the
complementary template and then make the functional RNA from the
template. One of these self replicating RNA polymerases evolved the
capability to make a DNA complementary strand from an RNA template. At
first these complementary strands of DNA may have had no more function
than to stabilize the RNA. They would not replicate DNA copies of
themselves they would always be made from RNA templates. Beats me what
came next, but you can obviously make more functional RNA from such a
DNA strand, so an RNA polymerase from a DNA template could have evolved.
Once you have that a DNA polymerase may have evolved that could make a
DNA complementary strand from the original single DNA strand you would
have double stranded DNA. This double stranded DNA could be used as a
template to make more functional RNAs.

This is obviously a scenario where DNA replication could evolve. That
is all that I need because you have nothing. What is your designer made
of? How did the designer make the DNA replication system? I have the
elements. I have nucleic acid biochemistry. I have RNA and DNA. What
do you have?

>>
>>>>
>>>> So like Behe you have to go to your system of choice and show that the
>>>> evolutionary steps are what you claim. It is possible to some extent,
>>>> and work by researchers like Thorton have been put up (by the IDiots
>>>> themselves) demonstrating the evolutionary sequence of proteins, but the
>>>> weird thing is that no impossible steps are found when this is done.
>>>> Behe's only claims about Thorton's work was that he had demonstrated the
>>>> "edge," but all Thorton had done was demonstrate what actually had
>>>> happened. Behe was claiming that something that Thorton did not find
>>>> was his impossible situation, but Thorton obviously didn't find that.
>>>> So you are the one that has to find and verify your impossible
>>>> situation. You haven't done that. All that you have is what is
>>>> possible, and that you can't deny does happen.
>>> I have, you just don't understand the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on evolution, because that is why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
>>
>> You do not understand that we only have what is possible. You do not
>> have any examples of what you claim is impossible. Evolution obviously
>> works and when we look into it all we ever find is the possible. What
>> should that tell you?
> Sure we have an example of what is impossible, the evolution of reptiles into birds. The multiplication rule of probabilities prohibits this.

So show us the impossible steps and demonstrate how they were
impossible. Go for it. Just take the feather. Tell us the order of
the mutations that were required and demonstrate that they were
impossible to have happened in that order. You know that is what you
need to do, but you can't do it. Your only such examples are examples
of what is not impossible.

>>
>> Why can't you go to the flagellum and tell us the impossible steps?
> I like the DNA replicase system as a model for irreducible complexity. I read Ken Miller's refutation of Behe's concept and sent Miller and email several years ago. In that email, I asked Miller what the purpose for helicase and gyrase were before DNA existed. His response was "That's a good question". Perhaps you want to answer that question since you know so much about the origin of life.

Why do you think that a nucleic acid biochemist never claimed that DNA
replication was IC? Why is Behe stuck on blood clotting, the immune
system, and the flagellum? Helicases and gyrases are not needed for DNA
replication. DNA replicates fine without them. Look it up. You can
even replicate DNA yourself. Find someone with a thermocycler and buy a
kit and it only comes with DNA polymerase. You supply the template and
some primers and it replicates your DNA with out gyrases.

>>
>> Biological evolution is fact. Behe understood that. He only claimed
>> that his designer had to tweek things a few times. The tweeking seems
>> to have ended half a billion years ago and Behe has acknowledged that
>> his designer could be dead, but he still claims that his designer was
>> needed. He just never got around to demonstrating any of the steps that
>> the designer had to do.
> Of course biological evolution is a fact, I published the physics and mathematics of rmns and correctly explain how this phenomenon works. It's the theory of evolution which is not the fact.

Evolution is fact, so what is your beef. Even you understand that much
about reality. What you need are examples of what you claim is
impossible. You don't have any. What does zero mean to your
mathematics? It would be even better if you had any examples of
evolution that fits your alternative, and could demonstrate such a
thing. You can demonstrate that real evolution happens just like we
claim, so where is the examples of how you think evolution happens and
how can you demonstrate that?

>>
>> You are in the same boat. All your examples are what does happen. You
>> have no examples that support your claims.
> That's what science does, is explain physical phenomenon. And I have correctly explained the rmns phenomenon. And once you understand the phenomenon, you will understand why rmns can not transform reptiles into birds. It's the multiplication rule of probabilities which prevents this.
>>
>> What do you not get? Nothing is what you have, not the other way
>> around. We have working examples of evolution of function, but what do
>> you have?
> I do have the correct physics and mathematics of rmns. You evolutionists should have done this mathematics long ago.

Your DNA replication argument is bogus no matter what your physics and
mathematics is. End of story.

>>
>> You are the one that obviously does not understand the limitations of
>> your own argument. You have no examples of what you claim had to
>> happen. What does zero mean for your mathematics?
> Zero is the virtual value for the probability that rmns transformed a reptile into a bird.

Unfortunately we have the fossil record and the DNA evidence that tells
us that a reptile like animal is the ancestor of birds. Your
probability estimate is just bogus, because you know that it isn't zero.
Your alternative is likely closer to zero because you don't even have
an alternative nor evidence that it ever happened. Really, you can't
even begin to calculate a probability. What kind of probability could
you calculate when you can't even tell if your designer ever existed?
Natural selection works. Mutations happen. Guess what that means?

Your designer hasn't done anything that we can tell. The designer may
not even exist. The designer actions have never been observed to occur.
Behe has admitted that the designer could be dead, so you are really
stuck if that is true. The flagellum may have evolved a couple billion
years ago. Blood clotting and the immune system evolved over 400
million years ago. Your designer may have died before birds ever
evolved. How are you ever going to equal what real science has already
accomplished?

What does it mean when what you have isn't as good as what you claim is
not good enough?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:08:09 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 10/1/2016 2:01 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

<snip>

>>> Can you fix your line length issue?

>> I click on the post reply button, type my answer in the box, all other formating issues are due to the software.

>What news reader are you using? Have you thought about trying something
>else?

According to the headers he's using GurgleGropes. So despite
his "software" excuse it should be correctable in his setup;
certainly most other Gropes users seem able to do so.

<snip>
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are such a whiner.

[David Iain Greig]

If you are able to do so, kindly respect USENET formatting. It predates
your presence here, consider it a quaint local habit.

--D.

--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

[David Iain Greig]

I mean I could forcibly reformat your posts, but it tends to give the affected
poster a Scandinavian accent.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I've never said biological evolution is not a fact. In fact I've published the correct physics and mathematic of rmns. It is the multiplication rule of probabilities which shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically irrational. On the other hand, it is the multiplication rule of probabilities which is going to make for more durable treatment of infections and cancers.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
> >>>> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
> >>>> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
> >>>> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
> >>>> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
> >>>> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
> >>>> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
> >>>> in terms of what you do know and what happens?
> >>> You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.
> >>
> >> You know less about the origin of life in terms of your alternative. We
> >> know how the heavy elements are generated because it has been observed
> >> in super nova observations. So the elements that compose life are no
> >> issue. There is no biochemical reaction that is impossible. Chemistry
> >> is not on your side. You have nothing that is better than what you
> >> claim is not good enough. Go for it. Tell us what your designer is
> >> made of. Tell us how the designer created the elements that life is
> >> made of. Tell us what biochemical reactions your designer did to get
> >> life going.
> > Since you know so much about the origin of life, tell us what the selection pressures were to create the DNA replicase system before DNA existed.
>
> You are the one that needs to know more about the origin of life. All I
> claim is that we have more evidence for abiogenesis than you have for
> your alternative. Go for it and demonstrate that I am wrong. Where is
> your evidence?

You see what you want to see and call it evidence.

>
> Where did anyone say that the origin of life have to have gyrases at the
> start? Just put up your model of what you think happened. All we know
> is that DNA likely did not exist in the first self replicators. All we
> see today are the surviving lifeforms. That is how evolution works.
> You don't see the ones that haven't made it to today.

So what is/are the selection pressures which made the DNA replicase system.

>
> All I claim is that real science has more evidence for abiogenesis than
> you have for your alternative. That is the only thing that I claim.
> Why would I make any claims about gyrases? The first self replicators
> likely didn't even have DNA so why would they have gyrases?

Oh, so you know what the first replicators were? Tell us.

>
> Why make such a stupid claim in order to deny reality? Do you have more
> evidence than what I put forward for abiogenesis for your alternative.
> Go for it and put it forward. We have all the elements. We have all
> the chemistry. We have an earth that is billions of years old. Life
> did not look like it does today half a billion years ago. Why is that?
> We have work such as Thorton's where they have determined what two
> mutations were needed to change the estrogen receptors to work with a
> new ligand. What do you have? The change that Thorton was dealing with
> predated the Cambrian explosion. The steroid receptors duplicated and
> evolved before most of the major phyla of animals evolved. What do you
> have?

What was the selection pressures that led to the evolution of the steroid receptors?

>
> >>
> >> You obviously have less than what you consider to be nothing.
> > Not right Ron, I know how rmns works, I had my work peer reviewed and published. But at least you finally admit that rmns can not turn reptiles into birds.
>
> Your work didn't demonstrate evolution of any kind that would benefit
> your alternative. Why lie to yourself. You have nothing even as good
> as what you claim is not good enough. Just because you got published
> means jack in this case because you demonstrated nothing that would help
> you out. Where is the evidence as good as what you claim is not good
> enough for abiogenesis? Put up what you have. Don't just make stupid
> claims that don't matter. Put up your evidence. Abiogenesis is among
> the weakest of scientific endeavors and can't even compare to biological
> evolution and yet you have nothing even as good as that.

I've correctly described the physics and mathematics of rmns and all empirical evidence substantiates this model. But feel free to post some real, measurable and repeatable examples which contradicts this model of rmns.

>
> >>
> >> Lenski's experiments tell us what happens. Where are your experiments
> >> that tell us what your designer did? Why is having junk that isn't as
> >> good as what you claim is not good enough good enough for you? Really,
> >> what do you have equivalent to Lenski's experiments?
> > I do the mathematical analysis for these experiments. And my mathematics correctly predicts what will happen. That includes what will happen in the experiment which this thread is based if the experimenters use 2 or 3 drugs in their experiment. I hope they do the experiment because then we may start making progress against antimicrobial drug resistance.
>
> So what? What you need to do is demonstrate that any impossible things
> ever had to happen. What do you not get? All you demonstrate is what
> does happen. It doesn't matter if you can keep multiple drug resistance
> from evolving under certain circumstances because you know that it has
> already evolved. What do you not get? Just because you may be able to
> prevent something under certain conditions doesn't meant that it already
> hasn't happened, and it obviously did happen.

You are the one claiming the impossible happened, that is reptiles transformed into birds by rmns. Haven't you ever heard of the multiplication rule of probabilities?

>
> >>
> >> Absolutely nothing. What does that tell you?
> > Nothing but the correct physics and mathematics or rmns.
>
> Nothing. What does that tell you? Why is it that you have nothing as
> good as what you claim is not good enough? What does that nothing tell you?

It tells me the correct approach for making more durable treatments for infection and cancers. You evolutionists really missed the boat on this one.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
> >>>> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
> >>>> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
> >>>> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
> >>>> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
> >>>> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
> >>>> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
> >>>> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
> >>>> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
> >>>> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
> >>>> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
> >>>> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
> >>>> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
> >>>> may be a means where your impossible does happen.
> >>> Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.
> >>
> >> It is fact. What you claim is not fact. Where are your examples of the
> >> impossible being required? Behe tried, but failed. You can't go to the
> >> flagellum and figure out the impossible steps. So where are your
> >> impossible steps?
> > I like the DNA replicase system as a better example of irreducible complexity. Of course you are going to tell us what the selection pressures were to evolve such a system before DNA existed.
>
> Why does this matter? What we don't know means what? What do you know
> that would help you out? Where is the evidence that any impossible
> steps had to happen? Just your say so doesn't mean squat.

The evidence is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

>
> Why would the DNA replicase system be IC? Do you know anything about
> molecular biology?

How many parts (proteins) can you take off the DNA replicase system before this molecular machine stops working? And how were the protein parts of the DNA replicase system made without DNA? I like to watch evolutionists paint themselves into corners.

>
> Do you know that short linear DNA molecules do not need gyrases? Long,
> I don't know how long, but likely over 10,000 base-pairs fragments of
> DNA do not need gyrases. If the ends are held rigid by excessive length
> or DNA compaction you need gyrases. When DNA formed the first circular
> molecules gyrases would be a benefit, but all you have to do is nick one
> strand and the circle will unwind itself. Look up rolling circle DNA
> replication. No gyrases required. Did you know that? Think about it.
> Gyrases obviously could evolve after DNA encoded the first DNA encoded
> genes. This is just basic molecular biology. That is just a fact.
> Beats me who told you differently. When you are talking about the
> evolution of DNA replication you are not talking about starting with
> histones and nuclear matrix that holds loops of long linear molecules.
> It is just a fact that you don't need gyrases to replicate short linear
> DNA sequences. How do you think Sanger sequencing works or PCR? Taq
> polymerase that is used for the vast majority of PCR DNA amplifications
> does not have gyrase and it replicates DNA very well out to several
> thousand base-pairs in length. Who told you that gyrase was required
> for DNA replication?

One protein, any more? How about all those regulatory proteins?

>
> Just think for a second or two. Why didn't a biochemist like Behe who
> worked with nucleic acids never claim that DNA replication was his type
> of IC? There is just too much known about DNA replication for Behe to
> make such a stupid claim. Why would you be able to make such a claim?

You have to ask him.

>
> >>
> >> The physics is not on your side if you have no examples of what you
> >> claim. All the physics tell you is that what we have observed to happen
> >> can happen. It can be repeated in the lab. We can go back and track
> >> the mutations needed to change the function of proteins and it all makes
> >> sense and no impossible steps have been identified.
> > All real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the physics and mathematics of my published model of rmns. This includes the evolution of HIV to one, two and three drug therapy, the Lenski experiment, the video of bacteria evolving in the family sized agar plate, and any other real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to post any empirical examples which contradict my model. I won't hold my breath for that.
>
> All known examples of biological evolution do not violate any physics or
> mathematical nonsense. You are the one that needs to demonstrate that
> the impossible ever happened. You have never done that. Just making
> stupid claims like your gyrase claims is not going to get you very far.
> You need to have examples like we have for what actually happens.

The evolution of reptiles into birds violates the multiplication rule of probabilities.

>
> The fact is all you have are examples of what does and can happen in nature.

That's what happens in real science, you correlate your mathematical models with the real world.

>
> >>
> >> What do you not get. There is no physics that will allow you to just
> >> make junk up if those things never happened.
> > Just because you don't understand something, you call it junk? So I guess multidrug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and failed cancer treatments never happened but reptiles do turn into birds by rmns.
>
> What are you talking about? Evolution of pesticide resistance is fact.
> Evolution of mutidrug resistant microbes is fact. The evolution of
> herbicide resistance is fact. Random mutation and natural selection is
> all that was required. You can even do the experiments in the field or
> lab and replicate the fact that biological evolution does happen by
> random mutation and natural selection. What you call random is more
> likely arbitrary mutations. Mutations just happen and sometimes they do
> something that gets selected for. That is just fact.

Sure evolution of drug resistance, pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance is a fact, so a less than durable cancer treatment. This happens because you are imposing single selection conditions on single genetic loci. When selection targets multiple genetic loci simultaneously, the multiplication rule of probabilities comes into play and the probabilities rapidly drop for the evolutionary process..

>
> Do you have any examples where "random" mutations were not what was
> selected in any known examples?

What do you mean? Do you mean neutral mutations? My mathematical model shows how lineages accumulate beneficial mutations. Are you going to argue the reptiles evolved into birds with neutral mutations?

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
> >>>> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?
> >>> Do you think the laws of physics has changed?
> >>
> >> Why would it have to change when what you claim has never been
> >> determined to have occurred? The physics can stay the way it has been
> >> for billions of years, and it will not change the fact that you have no
> >> examples of what you claim are impossible things. You are the one that
> >> has to take that physics and biochemistry and determine if the
> >> impossible did happen. This just means that you have to figure out what
> >> happened, and you have no examples of every doing that. We have
> >> examples of people figuring out what happened. They always find that
> >> the steps are reasonable and make sense. What have you found? All your
> >> examples are of what does happen.
> > What I can do is take real measured examples of rmns and see the mathematical pattern in this phenomenon. I can then write the equations which describe this pattern. Find a real, measurable and repeatable example of this phenomenon that does not follow this pattern. You will not find one.
>
> Well then do it. Demonstrate that you have any examples of what you
> consider to be impossible in nature. Your gyrase example was bogus, so
> you will have to do better than that.

The example is the evolution of reptiles into birds by rmns. This is not possible because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. What other proteins can you remove from the DNA replicase system and the moleular machine still works? And don't forget all the regulatory proteins.

But natural selection is highly limited by the multiplication rule of probabilities. This is why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

>
> >>
> >> You have no examples of what you claim is impossible. Just claiming
> >> that it is impossible does not show the steps that were impossible. We
> >> have examples of the possible. We have experiments like Lenski's where
> >> they can go back and determine what happened because they saved bacteria
> >> at the various generations. You need to demonstrate the arrangements of
> >> your mutations and demonstrate that they could never have happened. Go
> >> for it. It isn't impossible. Groups like Thorton's have done it for
> >> several proteins.
> > And Lenski's experiment is behaving as my equations predict. His experiment is taking more than a thousand generations per beneficial mutation. Do think his evolutionary process would speed up if he ran his experiments at non-optimal temperature as well as starvation pressure? My equations say no.
>
> Why shouldn't Lenski's experiments reflect reality? His bacteria are
> evolving naturally. He is only supplying the environment for the
> bacteria to evolve in.

Lenski's experiment does reflect reality. It takes over a thousand generations per beneficial mutation with only a single selection pressure. Do you think his experiment will speed up if he adds thermal stress as well as starvation?

>
> Why isn't this enough for you? Where do you need something different?
> The bacteria do not have to do anything that amazing. They get
> everything that they need from the researchers. They are just adapting
> to growth in that particular laboratory condition. They don't have a
> world to conquer or millions of niches to exploit.

Lenski's experiment is enough for me to see how random mutation and natural selection works. And this evolutionary process is extremely slow even though he uses only a single selection pressure. It is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. His experiment would only get slower if he used a second selection pressure simultaneously.

>
> >>
> >> Just claiming that it happened is bogus. Do what you claim is not good
> >> enough and show us what happened in the gyrase example or Behe's bogus
> >> flagellum argument. Behe never demonstrated that anything impossible
> >> ever happened. He just kept claiming that he happened. He answered his
> >> critics and told them what he needed to do to determine if his system
> >> was his type of IC, but he never got around to doing what he needed to
> >> do. Never. Where is his definition of well matched? Where did you
> >> determine the order and arrangement of his mutations that mattered?
> >> Behe made the claims that, that would make his system IC, but he never
> >> got around to doing it.
> > Where are your selection pressures which show how the DNA replicase system evolved before the existence of DNA?
>
> Where is your evidence that it had too? It looks like RNA came first,
> so you likely should start with RNA replication. They already have self
> replicating RNAs.

You know that Vincent Maycock showed that RNA has a short half life except at low temperature. So your primordial soup is now the primordial popsicle, that is if you could get the ribose in the first place, which you can't.
<snip>

[jillery]

This is a gray area. There are several generally respected posters
who also post with unformatted lines, ex. Bill Rogers, but I haven't
seen anybody complain about it to him.

My understanding is GG has a setup option to force lines to a fixed
length. But like other GG features, there's no guarantee it actually
works now, or will stay working in the future.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:59:50 PM UTC-7, David Iain Greig wrote:

> On 2016-10-02, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:09:52 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:08:09 -0500, the following appeared in

> >> talk.origins, posted by RonO >:

> >>
> >> >On 10/1/2016 2:01 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >>> Can you fix your line length issue?
> >>
> >> >> I click on the post reply button, type my answer in the box, all other formating issues are due to the software.
> >>
> >> >What news reader are you using? Have you thought about trying something
> >> >else?
> >>
> >> According to the headers he's using GurgleGropes. So despite
> >> his "software" excuse it should be correctable in his setup;
> >> certainly most other Gropes users seem able to do so.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > You are such a whiner.
>
> If you are able to do so, kindly respect USENET formatting. It predates
> your presence here, consider it a quaint local habit.

What setting do you want me to use? Under display density, it is set to "Auto"

[RonO]

What do you think that I have been telling you. Even you agree that
biological evolution is fact.

The multiplication rule tells you nothing unless you have an example to
multiply. You don't have an example of what you claim. All you have
are examples that can occur and have been documented to occur. You need
to document your impossible event. Just claiming that it happened is
stupidly bogus. You are stuck in the same place Behe has been stuck
since he responded to his critics and claimed that the order and
arrangement of the unselected steps would make his system IC, but he
never put forward what such order and arrangement actually looked like.
He had no examples, and neither do you.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why go on about what you do not konw about the origin of life or
>>>>>> reptiles or birds when your own observations tell you what is possible,
>>>>>> and that it does happen. So what if you can keep multiiple drug
>>>>>> resistance from happening under certain conditions. It obviously has
>>>>>> happened and it is happening. Why not try to build on what you do know?
>>>>>> What is your alternative? What do you know about it? Not junk that
>>>>>> you don't know, but what do you know about it? Compare the two options
>>>>>> in terms of what you do know and what happens?
>>>>> You know nothing about the origin of life, yet you indoctrinate naive school children with your mythology. If you were a scientist, you could have easily explained the physics and mathematics of rmns but you have not. And it's not just antimicrobial selection pressures which obey the mathematics of rmns. Lenski's experiment obeys this math and if Lenski adds a second selection pressure to his experiment besides starvation, the evolutionary process would only slow further from his already glacially slow rate. Why should I give you an alternative? Just do the physics and mathematics correctly and leave the evolutionist mythology out of our educational system.
>>>>
>>>> You know less about the origin of life in terms of your alternative. We
>>>> know how the heavy elements are generated because it has been observed
>>>> in super nova observations. So the elements that compose life are no
>>>> issue. There is no biochemical reaction that is impossible. Chemistry
>>>> is not on your side. You have nothing that is better than what you
>>>> claim is not good enough. Go for it. Tell us what your designer is
>>>> made of. Tell us how the designer created the elements that life is
>>>> made of. Tell us what biochemical reactions your designer did to get
>>>> life going.
>>> Since you know so much about the origin of life, tell us what the selection pressures were to create the DNA replicase system before DNA existed.
>>
>> You are the one that needs to know more about the origin of life. All I
>> claim is that we have more evidence for abiogenesis than you have for
>> your alternative. Go for it and demonstrate that I am wrong. Where is
>> your evidence?
> You see what you want to see and call it evidence.

It is actually evidence. You are the one that sees what he wants to
see, but offers no evidence that anyone else can see. Where is your
example of the impossible, and show us the application of the
multiplication rule. You are the one that can't show their evidence.
You already know the evidence that I have because it has been published
and you even use some of it to make your arguments.

>>
>> Where did anyone say that the origin of life have to have gyrases at the
>> start? Just put up your model of what you think happened. All we know
>> is that DNA likely did not exist in the first self replicators. All we
>> see today are the surviving lifeforms. That is how evolution works.
>> You don't see the ones that haven't made it to today.
> So what is/are the selection pressures which made the DNA replicase system.
>>
>> All I claim is that real science has more evidence for abiogenesis than
>> you have for your alternative. That is the only thing that I claim.
>> Why would I make any claims about gyrases? The first self replicators
>> likely didn't even have DNA so why would they have gyrases?
> Oh, so you know what the first replicators were? Tell us.

No, you misread what you know that I said. I said that simple self
replicators came first. Beats me what they were made of, but my guess
is that they came before RNA. It is that plausibility thing again. I
just have to be more plausible than you. That is not difficult. Just
come up with something as plausible concerning your designer. Go for it.

>>
>> Why make such a stupid claim in order to deny reality? Do you have more
>> evidence than what I put forward for abiogenesis for your alternative.
>> Go for it and put it forward. We have all the elements. We have all
>> the chemistry. We have an earth that is billions of years old. Life
>> did not look like it does today half a billion years ago. Why is that?
>> We have work such as Thorton's where they have determined what two
>> mutations were needed to change the estrogen receptors to work with a
>> new ligand. What do you have? The change that Thorton was dealing with
>> predated the Cambrian explosion. The steroid receptors duplicated and
>> evolved before most of the major phyla of animals evolved. What do you
>> have?
> What was the selection pressures that led to the evolution of the steroid receptors?

Why did your designer need two basic types of steroid receptors? In
evolution things can just happen. Once a different ligand can be
identified the receptor can perform another function, doing just what it
was doing, but responding to a different signal. What do you not get?
You are supposed to be a doctor, you have to know something about what
steroid receptors do. This change occurred before the Cambrian
explosion, and it does not violate what you claim to be impossible. It
is a major factor in what happened during the Cambrian explosion. All
the other receptors of the two families just had to duplicate and alter
their functions.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You obviously have less than what you consider to be nothing.
>>> Not right Ron, I know how rmns works, I had my work peer reviewed and published. But at least you finally admit that rmns can not turn reptiles into birds.
>>
>> Your work didn't demonstrate evolution of any kind that would benefit
>> your alternative. Why lie to yourself. You have nothing even as good
>> as what you claim is not good enough. Just because you got published
>> means jack in this case because you demonstrated nothing that would help
>> you out. Where is the evidence as good as what you claim is not good
>> enough for abiogenesis? Put up what you have. Don't just make stupid
>> claims that don't matter. Put up your evidence. Abiogenesis is among
>> the weakest of scientific endeavors and can't even compare to biological
>> evolution and yet you have nothing even as good as that.
> I've correctly described the physics and mathematics of rmns and all empirical evidence substantiates this model. But feel free to post some real, measurable and repeatable examples which contradicts this model of rmns.

What do you not understand? You do not have any examples of what you
claim to be impossible. What does that tell you? The physics and math
don't matter when what you claim happened likely never happened.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenski's experiments tell us what happens. Where are your experiments
>>>> that tell us what your designer did? Why is having junk that isn't as
>>>> good as what you claim is not good enough good enough for you? Really,
>>>> what do you have equivalent to Lenski's experiments?
>>> I do the mathematical analysis for these experiments. And my mathematics correctly predicts what will happen. That includes what will happen in the experiment which this thread is based if the experimenters use 2 or 3 drugs in their experiment. I hope they do the experiment because then we may start making progress against antimicrobial drug resistance.
>>
>> So what? What you need to do is demonstrate that any impossible things
>> ever had to happen. What do you not get? All you demonstrate is what
>> does happen. It doesn't matter if you can keep multiple drug resistance
>> from evolving under certain circumstances because you know that it has
>> already evolved. What do you not get? Just because you may be able to
>> prevent something under certain conditions doesn't meant that it already
>> hasn't happened, and it obviously did happen.
> You are the one claiming the impossible happened, that is reptiles transformed into birds by rmns. Haven't you ever heard of the multiplication rule of probabilities?

You are the one that is claiming that something impossible happened in
the reptile to bird transition. Why lie to yourself like this? You are
the one that has to demonstrate that the impossible happened. Where are
your examples of three or four simultaneous mutations being required?
Just claimiing that they happened is obviously bogus when others have
done studies to determine what happened and nothing impossible happened
like with the steroid receptors.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely nothing. What does that tell you?
>>> Nothing but the correct physics and mathematics or rmns.
>>
>> Nothing. What does that tell you? Why is it that you have nothing as
>> good as what you claim is not good enough? What does that nothing tell you?
> It tells me the correct approach for making more durable treatments for infection and cancers. You evolutionists really missed the boat on this one.

It doesn't tell you that the impossible happened. You have to
demonstrate what you claim. You obviously can't just make the claims
when other researchers have done the hard work and never found what you
claim exists.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biological evolution is actually fact. If you aren't an old earth
>>>>>> creationists you are likely too far gone to understand much of anything,
>>>>>> but what has been happening on earth for billions of years? Situations
>>>>>> like multiple drug resistance have been occurring for billions of years
>>>>>> and what has life done in those situations? Multiple drug resistance
>>>>>> obviously evolves. It does happen no matter what you want to claim. Do
>>>>>> you understand what that means? It means that if you don't understand
>>>>>> what is going on that you can't make your claim about birds when your
>>>>>> own example tells you that life can get around your imagined obstacles.
>>>>>> Really, just think for a second. Do you understand the conditions under
>>>>>> which birds evolved? Why would you take your system that you know can
>>>>>> evolve and claim that since there is a way that it cannot evolve that,
>>>>>> that means that it didn't happen. Isn't that a joke? Obviously there
>>>>>> may be a means where your impossible does happen.
>>>>> Of course biological evolution is a fact. I've published the mathematics and physics of the key component of biologic evolution, rmns. It is the theory of evolution which has no reasonable probability of occurring. And that reason is the multiplication rule of probabilities and that is not an imagined obstacle. It is the reason combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. If you want to debate your imagined transformation of reptiles into birds, tell us what the selection pressure(s) were and the targeted genes which would cause such a genetic transformation to occur. Then we can compute the probability of such a transformation. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do this.
>>>>
>>>> It is fact. What you claim is not fact. Where are your examples of the
>>>> impossible being required? Behe tried, but failed. You can't go to the
>>>> flagellum and figure out the impossible steps. So where are your
>>>> impossible steps?
>>> I like the DNA replicase system as a better example of irreducible complexity. Of course you are going to tell us what the selection pressures were to evolve such a system before DNA existed.
>>
>> Why does this matter? What we don't know means what? What do you know
>> that would help you out? Where is the evidence that any impossible
>> steps had to happen? Just your say so doesn't mean squat.
> The evidence is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Repeating this is just lame. What do you not get about reality? You
have no examples of what you claim. End of story.

>>
>> Why would the DNA replicase system be IC? Do you know anything about
>> molecular biology?
> How many parts (proteins) can you take off the DNA replicase system before this molecular machine stops working? And how were the protein parts of the DNA replicase system made without DNA? I like to watch evolutionists paint themselves into corners.

All you need is the DNA polymerase and you can replicate DNA. Look it
up. You just need the template and polymerase. You don't even need a
primer because the end of a single strand of DNA can loop over and
partially pair with a similar sequence and prime the synthesis. No
helicases or gyrases required. Only polymerase. Really, look up how PCR
works. They only have the polymerase with no gyrase or helicase.

What a bonehead. It is you that have nothing and are scrambling around
trying to make some type of argument when you know that you were just
plain wrong about how DNA could be replicated.

>>
>> Do you know that short linear DNA molecules do not need gyrases? Long,
>> I don't know how long, but likely over 10,000 base-pairs fragments of
>> DNA do not need gyrases. If the ends are held rigid by excessive length
>> or DNA compaction you need gyrases. When DNA formed the first circular
>> molecules gyrases would be a benefit, but all you have to do is nick one
>> strand and the circle will unwind itself. Look up rolling circle DNA
>> replication. No gyrases required. Did you know that? Think about it.
>> Gyrases obviously could evolve after DNA encoded the first DNA encoded
>> genes. This is just basic molecular biology. That is just a fact.
>> Beats me who told you differently. When you are talking about the
>> evolution of DNA replication you are not talking about starting with
>> histones and nuclear matrix that holds loops of long linear molecules.
>> It is just a fact that you don't need gyrases to replicate short linear
>> DNA sequences. How do you think Sanger sequencing works or PCR? Taq
>> polymerase that is used for the vast majority of PCR DNA amplifications
>> does not have gyrase and it replicates DNA very well out to several
>> thousand base-pairs in length. Who told you that gyrase was required
>> for DNA replication?
> One protein, any more? How about all those regulatory proteins?

Nope, look it up. The only enzyme in the PCR kits is the polymerase and
it can make lots of DNA.

>>
>> Just think for a second or two. Why didn't a biochemist like Behe who
>> worked with nucleic acids never claim that DNA replication was his type
>> of IC? There is just too much known about DNA replication for Behe to
>> make such a stupid claim. Why would you be able to make such a claim?
> You have to ask him.

You should ask him. You should understand why he never put up DNA
replication as being IC. I'll give you one hint. It was because it is
not IC.

>>
>>>>
>>>> The physics is not on your side if you have no examples of what you
>>>> claim. All the physics tell you is that what we have observed to happen
>>>> can happen. It can be repeated in the lab. We can go back and track
>>>> the mutations needed to change the function of proteins and it all makes
>>>> sense and no impossible steps have been identified.
>>> All real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns obey the physics and mathematics of my published model of rmns. This includes the evolution of HIV to one, two and three drug therapy, the Lenski experiment, the video of bacteria evolving in the family sized agar plate, and any other real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to post any empirical examples which contradict my model. I won't hold my breath for that.
>>
>> All known examples of biological evolution do not violate any physics or
>> mathematical nonsense. You are the one that needs to demonstrate that
>> the impossible ever happened. You have never done that. Just making
>> stupid claims like your gyrase claims is not going to get you very far.
>> You need to have examples like we have for what actually happens.
> The evolution of reptiles into birds violates the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>>
>> The fact is all you have are examples of what does and can happen in nature.
> That's what happens in real science, you correlate your mathematical models with the real world.

Grow up. What does it mean when you have no examples of what you claim
is impossible?

It should be a simple logical analysis that anyone with a functioning
brain over the age of about 5 should be able to figure out. What does
it meant when you have nothing backing you up?

>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you not get. There is no physics that will allow you to just
>>>> make junk up if those things never happened.
>>> Just because you don't understand something, you call it junk? So I guess multidrug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and failed cancer treatments never happened but reptiles do turn into birds by rmns.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Evolution of pesticide resistance is fact.
>> Evolution of mutidrug resistant microbes is fact. The evolution of
>> herbicide resistance is fact. Random mutation and natural selection is
>> all that was required. You can even do the experiments in the field or
>> lab and replicate the fact that biological evolution does happen by
>> random mutation and natural selection. What you call random is more
>> likely arbitrary mutations. Mutations just happen and sometimes they do
>> something that gets selected for. That is just fact.
> Sure evolution of drug resistance, pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance is a fact, so a less than durable cancer treatment. This happens because you are imposing single selection conditions on single genetic loci. When selection targets multiple genetic loci simultaneously, the multiplication rule of probabilities comes into play and the probabilities rapidly drop for the evolutionary process..

So where is your impossible example? Isn't it stupid to continue such
ridiculous denial with the same senseless matra that doesn't mean jack
when you have no examples of what you claim?

>>
>> Do you have any examples where "random" mutations were not what was
>> selected in any known examples?
> What do you mean? Do you mean neutral mutations? My mathematical model shows how lineages accumulate beneficial mutations. Are you going to argue the reptiles evolved into birds with neutral mutations?

Have there ever been any non random mutations detected to result in
anything in nature? Were any of the drug resistance mutations non
random? You are the one that has an issue with random, so put up an
example where the mutations were not random. If you had your impossible
scenario you might have something, but what do you have? What is the
only thing that we all have?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Demonstrate that your impossible situation existed when birds were
>>>>>> evolving. Since you can't do that, what argument could you possibly have?
>>>>> Do you think the laws of physics has changed?
>>>>
>>>> Why would it have to change when what you claim has never been
>>>> determined to have occurred? The physics can stay the way it has been
>>>> for billions of years, and it will not change the fact that you have no
>>>> examples of what you claim are impossible things. You are the one that
>>>> has to take that physics and biochemistry and determine if the
>>>> impossible did happen. This just means that you have to figure out what
>>>> happened, and you have no examples of every doing that. We have
>>>> examples of people figuring out what happened. They always find that
>>>> the steps are reasonable and make sense. What have you found? All your
>>>> examples are of what does happen.
>>> What I can do is take real measured examples of rmns and see the mathematical pattern in this phenomenon. I can then write the equations which describe this pattern. Find a real, measurable and repeatable example of this phenomenon that does not follow this pattern. You will not find one.
>>
>> Well then do it. Demonstrate that you have any examples of what you
>> consider to be impossible in nature. Your gyrase example was bogus, so
>> you will have to do better than that.
> The example is the evolution of reptiles into birds by rmns. This is not possible because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. What other proteins can you remove from the DNA replicase system and the moleular machine still works? And don't forget all the regulatory proteins.

Making the same stupid claim is worse than stupid at this time. Your
claim is backed up by nothing. If you have an example show us the 3 or
4 impossible mutations. Go for it.

You need an example of what you claim to be impossible, but all you have
are examples of what is possible. Why is that?

Stupidity such as this is insane. Repetition such as this does nothing
to demonstrate that you actually have an example of what you claim. You
know that other researchers have already done what you need to do, but
they haven't found anything impossible. You obviously have to find an
example of what no one else has found. Just claiming that it happened
is stupid.

I can't go on. Just what do you expect to accomplish by being this stupid?

Ron Okimoto

[David Iain Greig]

On 2016-10-03, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:59:50 PM UTC-7, David Iain Greig wrote:
>> On 2016-10-02, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:09:52 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:08:09 -0500, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by RonO >:
>> >>
>> >> >On 10/1/2016 2:01 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >>> Can you fix your line length issue?
>> >>
>> >> >> I click on the post reply button, type my answer in the box, all other formating issues are due to the software.
>> >>
>> >> >What news reader are you using? Have you thought about trying something
>> >> >else?
>> >>
>> >> According to the headers he's using GurgleGropes. So despite
>> >> his "software" excuse it should be correctable in his setup;
>> >> certainly most other Gropes users seem able to do so.
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Bob C.
>> >>
>>

>> If you are able to do so, kindly respect USENET formatting. It predates
>> your presence here, consider it a quaint local habit.
> What setting do you want me to use? Under display density, it is set to "Auto"

You may well be off the hook; I am trying to figure it out myself
and short of adding an extension that will reformat your posts I'm unsure
if Google gives you the option.

I will keep poking; I could implement a naive word-wrap function as part
of the moderation script.

Thanks for looking anyhow!

--D.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 16:48:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:09:52 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:08:09 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>> >On 10/1/2016 2:01 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>> >> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> Can you fix your line length issue?
>>
>> >> I click on the post reply button, type my answer in the box, all other formating issues are due to the software.
>>
>> >What news reader are you using? Have you thought about trying something
>> >else?
>>
>> According to the headers he's using GurgleGropes. So despite
>> his "software" excuse it should be correctable in his setup;
>> certainly most other Gropes users seem able to do so.

>You are such a whiner.

I merely noted, as a reply to Ron, that you don't use a
newsreader, but that you should be able to figure out how to
set up GurgleGropes to limit line length if you're not
incompetent. That makes me a "whiner"?

Stop blaming "the software" for your lack of netiquette,
whiner.

[Ray Martinez]

Atheist evolution fanatic Ron Okimoto attempts to shame fellow evolution fanatic Alan Kleinman into submission.

Alan accepts existence of random mutation and natural selection but that doesn't placate Ron Okimoto or stop him from observing Alan as stupid.

Goes to show that credentials don't ensure a perception of intelligence.

Evolutionists believe everyone is stupid, including themselves.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I have to deal with biological evolution on a regular basis in my medical practice, no thanks to evolutionists.

>
> The multiplication rule tells you nothing unless you have an example to
> multiply. You don't have an example of what you claim. All you have
> are examples that can occur and have been documented to occur. You need
> to document your impossible event. Just claiming that it happened is
> stupidly bogus. You are stuck in the same place Behe has been stuck
> since he responded to his critics and claimed that the order and
> arrangement of the unselected steps would make his system IC, but he
> never put forward what such order and arrangement actually looked like.
> He had no examples, and neither do you.

The multiplication rule is applied to the joint probability of independent events occurring. My papers and the calculations in them are based on real examples of rmns including a paper published in the journal "Science" and another paper published by Bill Rogers of TO fame. And my calculations are applicable to all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns. Behe's arguments are only indirectly connected to my papers on the physics and mathematics of rmns. rmns is the main mechanism that evolutionist claim created all the complexity of life as we see today. When all the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns show that when a population is subjected to three selection pressures simultaneously the probability of that population evolving to those three pressures simultaneously by rmns drops to near nil. That's bad news for the theory of evolution but it is good news for those fighting drug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
<snip>

[RonO]

No thanks to you either.

>>
>> The multiplication rule tells you nothing unless you have an example to
>> multiply. You don't have an example of what you claim. All you have
>> are examples that can occur and have been documented to occur. You need
>> to document your impossible event. Just claiming that it happened is
>> stupidly bogus. You are stuck in the same place Behe has been stuck
>> since he responded to his critics and claimed that the order and
>> arrangement of the unselected steps would make his system IC, but he
>> never put forward what such order and arrangement actually looked like.
>> He had no examples, and neither do you.
> The multiplication rule is applied to the joint probability of independent events occurring. My papers and the calculations in them are based on real examples of rmns including a paper published in the journal "Science" and another paper published by Bill Rogers of TO fame. And my calculations are applicable to all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns. Behe's arguments are only indirectly connected to my papers on the physics and mathematics of rmns. rmns is the main mechanism that evolutionist claim created all the complexity of life as we see today. When all the real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns show that when a population is subjected to three selection pressures simultaneously the probability of that population evolving to those three pressures simultaneously by rmns drops to near nil. That's bad news for the theory of evolution but it is good news for those fighting drug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
> <snip>

This is just insane and you know it. You need actual examples of what
you claim. Not just your stupid claims, but put up an actual example.
Until you can do that why would you think that the impossible happened
when your only known examples tell you that it hasn't?

Your own examples such as multiple drug resistance are already known to
evolve by natural selection and the random mutations that you don't
like. What you need is a real example such as Thorton's steroid
receptor work except you need to determine that your impossible events
happened. All Thorton did was discover what actually happened, and it
wasn't impossible.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Just want point out again that "drug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments" are NOT the main object of explanation of evolutionary theory; rather, sexually reproducing animal species, how they appear in the wild, are the MAIN object of explanation.

According to Alan, Victorian naturalist, Charles Darwin, miraculously explained what didn't exist in his day while failing to explain the main object, and evolutionary science has yet to acknowledge this incredible failure and feat.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Last time I checked, most weeds and insects are sexually reproducers. Sexually reproducing organisms are no better at evolving by rmns than clonally reproducing organisms.

>
> According to Alan, Victorian naturalist, Charles Darwin, miraculously explained what didn't exist in his day while failing to explain the main object, and evolutionary science has yet to acknowledge this incredible failure and feat.

Darwin only got it half right.
>
> Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Oh Ron, so thankless and so clueless. I've published the physics and mathematics which describes how drug resistance occurs. I already apply the principles in my medical practice. The so-called experts in infectious disease say primary care providers should reduce their usage of antibiotics to prevent the emergence of drug resistance. So would you say Bill Rogers is using too many anti-malarial drugs and that's why he is seeing the emergence of drug resistance? Wrong and dangerous.
<snip>

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Ridiculous.

So Alan feigns ignorance as to what is being said.

>
Sexually reproducing organisms are no better at evolving by rmns than clonally reproducing organisms.
>

See, Alan did understand, but like I observed he feigned ignorance.

> >
> > According to Alan, Victorian naturalist, Charles Darwin, miraculously explained what didn't exist in his day [drug resistant microbes, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects] while failing to explain the main object [sexually reproducing animal species], and evolutionary science has yet to acknowledge this incredible failure and feat.

> >
> Darwin only got it half right.

Alan, more or less, admits that my conveyance of what he's saying is basically true.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:14:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

[big snip....]

If you don't mind, I have a question.

IF RMNS did not produce the complexity found in new species, including reptiles and birds, what did?

Alan: I'm asking you how new species appear in the wild?

Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan Creationist)

[Burkhard]

so you say, but why should we take your word for it?

> rather, sexually reproducing animal species, how they appear in the wild, are the MAIN object of explanation.
>
> According to Alan, Victorian naturalist, Charles Darwin, miraculously explained what didn't exist in his day

all of these things existed in Victorian times as well. That people were
less aware of them is a different issue.

[RonO]

Just think what you could do if you had an actual example of what you
claim needed to happen? Your physics and mathematics means jack because
it tells you nothing when you have no examples of what you need. Your
polymerase argument was bogus. Your physics and math can't help that
argument because gyrases are not required to replicate DNA. End of story.

Multiple drug resistance is fact. It evolves naturally and has evolved
naturally. You can't deny it. Do you realize what this means? It
means that there are obviously alternative evolutionary paths to your
impossible situations. You not only could be wrong, but you have been
shown to be wrong in junk like your polymerase example.

It is insane to keep making this stupid claim. You actually have
nothing. The physics and math support what we have already found. You
need to find something that isn't supported by the physics and math.
That is your job because it is your claim. What do you not get?

The multiplicative rule is shown to work in nature. It is a useful
description of what does happen under certain circumstances. We have
only found examples where it explains things that are possible. You
need the example where it doesn't make sense and the impossible must
have happened. You have no such examples. Your math and physics can't
help you.

Removing what you can't deal with in a post is stupid and such senseless
denial of reality will get you no where.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

And as soon as your papers are released from behind the paywall, someone here might read them.

>I already apply the principles in my medical practice. The so-called experts in infectious disease say primary care providers should reduce their usage of antibiotics to prevent the emergence of drug resistance.

This is where you go from being a harmless crank to being a harmful one. Yes, primary care doctors like yourself should reduce their usage of antibiotics to prevent the emergence of drug resistance.

Use of antibiotics to treat viral infections is useless. Using them to prophylax against secondary bacterial pneumonia in a case of severe viral pneumonia may be an exception, but in general, antibiotics for viral illnesses are just a way to induce bacterial resistance in someone's bacterial flora. Whipping out the antibiotics for every cough and sniffle and earache promotes antibacterial resistance, and whipping out 2-3 antibiotics in such cases to avoid resistance because of your expertise on the rmns system and the multiplication rule of probabilities just exposes patients to needless side effects and selects for additional resistances in bacterial flora amongst which single resistances are already present.

The infectious disease experts already know about the use of antibiotic combinations - when they are clinically necessary. It's a pretty obvious and trivial point. But they'll balk when you want to use a fourth generation cephalosporin, a fluoroquinolone and clindmycin on a kid with his first case of otitis media because of the "physics" of rmns and the multiplication rule of probabilities.

>So would you say Bill Rogers is using too many anti-malarial drugs and that's why he is seeing the emergence of drug resistance? Wrong and dangerous.

You really didn't understand that paper did you. We were following the spread of resistance that had already emerged not looking to see whether it would emerge de novo under a two drug regimen. And everyone in the field is well aware of the importance of combination therapy to avoid resistance - the problems come from care providers who aren't educated, counterfeit drugs with subtherapeutic drug concentrations, long half-life drugs that allow new malaria infections to be exposed to sub-therapeutic drug concentrations, and incomplete treatment courses that happen because directly observed therapy is too expensive and difficult to implement in remote areas.

> <snip>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Reptiles growing feathers, the DNA replicase coming into existence before DNA existed, how could I deny the theory of evolution since rmns can so easily do these things.

>
> Multiple drug resistance is fact. It evolves naturally and has evolved
> naturally. You can't deny it. Do you realize what this means? It
> means that there are obviously alternative evolutionary paths to your
> impossible situations. You not only could be wrong, but you have been
> shown to be wrong in junk like your polymerase example.

The problem with multidrug resistant microbes has been made much worse because physicians are trained to use single drug therapy for treating infections. Why is hospital acquired MRSA resistant to more drugs than community acquired MRSA?
<snip>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You see Bill, I don't work at the Lazy G Ranch where they pay for your papers to be open source like you do. Why don't you kick in the $5G for each paper and make them open source. Or if you are too cheap, pay the 6 bucks and read the paper.

>
> >I already apply the principles in my medical practice. The so-called experts in infectious disease say primary care providers should reduce their usage of antibiotics to prevent the emergence of drug resistance.
>
> This is where you go from being a harmless crank to being a harmful one. Yes, primary care doctors like yourself should reduce their usage of antibiotics to prevent the emergence of drug resistance.

It is this type of stupid advice which will increase the incidence of sepsis, pneumonia, meningitis, rheumatic fever,... Most smart primary care providers will discard this type of ill-advised recommendation after they hurt one of the patients by delaying the institution of antibiotics. The dumb ones will hurt more patients. Maybe your problem is the overuse of antimalarial drugs and you are the reason drug resistant Malaria is increasing in incidence.

>
> Use of antibiotics to treat viral infections is useless. Using them to prophylax against secondary bacterial pneumonia in a case of severe viral pneumonia may be an exception, but in general, antibiotics for viral illnesses are just a way to induce bacterial resistance in someone's bacterial flora. Whipping out the antibiotics for every cough and sniffle and earache promotes antibacterial resistance, and whipping out 2-3 antibiotics in such cases to avoid resistance because of your expertise on the rmns system and the multiplication rule of probabilities just exposes patients to needless side effects and selects for additional resistances in bacterial flora amongst which single resistances are already present.

Again with the stupid advice, what was the incidence of secondary bacterial infection with the H1N1 influenza epidemic? You can't figure out why you are seeing the emergence of drug resistance when treating malaria but you think you are smart enough to practice primary care medicine. NOT

>
> The infectious disease experts already know about the use of antibiotic combinations - when they are clinically necessary. It's a pretty obvious and trivial point. But they'll balk when you want to use a fourth generation cephalosporin, a fluoroquinolone and clindmycin on a kid with his first case of otitis media because of the "physics" of rmns and the multiplication rule of probabilities.

Why is hospital acquired MRSA resistant to more drugs than community acquired MRSA? That is incredibly stupid advice to use a flouroquinolone with a child. But since you are so incredibly smart, tell us what the key principles are for treating an upper respiratory tract infection.

>
>
> >So would you say Bill Rogers is using too many anti-malarial drugs and that's why he is seeing the emergence of drug resistance? Wrong and dangerous.
>
>
> You really didn't understand that paper did you. We were following the spread of resistance that had already emerged not looking to see whether it would emerge de novo under a two drug regimen. And everyone in the field is well aware of the importance of combination therapy to avoid resistance - the problems come from care providers who aren't educated, counterfeit drugs with subtherapeutic drug concentrations, long half-life drugs that allow new malaria infections to be exposed to sub-therapeutic drug concentrations, and incomplete treatment courses that happen because directly observed therapy is too expensive and difficult to implement in remote areas.

We'll see how long it takes for you to figure out that two drug therapy will not give durable treatment for Malaria.
>
> > <snip>

[RonO]

Give us the example in reptiles growing feathers where you have
demonstrated that the impossible happened. You know what you need, so
give the example. Don't just claim that it exists, but demonstrate that
it exists.

What a boob. RNA likely came before DNA and before that the first self
replicators could have been made of just about anything. Do you realize
what it means when RNA based self replicators exist that do not have
polymerase activity? It means that you can have RNA strands without
polymerase. This means that polymerase could evolve later and make more
RNA from the existing RNAs. It also means that you can evolve
polymerases that make a DNA strand from an RNA template. We have such
enzymes existing today they are called reverse transcriptases. So now
you can have single strands of DNA that can be used to make more RNA,
and that can allow DNA polymerases to evolve. There is nothing magic
about evolving DNA polymerase before you have DNA. The first DNA
polymerase would make the first DNA strand and it likely evolved from an
existing RNA polymerase.

No one says that it is easy, but all I need to demonstrate is that my
alternative is better than yours. I just need to put up a plausible
mechanism that fits with what we already know. Really, reverse
transcriptases actually exist. They make a DNA strand from an RNA
template. All you need to evolve one is to have RNA strands to
replicate in that fashion. It isn't anywhere near as improbable as your
alternative. Show us the designer enzymes that could have done it for
your model. What did the your designer do? Go for it. Magic is what
you have. Plausible order of evolution is what I have.

Even someone as lost as yourself should see the difference. Denial such
as this is stupid and will get you no where.

Ron Okimoto

>>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It only in the evolutionist mind that reptiles grow feathers.
<snip>

[RonO]

This type of stupid denial is really insane. What do you gain by
snipping out what you can't deal with and running from reality?

What is stupid is that we have fossils of dinos with feathers. Most
people consider dinos as a reptile-like amniote. They don't have fur,
but they have scutes and scales, and some of them have feathers. Birds
still have scutes on their legs. Dinos had scutes, and some dinos also
had feathers.

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

Dinos with feathers are not imaginary.

You are the one that has to demonstrate that anything impossible
happened where you claim the impossible must have happened. What do you
not get. You are the one that claims that you designer did it. You
know biological evolution is fact, so how did your designer do it so
that it would be impossible for it to have occurred without your
designer. It is your claim. All you have are examples of what is
possible. What should that tell you?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

How did dinosaurs get feathers?
<snip>

[RonO]

Snip and run in denial. How stupid is your behavior? Why not just
admit that you have nothing and go away and come back when you know how
dinos got their feathers so that you can tell us where the impossible
steps are? What an utter loser. You are just admitting that you have
no argument because you don't know what the impossible steps are. There
must be some reasoning power left in what you claim to be your brain, so
what does that reasoning power tell you when you don't know how dinos
got their feathers?

We know that feather keratins evolved from the earlier beta keratins
because birds still make structures like scutes and claws and they just
have evolved feather keratin genes by gene duplication. They still
obviously have the beta keratin genes that make scutes and claws. They
have just duplicated those genes and evolved multiple feather keratins.
We likely haven't identified all the feather keratin genes at this time
because they are in tandem repeats and we don't know if we have them
all. Some researchers are looking into the issue, and what do you think
that they will find when they figure out the mutational steps from
ancestral beta keratin to feather keratins? Really, there is no doubt
that feather keratins evolved from ancestral beta keratins that did
other things in dinos. Even if your designer did anything he obviously
just changed existing beta keratins to do the job.

What we don't know is not the issue because you don't know it either.
What about what we do know and how it means that you don't have an
argument? All we have found out so far is that we have never identified
any of your impossible steps.

Stop running in denial and actually try to figure out why it is that you
have no argument.

What does asking the question of "How did dinos get their feathers?"
tell you about the state of your argument? Think for just a minute. If
you knew the answer you could provide your impossible steps that you
claimed had to occur, but you have no impossible steps. All you have is
the fact that feather keratins obviously evolved from ancestral beta
keratins.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Was it rmns?
<snip>

[RonO]

Your insanity and snipping and running in denial continues. Do you have
any evidence that there was anything supernatural involved? Genetic
drift, recombination and neutral evolution also had a lot to do with the
keratin gene evolution over the last few hundred million years. It
isn't just RMNS that you bark about. What we have no evidence for is
your alternative. You have nothing, that is why you have to ask such a
stupid question.

I'll just put up what you snipped out and ran from again so that you can
snip and run in denial all over again. We do know a lot more than you
do, and what does it tell you when you are exposed to reality? Just
snipping and running in denial doesn't make reality go away. The same
reality will be here tomorrow.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto