The reason John Harshman is unwilling to accept the basic science and mathematics of rmns

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

John Harshman and I have been debating the mathematics (I've been doing the mathematics, he has been doing the debating) and the empirical evidence of evolutionary processes for more than 5 years on TO. The mathematics which I have presented and the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics has been peer reviewed and accepted by mathematicians experienced with biological problems and published. The mathematics is fairly rudimentary for anyone familiar with probability theory and the empirical examples used to derive the mathematics are relatively straight forward. One of the empirical examples used to derive the mathematics of rmns for multiple simultaneous selection pressures was written and published by another debater on TO, Bill Rogers. Bill Rogers has some training and experience in probability theory (which John Harshman does not). Despite giving the likely reason why Bill Rogers saw the emergence of drug resistance in his two drug Malaria treatment protocol based on the principles of probability theory, Bill Rogers will not discuss these results. RSNorman, another long time debater and graduate student level in probability theory accepts that my mathematics is correct but only applies to medical problems.
.
So why this resistance to accepting the correct mathematics which describes random mutation and natural selection (rmns) phenomenon? The mathematics is quite simple and straight forward for anyone who has taken an introductory course in probability theory and all the empirical evidence of rmns substantiates this mathematics. The reason that John Harshman and those of his philosophical bent are so unwilling and resistant to face these mathematical and empirical facts is that it conflicts with this philosophical bent. Whether this is an example of confirmation bias or folie à plusieurs, I can't tell. But society has not seen this type of thinking on such a large scale since the “archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk”. But it goes further than this. It goes further than the mathematical and empirical facts conflict with their philosophical bent. It impacts their careers and livelihoods.
.
So how will this philosophical battle go? I suspect that the necessity to understand correctly how populations adapt to selection pressures using rmns will ultimately win out. There are too many societal problems, antimicrobial drug-resistance, weed herbicide-resistances, the durability of cancer treatments just to name a few will require a reasoned and logical explanation in order to address these problems and those with this incorrect philosophical bent do not supply this understanding. The battle may be one of attrition where the ones with this incorrect philosophical bent retire or die out to be replaced by those who have a correct understanding of rmns. Or the battle could be played out in the courts. Hungry tort lawyers might figure out that people are being hurt by the incorrect usage of selection pressures. I could write their ad, “If you or someone you love has been hurt by a multi-drug resistant infection, we can get you money”. Or we may be surprised by a totally unexpected outcome.

[John Harshman]

On 9/1/17 7:41 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> So why this resistance to accepting the correct mathematics which
> describes random mutation and natural selection (rmns) phenomenon?
> The mathematics is quite simple and straight forward for anyone who
> has taken an introductory course in probability theory and all the
> empirical evidence of rmns substantiates this mathematics. The reason
> that John Harshman and those of his philosophical bent are so
> unwilling and resistant to face these mathematical and empirical
> facts is that it conflicts with this philosophical bent. Whether this
> is an example of confirmation bias or folie à plusieurs, I can't
> tell. But society has not seen this type of thinking on such a large
> scale since the “archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or
> disk”. But it goes further than this. It goes further than the
> mathematical and empirical facts conflict with their philosophical
> bent. It impacts their careers and livelihoods.

Thanks for finally saying what you've been hinting at for ages. But it
doesn't go far enough. What is this "philosophical bent"? You're going
to have to specify it. And how does it impact my career and livelihood?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hinting!!!??? Don't you recall our discussions on your cladistics? You don't take into account the mechanisms of genetic transformations with your models. You are using inductive logic incorrectly which comes into conflict with deductive logic when used on the same system.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Some background facts for the casual reader concerning the claims of Alan Kleinman, and the opposition he has faced in other Darwinists.

Alan and his opponents are all Darwinists----they accept existence of natural selection. But Alan contends existence is very limited in scope, which means he rejects cumulative selection. This is why his opponents reject his claims. Unless selection is cumulative the theory of evolution suffers falsification.

Alan tethers his claims to certain medical/disease phenomena, which as a matter of fact is NOT the primary phenomena of animal species. Darwin offered natural selection as explaining the origin of species (units of adaptation) as found in the wild. His opponents have duly made this point----that his RMNS model can only apply to his non-primary phenomena, not Darwinian models of RMNS produced for the primary phenomena of animal species as found in the wild.

Alan's opponents are certainly correct, logically correct. One cannot use a selection model created for non-primary phenomena then apply that model to find fault in selection models that have primary phenomena as their object.

As a matter of fact, Alan's basic claim is not unique. Young Earth Creationists make the same claim: natural selection has no cumulative powers on an unlimited scale.

Ray

[John Harshman]

So you're a creationist, then? You believe in separate creation of each
species?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some background facts for the casual reader concerning the claims of Alan Kleinman, and the opposition he has faced in other Darwinists.
>
> Alan and his opponents are all Darwinists----they accept existence of natural selection. But Alan contends existence is very limited in scope, which means he rejects cumulative selection. This is why his opponents reject his claims. Unless selection is cumulative the theory of evolution suffers falsification.

Ray, you are not up to speed on this discussion. I've suggested you watch the Khan Academy lectures on probability theory but you haven't. Some of Darwin's observations are valid and others are not. It takes some work to determine which, work which you haven't done. Natural selection does occur, I have to deal with the consequences of this phenomenon in my medical practice. But there are limitations on natural selection which you don't understand.

>
> Alan tethers his claims to certain medical/disease phenomena, which as a matter of fact is NOT the primary phenomena of animal species. Darwin offered natural selection as explaining the origin of species (units of adaptation) as found in the wild. His opponents have duly made this point----that his RMNS model can only apply to his non-primary phenomena, not Darwinian models of RMNS produced for the primary phenomena of animal species as found in the wild.

How would you know? What is the primary phenomena of animal species? What is the difference between rmns in the lab and in the "wild"? Do some homework.

>
> Alan's opponents are certainly correct, logically correct. One cannot use a selection model created for non-primary phenomena then apply that model to find fault in selection models that have primary phenomena as their object.

Whatever

>
> As a matter of fact, Alan's basic claim is not unique. Young Earth Creationists make the same claim: natural selection has no cumulative powers on an unlimited scale.

Ray, post some quotes and links where others have pointed out exactly what those limits on natural selection and why natural selection is limited. I've done the mathematics of this limitation, mathematics which you can not understand because you won't learn the basics of probability theory.
>
> Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It doesn't matter what I am. The question is whether I've formulated the correct accounting rules for rmns and random recombination. These rules conflict with your philosophical bent, this is the reason you are unwilling to accept these rules. Despite all the years you have spent as a biologist, you never studied the rmns phenomenon enough to actually understand it.

[John Harshman]

Apparently you don't want to admit it. That suggests that it does
matter. Why won't you answer questions?

> The question is whether I've formulated
> the correct accounting rules for rmns and random recombination. These
> rules conflict with your philosophical bent, this is the reason you
> are unwilling to accept these rules. Despite all the years you have
> spent as a biologist, you never studied the rmns phenomenon enough to
> actually understand it.

I understand it better than you do, but the fact is that "the rmns
phenomenon" is pretty much irrelevant to my work. I suppose that since
you are no more ignorant of phylogenetics than you are of population
genetics, you feel equally equipped to critique both fields.

[John Stockwell]

You have modeled one restricted case. You have not modeled all possibilities.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If you can explain how the answer to this question affects the issue we are discussing, (your unwillingness to accept how rmns actually works), I'll answer the question.

>
> > The question is whether I've formulated
> > the correct accounting rules for rmns and random recombination. These
> > rules conflict with your philosophical bent, this is the reason you
> > are unwilling to accept these rules. Despite all the years you have
> > spent as a biologist, you never studied the rmns phenomenon enough to
> > actually understand it.
> I understand it better than you do, but the fact is that "the rmns
> phenomenon" is pretty much irrelevant to my work. I suppose that since
> you are no more ignorant of phylogenetics than you are of population
> genetics, you feel equally equipped to critique both fields.

Hell no, you don't understand how rmns works. If you wanted your phylogenetics to be something more than science fiction, you would pay attention to how rmns works. It is easy to tell when you have lost the debate, you resort to name calling. John, how does it feel to learn that your entire academic career is dedicated to a falsehood, or haven't you learned that (yet).

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
> You have modeled one restricted case. You have not modeled all possibilities.

Is that so? Give us a single real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns which doesn't require random independent mutations to have a possibility to adapt to the selection condition(s). It doesn't matter whether you want to talk about antimicrobial selection pressures as used by Weinreich and Rogers or starvation or thermal selection pressures as used by Lenski, the governing mathematics is the same.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Some background facts for the casual reader concerning the claims of Alan Kleinman, and the opposition he has faced in other Darwinists.
> >
> > Alan and his opponents are all Darwinists----they accept existence of natural selection. But Alan contends existence is very limited in scope, which means he rejects cumulative selection. This is why his opponents reject his claims. Unless selection is cumulative the theory of evolution suffers falsification.
> Ray, you are not up to speed on this discussion.

I conveyed the main issue between you and your opponents, and I conveyed what is at stake if you are correct. Since the preceding is, in fact, true your reply-comment is, in fact, false.

>
I've suggested you watch the Khan Academy lectures on probability theory but you haven't. Some of Darwin's observations are valid and others are not. It takes some work to determine which, work which you haven't done. Natural selection does occur, I have to deal with the consequences of this phenomenon in my medical practice. But there are limitations on natural selection which you don't understand.
>

No one including myself ever said Darwin remained correct about everything. But to use your medical practice and non-primary disease phenomena as falsifying Darwinian cumulative selection based on primary animal species phenomena, is something you haven't explained or firmly bridged. I think Michael Behe basically did the same when he offered malaria as establishing an edge of evolution.

>
> > Alan tethers his claims to certain medical/disease phenomena, which as a matter of fact is NOT the primary phenomena of animal species. Darwin offered natural selection as explaining the origin of species (units of adaptation) as found in the wild. His opponents have duly made this point----that his RMNS model can only apply to his non-primary phenomena, not Darwinian models of RMNS produced for the primary phenomena of animal species as found in the wild.
> How would you know?

I'm saying its illogical to offer the non-primary phenomena of disease as adversely affecting Darwinian cumulative selection based on the primary phenomena of animal species as found in the wild.

Explaining the origin of new animal species, as found in the wild, is the most difficult. The same is the MAIN object of explanation in the Creationism versus Darwinism debate. Origin of disease is not. So I would say that you have the cart before the ox.

Remember, Darwin titled his book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" (1859). Most scholars recognize that he was answering Paley (1802) who compared living things, as found in the wild, to the intricate complexity seen in a pocket watch.

>
What is the primary phenomena of animal species?
>

Sexually reproducing species also known as the Biological Species Concept.

>
What is the difference between rmns in the lab and in the "wild"? Do some homework.
>

Origin of disease doesn't affect or falsify "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection." Your logic is perverted. You grant preeminence to the less difficult to have dominion over the more difficult.

>
> > Alan's opponents are certainly correct, logically correct. One cannot use a selection model created for non-primary phenomena then apply that model to find fault in selection models that have primary phenomena as their object.
> Whatever
>

The criticism remains valid and logical especially in view of what I have said in this reply.

>
> > As a matter of fact, Alan's basic claim is not unique. Young Earth Creationists make the same claim: natural selection has no cumulative powers on an unlimited scale.
> Ray, post some quotes and links where others have pointed out exactly what those limits on natural selection and why natural selection is limited. I've done the mathematics of this limitation, mathematics which you can not understand because you won't learn the basics of probability theory.
> >
> > Ray

I'm just pointing out that Young Earth Creationists accept existence of natural selection causing micro-evolution, but reject Darwinian cumulative selection and unlimited macro-evolution. Perhaps you should do some homework on the claims of Young Earth Creationism.

And you should tell the group how new species appear in the wild?

That's a very legitimate question.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 12:50:04 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:
> > You have modeled one restricted case. You have not modeled all possibilities.
> Is that so? Give us a single real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns which doesn't require random independent mutations to have a possibility to adapt to the selection condition(s). It doesn't matter whether you want to talk about antimicrobial selection pressures as used by Weinreich and Rogers or starvation or thermal selection pressures as used by Lenski, the governing mathematics is the same.
>

A long while back a YEC by the name of Tony Pagano argued strenuously for geocentrism here at Talk.Origins. A lengthy and nasty debate ensued. Turns out that the mathematics used to support heliocentrism can also be used to support geocentrism. Yes, its true; anyone can use mathematics to support any view or position.

Very recently here, a person who believes in the existence of natural selection used mathematics to show that random and unguided can produce its antonym, order and organization.

Ray

[John Harshman]

You were exploring my motivations. It's only fair that we explore yours
also. What harm does it do you to answer the question?

>>> The question is whether I've formulated
>>> the correct accounting rules for rmns and random recombination. These
>>> rules conflict with your philosophical bent, this is the reason you
>>> are unwilling to accept these rules. Despite all the years you have
>>> spent as a biologist, you never studied the rmns phenomenon enough to
>>> actually understand it.
>> I understand it better than you do, but the fact is that "the rmns
>> phenomenon" is pretty much irrelevant to my work. I suppose that since
>> you are no more ignorant of phylogenetics than you are of population
>> genetics, you feel equally equipped to critique both fields.

> Hell no, you don't understand how rmns works. If you wanted your
> phylogenetics to be something more than science fiction, you would
> pay attention to how rmns works. It is easy to tell when you have
> lost the debate, you resort to name calling. John, how does it feel
> to learn that your entire academic career is dedicated to a
> falsehood, or haven't you learned that (yet).

I'm assuming that you are unacquainted with the field of phylogenetics.
Is that not correct? If my career is dedicated to a falsehood, wouldn't
it be only courteous of you to tell me what the truth is? Rather than
common descent, how do species really arise?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

More than half a century ago when I was in elementary school, my 5th-grade teacher told us about Edward Tatum's Nobel laureate lecture. She talked about how combination therapy would help in treating infections and cancers. I remember her actually doing the first steps of the mathematics I got published. I remember I asked her if that's how rmns worked, how could the theory of evolution be true. She could not answer me. I only remembered this episode years later when I came across Tatum's lecture in my studies of this phenomenon.

>
> >>> The question is whether I've formulated
> >>> the correct accounting rules for rmns and random recombination. These
> >>> rules conflict with your philosophical bent, this is the reason you
> >>> are unwilling to accept these rules. Despite all the years you have
> >>> spent as a biologist, you never studied the rmns phenomenon enough to
> >>> actually understand it.
> >> I understand it better than you do, but the fact is that "the rmns
> >> phenomenon" is pretty much irrelevant to my work. I suppose that since
> >> you are no more ignorant of phylogenetics than you are of population
> >> genetics, you feel equally equipped to critique both fields.
>
> > Hell no, you don't understand how rmns works. If you wanted your
> > phylogenetics to be something more than science fiction, you would
> > pay attention to how rmns works. It is easy to tell when you have
> > lost the debate, you resort to name calling. John, how does it feel
> > to learn that your entire academic career is dedicated to a
> > falsehood, or haven't you learned that (yet).
>
> I'm assuming that you are unacquainted with the field of phylogenetics.
> Is that not correct? If my career is dedicated to a falsehood, wouldn't
> it be only courteous of you to tell me what the truth is? Rather than
> common descent, how do species really arise?

The Wikipedia page on "phylogenetics" gives a good enough description of what you do and I remember enough from my introductory biology course to have some understanding what you try to do. But it is not enough to see similarities between different replicators to assume that they are related by common descent. You ignore the differences which show when a replicator is not in the same lineage.
.
I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Ray, I've decided not to respond to any of your posts until you watch and understand the Khan Academy lectures on probability theory. You can find them starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ER8OkqBdpE

[John Harshman]

Go on. If the theory of evolution isn't true, what is?

I don't know what you meant by that, which suggests that the Wikipedia
page and your intro biology course weren't sufficient to give you a good
idea of what I do. Again, what is true if common descent isn't?

> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.

Sure you can. So what am I, then?

[Sean Dillon]

Hi Alan. I'm Sean. If the rudiments of math involved sare simple enough for an elementary school student (even a brilliant one) to understand, would you mind sharing that rudimentary math -- the stuff your teacher couldn't answer -- with me?

I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:45:14 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>A long while back a YEC by the name of Tony Pagano argued strenuously for geocentrism here at Talk.Origins. A lengthy and nasty debate ensued. Turns out that the mathematics used to support heliocentrism can also be used to support geocentrism. Yes, its true; anyone can use mathematics to support any view or position.

Incorrect, as I and others previously pointed out to you, which you
ignored, just as you will likely ignore/evade this post.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Alan in this thread has liberally used the misunderstanding card against anyone who doesn't agree with him. He even played the card against doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman. Imagine that! Not even JH understands natural selection! Who then can understand natural selection?

I readily admit that I don't understand natural selection; rather, more accurately, I understand natural selection as complete nonsense therefore anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as complete nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.

In support of my point: Alan likes to point to antibiotic resistance as a good example of RMNS. He is thus saying that an unintelligent agent of causation is stumping our most brilliant medical minds and their computers. How can this be? How can unintelligence be stumping the highly intelligent? That which has no intelligence and no underlying direction or guidance control cannot be stumping PhD intelligence. No wonder I don't see any evidence supporting natural selection! The proposal as just described is egregiously illogical and therefore impossible and therefore cannot possibly exist.

Alan has never been able to answer this particular example of criticism. All he says is that RMNS happens in his medical laboratory. The facts say othedwise: whatever is causing and controlling antibiotic resistance is not unintelligence, but Intelligence. Alan is not describing the phenomena in question logically.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:45:14 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >A long while back a YEC by the name of Tony Pagano argued strenuously for geocentrism here at Talk.Origins. A lengthy and nasty debate ensued. Turns out that the mathematics used to support heliocentrism can also be used to support geocentrism. Yes, its true; anyone can use mathematics to support any view or position.
>
>
> Incorrect, as I and others previously pointed out to you, which you
> ignored, just as you will likely ignore/evade this post.
>

So decreed.

The fact remains: numbers can be used to support any claim or position including lunatic geocentrism. I don't need to rely on any decrees. I followed the debate. I was a real time eyewitness.

Observation remains as the primary method to determine what exists. Yet natural selection is wholly reliant on multiple inferences. And according to Alan, natural selection is wholly reliant on mathematics and the correct application of probability theory. The criteria for determining existence has degraded in the hands of persons who work in behalf of unintelligent agencies.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Alan in this thread has liberally used the misunderstanding card against anyone who doesn't agree with him. He even played the card against doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman. Imagine that! Not even JH understands natural selection! Who then can understand natural selection?
>
> I readily admit that I don't understand natural selection; rather, more accurately, I understand natural selection as complete nonsense therefore anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as complete nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.
>

> In support of my point: Alan likes to point to antibiotic resistance as a good example of RMNS. He is thus saying that an unintelligent agent of causation is stumping our most brilliant medical minds and their computers. How can this be? How can unintelligence be stumping the highly intelligent? But that which has no intelligence and no underlying direction or guidance control cannot be stumping PhD intelligence. No wonder I don't see any evidence supporting natural selection! The proposal as just described is egregiously illogical and therefore impossible and therefore cannot possibly exist.
>
> Alan has never been able to answer this particular example of criticism. All he says is that RMNS happens in his medical laboratory. The facts say otherwise: whatever is causing and controlling antibiotic resistance cannot be unintelligence, but Intelligence. Alan is not describing the phenomena in question logically....

And therein the main problem of evolutionary thinking seen clearly: Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

Scenario 1: a population of bacteria is exposed to "lethal" doses of two
bacteriostats. A mutation giving immunity to one bacteriostat can't
replicate because of the other bacteriostat, and the chance that
mutations giving immunity to both bacteriostats occuring in a single
bacterium is such that the chance of resistance evolving is much
reduced, perhaps to the level that it can be ignored.

Scenario 2: a population of bacteria is exposed to concentrations of two
bacteriostats sufficient to slightly slow bacterial growth. Mutations
allowing greater growth in the presence of one bacteriostat can now be
selected, and individuals resistant to one or the other bacteriostat
become common in the population. In which case, either

Scenario 2A: the strain resistant to one bacteriostat is competively
superior and takes over the population. At which time mutation giving
resistance to the other bacteriostat can occur in the population, and
can be selected, leading to a population resistant to both bacteriostats.

or

Scenario 2B; the two strains become collectively dominant in the
population, and doubly resistant individuals arise by recombination
(bacterial sex) or mutation, and are selected, again leading to a
population resistant to both bacteriostats.

It is my impression that Dr. Kleinman would have us believe that
Scenario 2 is not possible.
--
alias Ernest Major

[raven1]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>I readily admit that I don't understand natural selection; rather, more accurately, I understand natural selection as complete nonsense

Reverse the order of the clauses, and you'd be correct.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Perhaps you want to join the panspermia crowd.

What I can prove to scientifically and mathematically is that the notion of common descent (primordial soup to John) can't happen. Common descent is only true in a limited sense and I have shown you how it works with rmns and random recombination.

>
> > I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> > descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
>
> Sure you can. So what am I, then?

If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 23:40:04 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:45:14 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >A long while back a YEC by the name of Tony Pagano argued strenuously for geocentrism here at Talk.Origins. A lengthy and nasty debate ensued. Turns out that the mathematics used to support heliocentrism can also be used to support geocentrism. Yes, its true; anyone can use mathematics to support any view or position.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect, as I and others previously pointed out to you, which you
>> ignored, just as you will likely ignore/evade this post.
>>
>
>So decreed.

Your decrees disqualify you from complaining about my alleged decrees.

>The fact remains: numbers can be used to support any claim or position including lunatic geocentrism.

Nope. The fact remains "is consistent with" is not the same as
"supports".

>I don't need to rely on any decrees.

Then why are almost all of your arguments almost pure decrees?

>I followed the debate. I was a real time eyewitness.

How 'bout that, me too. To assume your "testimony" infallible is
called "special pleading".

>Observation remains as the primary method to determine what exists. Yet natural selection is wholly reliant on multiple inferences.

OEC and Creationism also rely on multiple inferences. The difference
is natural selection is based on observation of the real world,
instead of bronze age magical thinking.

>And according to Alan, natural selection is wholly reliant on mathematics and the correct application of probability theory.

It's clear you don't respect Alan's opinions about Evolution. Why do
you give his opinion about mathematics any credibility?

>The criteria for determining existence has degraded in the hands of persons who work in behalf of unintelligent agencies.

Whatever that means.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Welcome to the discussion Sean. I good starting point to get a general idea how the mathematics works can be found at:
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
In that paper are the links to the actual mathematics. I don't know how brilliant I was as an elementary student but I was highly motivated to understand what my teacher was talking about. And it happened that when I was in elementary school so long ago, that they introduced us to set theory and the basic principles of principles of probability theory. Can you believe it, that was public school! If you want to learn the rudiments of probability theory, youtube has a good set of introductory lectures at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ER8OkqBdpE which is the first video in the series.

>
> I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.

I actually derived the mathematics on previous threads from several years ago. I then put this mathematics together into several papers which have been published. Links to the papers can be found in the Layman's abstract linked to above. I hope you find this discussion interesting and informative.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's not quite right Ernest, in fact, my paper on multiple simultaneous selection pressures addresses your scenario 2 and under what circumstances there is a reasonable probability to evolve to two simultaneous targeted selection pressures. This is the Bill Rogers' emergence of drug resistant Malaria to 2 drug therapy problem. It is going to take 3 targeted drugs to have durable treatment for malaria. This is analogous to the successful use of 3 drug therapy for HIV.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 2 September 2017 07:05:03 UTC+3, Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> Hi Alan. I'm Sean. If the rudiments of math involved sare simple enough for
> an elementary school student (even a brilliant one) to understand, would
> you mind sharing that rudimentary math -- the stuff your teacher
> couldn't answer -- with me?

He will never post a formula since he knows very well that his model is
about very limited scenario of reality. He has posted thousands of posts
that contain only assertions how universal it is without any ground.

>
> I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical
> content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's
> inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.

Oh, then you get some insults and links at irrelevant YouTube videos from
him.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 September 2017 07:05:03 UTC+3, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alan. I'm Sean. If the rudiments of math involved sare simple enough for
> > an elementary school student (even a brilliant one) to understand, would
> > you mind sharing that rudimentary math -- the stuff your teacher
> > couldn't answer -- with me?
>
> He will never post a formula since he knows very well that his model is
> about very limited scenario of reality. He has posted thousands of posts
> that contain only assertions how universal it is without any ground.

How sad you are so inattentive. I'd repost the formulas which govern rmns but you wouldn't pay attention this time either. I could then repost the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics but again, you wouldn't pay attention. Now Sean is new to this discussion and it will be worthwhile to repost this information again for him but in due time.

>
> >
> > I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical
> > content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's
> > inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.
>
> Oh, then you get some insults and links at irrelevant YouTube videos from
> him.

At least I don't give links to Reese's commercials to try to substantiate my beliefs. It wouldn't hurt you to get some education and training in probability theory. After all, it is these principles which govern rmns.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So I take that lack of appreciation for relevant humor to mean you discount
the importance of c-dad and gfns to antibiotic resistance in bacterial
populations? There is neither duplication/divergence nor horizontal gene
transfer in bacteria? They must be patient and craft entirely de novo genes
from scratch by point mutations? They can't cooptively modify duplicates
nor receive the fruits of labor from other populations they fortuitously
encounter?

[Inez]

Why so coy? I thought you had Truth (TM) and Math (TM) on your side. Why not just tell us cretins what really happened?

How is evolving from primordial life from space mathematically different than evolving from primordial life from earth?

[Burkhard]

Did you not know that as part of the historical compromise between the
outer rim planets and the Galactic Republic, reached after
the Battle of Geonosis and ot end the Outer Rim Sieges (and,
arguably, the death of the Separatist Council on Mustafar) the outer
rim planets are exempted from the rules of mathematics up to and
including everything that can be expressed in ZFC plus axiom of choice?

So as long as they are the panspermists, that would be legit.

[*Hemidactylus*]

That may have been a dog whistle to a certain mathematician with interests
in classification and panspermia. We shall witness the consequences. The
upshot may be less political talk or actually he is quite capable of
juggling both.

Broken arrow! Broken arrow!

[INCOMING!]

[John Harshman]

I sense a certain unwillingness to come out of the closet.

How limited a sense?

>>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
>>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
>>
>> Sure you can. So what am I, then?

> If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.

Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.

[John Harshman]

Nope, can't model that without some parameter for the strength of
selection, i.e. fitness coefficients for the various genotypes. You
model mutation only, and in a population of fixed size at that.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hi Inez, its been a while. Don't be so hard on yourself, you have just been misinformed on how rmns works.

A totally valid question.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 8:50:04 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Was that an attempt at humor? It just doesn't cut the mustard. So humor us and tell us why gene flow isn't a factor in the successful treatment of HIV with 3 drugs. Why doesn't gene flow have an effect on the Lenski experiment?
Don't you think these replicators have any fruits of labor they want to share?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

May the farse be with you.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What do you have against the panspermia crowd?

When only a single beneficial mutation required to improve fitness, reasonable probability, when two beneficial mutations simultaneously required, much less probable but still with large enough populations can and does happen, three simultaneous mutations required, you a reaching the limits on what rmns can accomplish with common descent.

>
> >>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> >>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
> >>
> >> Sure you can. So what am I, then?
>
> > If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
>
> Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.

Why is it when evolutionists are confronted with hard scientific facts and mathematics that they want to talk about religion?

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04

"But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to
be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.
Although multiple-drug-resistant HIV strains do eventually evolve, drug
cocktails delay their evolution."

But it is suggested that if resistance crops up taking a drug vacation
could result in resurgence of nonresistant strains before next round of
drugs.

Could unprotected sex between HIV patients taking 3 drug cocktail pose long
term risk for success of treatment? If so that is gene flow. But I don't
know if HIV virus mingles in the human genome and recombines amongst
strains.

>
Why doesn't gene flow have an effect on the Lenski experiment?
>

If they took measures to eliminate potential for gene flow it wouldn't be a
factor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

"Lenski chose an E. coli strain that reproduces only asexually, lacks any
plasmids that could permit bacterial conjugation, and has no viable
prophage. As a consequence, evolution in the experiment occurs only by the
core evolutionary processes of mutation, genetic drift, and natural
selection."

Yet under these unnatural lab constraints we still witness the following
pointer to incipient speciation of subclones. Evolution is amazing isn't
it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15999245/

"Abstract
We investigated the phylogenetic history of a balanced polymorphism that
evolved in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Previous work
showed that two ecologically and morphologically distinct types, designated
L (large) and S (small), arose by generation 6000 and coexisted for more
than 12,000 generations thereafter. Here, we performed RFLP analyses using
Insertion Sequence elements to resolve the phylogenetic history of L and S.
Specifically, we sought to determine whether the derived S morph was
monophyletic, indicating a long history of coexistence with L or,
alternatively, S was repeatedly regenerated from L, indicating a series of
periods with only transiently stable coexistence. Phylogenetic analysis of
some 200 clones collected throughout the history of this population
demonstrates that S is monophyletic. We then performed competition assays
using clones of both morphs from different generations to determine whether
either or both lineages continued to undergo genetic adaptation. Indeed,
both lineages continued to adapt, and their continued evolution contributed
to fluctuations in their relative abundance over evolutionary time. Based
on their phylogenetic history and independent evolutionary trajectories, S
and L fulfill Cohan's criteria for being different asexual species."

>
> Don't you think these replicators have any fruits of labor they want to share?
>

Given the contrived nature of the experiment itself, all descendants of a
fully asexual founder "strain Bc251" your question is irrelevant to what
happens in the larger bacterial community. That would be similar to asking
questions about modern people based on steampunk or goth subculture.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Do you conflate the entire realm of evolution with drug cocktails against
resistant microbes? Talk about Law of the Instrument.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

Either/or fallacy often implied or explicated by creationists. Evolution
has a problem explaining A. Therefore we march out our tired old default
assumption. God.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

There is a different way of look at this scenario of taking a drug vacation. If there are variants that are resistant to two drugs in the three drug environment, the remaining effective third drug is impairing the amplification of that two drug resistant variant. Withdrawing all three drugs allows that two drug resistant variant to amplify improving the probability that another beneficial mutation to the third drug occurring. Your scenario is the formula for getting multidrug resistant HIV.

>
> Could unprotected sex between HIV patients taking 3 drug cocktail pose long
> term risk for success of treatment? If so that is gene flow. But I don't
> know if HIV virus mingles in the human genome and recombines amongst
> strains.

rmns works by a cycle of beneficial mutation/amplification of that mutation to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter where the amplification occurs. The same principle applies to Bill Rogers Malaria drug resistance example. One patient gets a variant with beneficial mutations for each of the drugs. A mosquito bites that patient and transmits the parasite to another patient where amplification occurs and the next two beneficial mutations for the two drugs occurs. And so it goes. If you want to suppress the rmns process, you must suppress the amplification step.

> >
> Why doesn't gene flow have an effect on the Lenski experiment?
> >
> If they took measures to eliminate potential for gene flow it wouldn't be a
> factor.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>
> "Lenski chose an E. coli strain that reproduces only asexually, lacks any
> plasmids that could permit bacterial conjugation, and has no viable
> prophage. As a consequence, evolution in the experiment occurs only by the
> core evolutionary processes of mutation, genetic drift, and natural
> selection."
>
> Yet under these unnatural lab constraints we still witness the following
> pointer to incipient speciation of subclones. Evolution is amazing isn't
> it?

Lenski's experiment has bacteria which have had mutations at virtually every site in the genome. Even if Lenski started his experiment with exact clonal copies of every bacteria for the entire initial step of the experiment, his populations would soon consist of many different variants. Doesn't your gene flow argument work under this circumstance? Why aren't his bacteria sharing the fruits of their labors? Or does the gene flow have to come from the planet Kryton?

You are the one claiming some magical power of gene flow. Like I said above, even if his experiment started with exact clones for every member, it wouldn't take very many generations to have a wide variety of variants as mutations accumulate. Why don't these variants share their successes?

[John Harshman]

I can see how it might be embarrassing, but come on. People already
think you're an idiot. Why not be true to yourself?

Not an answer to the question. How limited is common descent? Was each
species separately created? Each genus? Each family?

>>>>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
>>>>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can. So what am I, then?
>>
>>> If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
>>
>> Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.

> Why is it when evolutionists are confronted with hard scientific facts and mathematics that they want to talk about religion?

I think your reluctance to say tells us quite a bit.

[John Harshman]

No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Answer the question about Lenki's experiment. That selection pressure is starvation. Why doesn't his bacteria use gene flow to share their "successes"? Of course, perhaps you think every generation of his bacteria are exact clones of previous generations and there is nothing to share.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

More evidence that you have lost the argument, back to your name calling.

Certainly, it's an answer to your question and the correct one, one which you are unwilling to comprehend.

>
> >>>>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> >>>>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure you can. So what am I, then?
> >>
> >>> If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
> >>
> >> Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.
>
> > Why is it when evolutionists are confronted with hard scientific facts and mathematics that they want to talk about religion?
>
> I think your reluctance to say tells us quite a bit.

Your unwillingness to accept the basic science and mathematics of rmns tells us much more.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I model selection by the increase in the number of replications of the particular variant. You know, that old fitness to reproduce thing. If you read my papers, you would see that the x axis on the graphs for the probability of a beneficial mutation is the number of replications. Pay attention now John, you are drifting.

[*Hemidactylus*]

First I acknowledged the impossibility of gene flow in Lenski due the
constraints imposed by the experiment. The strain used was (based on
wikipedia) strictly asexual and lacking plasmids. And I imagine they are
using strictest precautions against contamination from outside sources.
Under that paradigm gfns has no traction.

Despite all that there was a link you conveniently glossed over about
potential for incipient speciation between subclones. Therefore evolution
still occurs even under such highly constrained lab conditions. How do you
deal with speciation amongst strain subclones with rmns? Wouldn't such a
thing be so improbable to be impossible, given your superior knowledge of
probability and the multiplicative rule? Surely bacteria cannot speciate in
a human lifetime (or ever).

[Ernest Major]

It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
applicability of his model.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant to amplify to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation. "Fixation" occurs in the Lenski experiment as amplification proceeds. But that is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/

"At each concentration level, a small group of bacteria adapted and
survived. Resistance occurred through the successive accumulation of
genetic changes. As drug-resistant mutants arose, their descendants
migrated to areas of higher antibiotic concentration. Multiple lineages of
mutants competed for the same space. The winning strains progressed to the
area with the higher drug dose, until they reached a drug concentration at
which they could not survive."

Hmmm, you don't think space is a resource?

And note the cautious proviso about real world implications:

"The researchers caution that their giant petri dish is not intended to
perfectly mirror how bacteria adapt and thrive in the real world and in
hospital settings, but it does mimic the real-world environments bacteria
encounter more closely than traditional lab cultures can. This is because,
the researchers say, in bacterial evolution, space, size, and geography
matter."

That said the video is a stunning metaphor for cumulative mutation,
adaption, extinction and geographic spreading! It is almost like a
phylogenic tree unfolding in front of my eyes! Holy crap it is beautiful:

https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

>
> On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the
> different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the
> ability of the most fit variant to amplify to improve the probability of
> the next beneficial mutation. "Fixation" occurs in the Lenski experiment
> as amplification proceeds. But that is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work.
>

And a case of speciation may have occurred. Your threads are having the
unintended consequence of motivating me to learn more about microbial
evolution despite your blinkered view of the matter.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 2 September 2017 18:25:05 UTC+3, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 September 2017 07:05:03 UTC+3, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alan. I'm Sean. If the rudiments of math involved sare simple enough for
> > > an elementary school student (even a brilliant one) to understand, would
> > > you mind sharing that rudimentary math -- the stuff your teacher
> > > couldn't answer -- with me?
> >
> > He will never post a formula since he knows very well that his model is
> > about very limited scenario of reality. He has posted thousands of posts
> > that contain only assertions how universal it is without any ground.
> How sad you are so inattentive. I'd repost the formulas which govern rmns but you wouldn't pay attention this time either. I could then repost the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics but again, you wouldn't pay attention. Now Sean is new to this discussion and it will be worthwhile to repost this information again for him but in due time.

I don't actually read your posts after I realized looking at few hundreds
of those that you won't post any math anyway. I just told Sean Dillon
that there's no much hope.

> >
> > >
> > > I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical
> > > content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's
> > > inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.
> >
> > Oh, then you get some insults and links at irrelevant YouTube videos from
> > him.
> At least I don't give links to Reese's commercials to try to substantiate my beliefs. It wouldn't hurt you to get some education and training in probability theory. After all, it is these principles which govern rmns.

My math skills are likely better than yours but it does not matter in
your threads since there won't be any math discussed in those.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 02/09/2017 19:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> > On 9/2/17 9:59 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

snip

>> >> You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of
>> >> selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.
>> >
>> > No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?
>> >
>>
>> It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
>> fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
>> applicability of his model.
>Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant

How much does it slow it by?

And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
by anyone?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Of course, this giant petri dish is required for the experiment to work. Do you think this experiment could be scaled down to a standard petri dish? What do you think would happen in his experiment if he used two antibiotics with increasing bands of concentration instead of his single selection pressure? Do you think his bacteria will share their successes? What do you think would be required for the equivalent two drug experiment to work?

>
> And note the cautious proviso about real world implications:
>
> "The researchers caution that their giant petri dish is not intended to
> perfectly mirror how bacteria adapt and thrive in the real world and in
> hospital settings, but it does mimic the real-world environments bacteria
> encounter more closely than traditional lab cultures can. This is because,
> the researchers say, in bacterial evolution, space, size, and geography
> matter."
>
> That said the video is a stunning metaphor for cumulative mutation,
> adaption, extinction and geographic spreading! It is almost like a
> phylogenic tree unfolding in front of my eyes! Holy crap it is beautiful:
>
> https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

It is an elegant experiment but you haven't grasped the underlying principle why it works. In my medical practice, I treat many patients with infections. I often do culture and susceptibility studies and occasionally the susceptibility studies say that the identified bacteria are not sensitive to the antibiotic used yet the patient gets over the infection anyway. Do you have any idea why this happens?

> >
> > On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the
> > different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the
> > ability of the most fit variant to amplify to improve the probability of
> > the next beneficial mutation. "Fixation" occurs in the Lenski experiment
> > as amplification proceeds. But that is neither necessary nor sufficient for rmns to work.
> >
> And a case of speciation may have occurred. Your threads are having the
> unintended consequence of motivating me to learn more about microbial
> evolution despite your blinkered view of the matter.

What you are calling speciation is different genotype descendants from the progenitors. Is there any reason to believe that in this collection of different genotypes that there aren't a variety of different successes that could be shared by gene flow? If that be the case, why is it taking more than a thousand generations for each beneficial mutation?
.
I take that as a very hopeful sign that you are motivated to learn.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 September 2017 18:25:05 UTC+3, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 2 September 2017 07:05:03 UTC+3, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alan. I'm Sean. If the rudiments of math involved sare simple enough for
> > > > an elementary school student (even a brilliant one) to understand, would
> > > > you mind sharing that rudimentary math -- the stuff your teacher
> > > > couldn't answer -- with me?
> > >
> > > He will never post a formula since he knows very well that his model is
> > > about very limited scenario of reality. He has posted thousands of posts
> > > that contain only assertions how universal it is without any ground.
> > How sad you are so inattentive. I'd repost the formulas which govern rmns but you wouldn't pay attention this time either. I could then repost the empirical evidence which supports this mathematics but again, you wouldn't pay attention. Now Sean is new to this discussion and it will be worthwhile to repost this information again for him but in due time.
>
> I don't actually read your posts after I realized looking at few hundreds
> of those that you won't post any math anyway. I just told Sean Dillon
> that there's no much hope.

Again, very sad that you are so inattentive.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm relatively new here, and there has been zero actual mathematical
> > > > content in this thread so far, so I'm interested in the layperson's
> > > > inlet into understanding the issue under discussion.
> > >
> > > Oh, then you get some insults and links at irrelevant YouTube videos from
> > > him.
> > At least I don't give links to Reese's commercials to try to substantiate my beliefs. It wouldn't hurt you to get some education and training in probability theory. After all, it is these principles which govern rmns.
>
> My math skills are likely better than yours but it does not matter in
> your threads since there won't be any math discussed in those.

My, my, so we have someone skilled in math. So answer this simple question. If you double the population size, do you double the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2017 19:04, John Harshman wrote:
> >> > On 9/2/17 9:59 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> >> You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of
> >> >> selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.
> >> >
> >> > No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
> >> fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
> >> applicability of his model.
> >Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant
>
> How much does it slow it by?

In the Lenski experiment, it takes over a thousand generations for each beneficial mutation. In an ideal growth environment where bacteria double each generation that would give 2^1000 offspring. For a mutation rate of e-8, it should only take e8 replications for the particular mutation to occur.

>
> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
> by anyone?

I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
.
rmns can occur on any replicator.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:50:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

[snip....]

> Ray, I've decided not to respond to any of your posts until you watch and understand the Khan Academy lectures on probability theory. You can find them starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ER8OkqBdpE
>

Alan's forced indoctrination attempt. And I have at no time engaged in any insults or invective, and have always stayed on topic and debated fairly.

Alan's basic claim is that mathematics and probability theory decides the validity or invalidity of natural and cumulative selection. I completely disagree. While probability theory and mathematics can play an important role, absolutely no one is going to abandon natural or cumulative selection because the numbers, according to Alan's work and others, don't add up.

What decides the validity or invalidity of natural selection is logic and absolutely nothing else. Logic holds the place of preeminence, not mathematics. And unlike logic, anyone can deploy mathematics in support of ANY claim or position.

I've been keeping careful track of what Alan answers and what he evades. He has more or less evaded the following logical argument: An unintelligent agent (RMNS) cannot be stumping our most brilliant medical minds and their computers concerning antibiotic resistance. Correct inferential reasoning dictates that Intelligence, not unintelligence, is stumping PhD intelligence concerning antibiotic resistance.

In "response" Alan has said that he sees RMNS occurring in his medical laboratory. If a person can see "RMNS" then they are not seeing Darwinian RMNS because Darwinian RMNS is wholly dependent on multiple inferences. This is basic Darwinian science 101.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

I have no idea if Alan's ideas have any merit, since I haven't actually seen his math. But I DO know, Ray, that your reasoning on this is utterly fallacious. Smart people are are stumped or thwarted by non-intelligent phenomena all the time. What stumps us is the COMPLEXITY and UNPREDICTABILITY and UNCONTROLLABILITY of the phenomena, and none of those things demand an intelligence to exist.

Take the weather, for instance. Even the most sophisticated weather modelling tools can only give us very general information that is probably correct in the fairly short term. That isn't because weather is controlled by an intelligence, but because there are so many factors and such a degree of unpredictability in weather systems that it is probably impossible (and certainly impossible at our level of computing power and data gathering) to model them with complete accuracy.

The same is certainly true of drug resistance. There is simply no way of knowing exactly what mutations will occur, and where they will occur geographically. And even if we DID know, it would be virtually impossible to stop it from occurring. No intelligence required.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:50:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > [snip....]
> >
> > > Ray, I've decided not to respond to any of your posts until you watch and understand the Khan Academy lectures on probability theory. You can find them starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ER8OkqBdpE
> > >
> >
> > Alan's forced indoctrination attempt. And I have at no time engaged in any insults or invective, and have always stayed on topic and debated fairly.
> >
> > Alan's basic claim is that mathematics and probability theory decides the validity or invalidity of natural and cumulative selection. I completely disagree. While probability theory and mathematics can play an important role, absolutely no one is going to abandon natural or cumulative selection because the numbers, according to Alan's work and others, don't add up.
> >
> > What decides the validity or invalidity of natural selection is logic and absolutely nothing else. Logic holds the place of preeminence, not mathematics. And unlike logic, anyone can deploy mathematics in support of ANY claim or position.
> >
> > I've been keeping careful track of what Alan answers and what he evades. He has more or less evaded the following logical argument: An unintelligent agent (RMNS) cannot be stumping our most brilliant medical minds and their computers concerning antibiotic resistance. Correct inferential reasoning dictates that Intelligence, not unintelligence, is stumping PhD intelligence concerning antibiotic resistance.
> >
> > In "response" Alan has said that he sees RMNS occurring in his medical laboratory. If a person can see "RMNS" then they are not seeing Darwinian RMNS because Darwinian RMNS is wholly dependent on multiple inferences. This is basic Darwinian science 101.
> >
> > Ray
>
> I have no idea if Alan's ideas have any merit, since I haven't actually seen his math. But I DO know, Ray, that your reasoning on this is utterly fallacious. Smart people are are stumped or thwarted by non-intelligent phenomena all the time. What stumps us is the COMPLEXITY and UNPREDICTABILITY and UNCONTROLLABILITY of the phenomena, and none of those things demand an intelligence to exist.

Ray is not so different from other posters who don't understand the principles of probability theory. If you want to understand the mathematics which governs rmns, you need to understand the rudiments of probability theory.

>
> Take the weather, for instance. Even the most sophisticated weather modelling tools can only give us very general information that is probably correct in the fairly short term. That isn't because weather is controlled by an intelligence, but because there are so many factors and such a degree of unpredictability in weather systems that it is probably impossible (and certainly impossible at our level of computing power and data gathering) to model them with complete accuracy.
>
> The same is certainly true of drug resistance. There is simply no way of knowing exactly what mutations will occur, and where they will occur geographically. And even if we DID know, it would be virtually impossible to stop it from occurring. No intelligence required.

You can't predict what mutation(s) will occur in any particular replication but you can predict the relative frequency of these mutations. Natural selection when it works changes the relative frequencies of particular mutations occurring. If you read the Layman's Abstract I linked you to, you would understand this concept in general terms. Once you understand the concept in general terms, I can show you how to do the mathematics.

[Ernest Major]

On 02/09/2017 21:56, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Alan's basic claim is that mathematics and probability theory decides the validity or invalidity of natural and cumulative selection. I completely disagree. While probability theory and mathematics can play an important role, absolutely no one is going to abandon natural or cumulative selection because the numbers, according to Alan's work and others, don't add up.

You are wrong.

If a convincing argument was made that the numbers didn't add up people
would start looking for additional mechanisms. (Common descent is
supported by voluminous evidence; a demonstration that known mechanisms
were insufficient to lead people to abandon it.)

If you wish to argue that the numbers don't add up, you also have to
convince people that your mathematical model accurately reflects how
selection works in nature. For example, if your model has hard selection
you have pretty tight constraints on the rate of accumulation of
fixations (Haldane's Dilemma); if your model has soft selection it doesn't.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 1 September 2017 11:35:05 UTC-6, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some background facts for the casual reader concerning the claims of Alan Kleinman, and the opposition he has faced in other Darwinists.
>
> Alan and his opponents are all Darwinists----they accept existence of natural selection. But Alan contends existence is very limited in scope, which means he rejects cumulative selection. This is why his opponents reject his claims. Unless selection is cumulative the theory of evolution suffers falsification.
>
> Alan tethers his claims to certain medical/disease phenomena, which as a matter of fact is NOT the primary phenomena of animal species. Darwin offered natural selection as explaining the origin of species (units of adaptation) as found in the wild. His opponents have duly made this point----that his RMNS model can only apply to his non-primary phenomena, not Darwinian models of RMNS produced for the primary phenomena of animal species as found in the wild.
>
> Alan's opponents are certainly correct, logically correct. One cannot use a selection model created for non-primary phenomena then apply that model to find fault in selection models that have primary phenomena as their object.
>
> As a matter of fact, Alan's basic claim is not unique. Young Earth Creationists make the same claim: natural selection has no cumulative powers on an unlimited scale.
>
> Ray

Do you make the same claim of "non-primary phenomena" against Lenski's long-term experiment?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Welcome back to the discussion Eddie. My return to these discussions was prompted because I got another paper published. The editor of the journal which published my mathematical papers asked me to write a layman's abstract for those who don't understand probability theory. You can read this paper at http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
.
I find it very educating to debate here. We have Ron O and a few others who claim that mutations aren't random independent events, we have several posters like Ray who simply refuse to try to understand the principles of probability theory, and then we have John Harshman who is unwilling to understand the basic science and mathematics of rmns. I find this response totally understandable. John and other biologists who if willing to understand this mathematics, who have committed their careers to this philosophical bent, will realize their careers are based on a falsehood. This is not unlike those who thought that the earth was flat.

[John Harshman]

Oh, is this an argument? I thought it was just you avoiding questions.

Still avoiding answering questions, I see.

>>>>>>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
>>>>>>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure you can. So what am I, then?
>>>>
>>>>> If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
>>>>
>>>> Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.
>>
>>> Why is it when evolutionists are confronted with hard scientific facts and mathematics that they want to talk about religion?
>>
>> I think your reluctance to say tells us quite a bit.

> Your unwillingness to accept the basic science and mathematics of
> rmns tells us much more.

A rejoinder worthy of first grade at best.

[John Harshman]

On 9/2/17 1:50 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> On 02/09/2017 19:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/17 9:59 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>>> You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of
>>>>>> selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
>>>> fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
>>>> applicability of his model.
>>> Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant
>>
>> How much does it slow it by?
> In the Lenski experiment, it takes over a thousand generations for each beneficial mutation. In an ideal growth environment where bacteria double each generation that would give 2^1000 offspring. For a mutation rate of e-8, it should only take e8 replications for the particular mutation to occur.
>>
>> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
>> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
>> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
>> by anyone?
> I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes
the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a
belief that belongs to others.

Then what do you believe in?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> >> On 02/09/2017 19:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> > On 9/2/17 9:59 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> >> You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of
>> >> >> selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
>> >> fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
>> >> applicability of his model.
>> >Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant
>>
>> How much does it slow it by?
>In the Lenski experiment, it takes over a thousand generations for each beneficial mutation. In an ideal growth environment where bacteria double each generation that would give 2^1000 offspring. For a mutation rate of e-8, it should only take e8 replications for the particular mutation to occur.

How do you distinguish replications from generations?

But you say that you are mathematically certain that birds didn't
evolve from dinosaurs, right?

How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
out quantitatively?

>> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
>> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
>> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
>> by anyone?
>I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.

Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?

Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
quantitatively rule out?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I believe that the primary governing principle of rmns is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> >> On 02/09/2017 19:04, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> > On 9/2/17 9:59 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> >> >> You mean YOU can't model without some parameter for the strength of
> >> >> >> selection. Your unwillingness is showing again.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I mean nobody can. How do your equations model selection?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems to me that he models the strength of selection by setting the
> >> >> fitness of the wild type to 0, with a consequent limitation on the
> >> >> applicability of his model.
> >> >Not so Ernest. The ability of a particular variant to evolve by rmns does not depend on what other variants are doing (unless those variants are competitors for the resources of the given environment). For example, in the Kishony experiment, multiple different variants are adapting to the environment by rmns simultaneously. That's because there are sufficient resources for all the different variants to evolve. On the other hand, in the Lenski experiment, food is limited and the different variants are competing for the same resource. This slows the ability of the most fit variant
> >>
> >> How much does it slow it by?
> >In the Lenski experiment, it takes over a thousand generations for each beneficial mutation. In an ideal growth environment where bacteria double each generation that would give 2^1000 offspring. For a mutation rate of e-8, it should only take e8 replications for the particular mutation to occur.
>
> How do you distinguish replications from generations?

From a probabilistic viewpoint, it doesn't matter what generation a replication occurs. The replication is the random trial. And the more replications that occur of a particular variant, the better the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring on one of those members of the variant.

>
> But you say that you are mathematically certain that birds didn't
> evolve from dinosaurs, right?

I'm mathematically certain that you can not transform a reptile scale into a feather by rmns. There are too many genetic loci and too many mutations involved.

>
> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
> out quantitatively?

It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.

>
> >> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
> >> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
> >> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
> >> by anyone?
> >I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
>
> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion. I'm interested in the correct physics and mathematics of rmns.

>
> Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
> white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
> largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
> quantitatively rule out?

Certainly adaptation occurs, I've correctly describe how it works by rmns. What limits biologic change by rmns is the number of simultaneous beneficial mutations required to improve fitness. The most common successful examples of rmns occur when you have a single targeted selection pressure to a single genetic locus which requires only a single beneficial mutation to improve fitness. The common examples of these are resistance to antimicrobial agents, resistance to targeted herbicides and so on. When rmns requires two beneficial mutations simultaneously, then the population size has to be exponentially larger for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. These examples are seen with the use of combination targeted selection pressure (2 at a time). When the selection conditions require three simultaneous beneficial mutations the probabilities are so low that it requires massive populations for there to be any chance of this. This is the reason for the success of combination therapy for HIV.

[Vincent Maycock]

How many is "too many"? You don't seem to be approaching the situation
quantitatively, like I asked.

>> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
>> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
>> out quantitatively?
>It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.

So do you have any calculations indicating that it's not
mathematically reasonable?

>> >> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
>> >> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
>> >> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
>> >> by anyone?
>> >I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
>>
>> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
>> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?
>I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion.

Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.

>I'm interested in the correct physics and mathematics of rmns.

Sure, but you can be interested in other things as well.

>> Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
>> white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
>> largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
>> quantitatively rule out?
>Certainly adaptation occurs, I've correctly describe how it works by rmns.

Okay; give an example of adaptation that you believe in that doesn't
have anything to do with the medical profession.

>What limits biologic change

Could you quantify this limit for people who are interested in things
besides medicine?

> by rmns is the number of simultaneous beneficial mutations required to improve fitness. The most common successful examples of rmns occur when you have a single targeted selection pressure to a single genetic locus which requires only a single beneficial mutation to improve fitness. The common examples of these are resistance to antimicrobial agents, resistance to targeted herbicides and so on. When rmns requires two beneficial mutations simultaneously, then the population size has to be exponentially larger for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. These examples are seen with the use of combination targeted selection pressure (2 at a time). When the selection conditions require three simultaneous beneficial mutations the probabilities are so low that it requires massive populations for there to be any chance of this. This is the reason for the
>success of combination therapy for HIV.

You didn't answer my question about what's the largest amount of
change in the biological world that you can quantitatively rule out.

Do you believe in speciation, for example?

[John Harshman]

You really, really don't want to say, eh? Why not?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:47:46 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Targeting two genetic loci simultaneously is pushing the limits of what rmns can accomplish. You need around e12 replications to have a reasonable probability of getting a double beneficial mutation. Targeting two genetic loci with three selection pressures gives a successful treatment of HIV. I've seen a paper where the number of genetic loci to transform reptile scales to feathers is eight.

>
> >> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
> >> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
> >> out quantitatively?
> >It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.
>
> So do you have any calculations indicating that it's not
> mathematically reasonable?

Yes, my publication on rmns with multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057

>
> >> >> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
> >> >> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
> >> >> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
> >> >> by anyone?
> >> >I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
> >>
> >> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
> >> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?
> >I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion.
>
> Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
> certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.

When did I say evolution doesn't occur? In fact, I've correctly described how rmns works. It is the theory of evolution that is a falsehood. rmns can not accomplish the transformations that are called for by the theory of evolution. In a biological science class, teach the mechanisms of genetic transformation correctly then let the student draw the conclusion whether life began in some primordial soup and then by rmns selection we came about or whether we were created. And if you draw the conclusion that it makes more sense that we were created, you can then decide if you want to seek to know your Creator.

>
> >I'm interested in the correct physics and mathematics of rmns.
>
> Sure, but you can be interested in other things as well.

I have lots of interests. As a physician who is interested in being better at my profession, rmns happens to be one of my central interests.

>
> >> Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
> >> white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
> >> largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
> >> quantitatively rule out?
> >Certainly adaptation occurs, I've correctly describe how it works by rmns.
>
> Okay; give an example of adaptation that you believe in that doesn't
> have anything to do with the medical profession.

In agriculture, farmers have figured out empirically that using combination herbicides impairs the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds.

>
> >What limits biologic change
>
> Could you quantify this limit for people who are interested in things
> besides medicine?

The description I've given above answers this. Two genetic loci targeted simultaneously is the upper limit for evolution by rmns.

>
> > by rmns is the number of simultaneous beneficial mutations required to improve fitness. The most common successful examples of rmns occur when you have a single targeted selection pressure to a single genetic locus which requires only a single beneficial mutation to improve fitness. The common examples of these are resistance to antimicrobial agents, resistance to targeted herbicides and so on. When rmns requires two beneficial mutations simultaneously, then the population size has to be exponentially larger for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. These examples are seen with the use of combination targeted selection pressure (2 at a time). When the selection conditions require three simultaneous beneficial mutations the probabilities are so low that it requires massive populations for there to be any chance of this. This is the reason for the
> >success of combination therapy for HIV.
>
> You didn't answer my question about what's the largest amount of
> change in the biological world that you can quantitatively rule out.
>
> Do you believe in speciation, for example?

It depends on what you mean by speciation.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>
>> Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
>> certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.
> When did I say evolution doesn't occur? In fact, I've correctly described
> how rmns works. It is the theory of evolution that is a falsehood. rmns
> can not accomplish the transformations that are called for by the theory
> of evolution. In a biological science class, teach the mechanisms of
> genetic transformation correctly then let the student draw the conclusion
> whether life began in some primordial soup and then by rmns selection we
> came about or whether we were created. And if you draw the conclusion
> that it makes more sense that we were created, you can then decide if you
> want to seek to know your Creator.

BINGO! Ding, ding, ding! Hey Ron O you got that right? By their fruits
material.

[Sean Dillon]

Ah. Yep. Just tipped your hand there, Alan. As I posted elswhere, here's how I recognize a bullshit artist:

1. You'll share the actual math with me "in due time." That's typically a sign that, at best, it isn't really about the math, and at worst, that the math is bullshit.

2. You put your degrees in your screen name. Generally either means that someone is struggling to be seen as legit, or flat out isn't legit. Doubly true when there are more than one listed.

3. You're not just calling mainstream science wrong, you're calling it "psychotic." While on the odd occassion, a big idea in mainstream science turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete, in my experience the correction is never discovered by someone who thinks everyone in the field is mentally ill.

4. You seem awfully cagey about your beliefs, both as they relate to this question, and in general. That's typical of people who are doing something for ideological reasons, but trying to appear "rational."

5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.

6. You think you spotted the fatal flaw in a major scientific theory in 5th grade, which has yet to be accepted by mainstream science. That's generally a sign of megalomania.

7. I've never encountered an actual MD who casually accused others of psychosis on the internet. In my experience, they understand the medical and legal weight of that accusation.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <a7421b86-80c7-45c6...@googlegroups.com>,

8. You insist on using your own idiosyncratic terminology (rmns,
amplification, etc.) rather than the terms used by those working in the
field, suggesting a lack of familiarity with the field in question.

Andre

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

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Correction: The fact that Alan rejects unrestricted cumulative selection and common descent indicates a Theist and Creationism lurking somewhere in the shadows.

Ray

[Vincent Maycock]

And how many generations is that?

> to have a reasonable probability of getting a double beneficial mutation. Targeting two genetic loci with three selection pressures gives a successful treatment of HIV. I've seen a paper where the number of genetic loci to transform reptile scales to feathers is eight.
>>
>> >> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
>> >> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
>> >> out quantitatively?
>> >It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.
>>
>> So do you have any calculations indicating that it's not
>> mathematically reasonable?
>Yes, my publication on rmns with multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057

You did calculations about birds and dinosaurs in that paper?

>> >> >> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
>> >> >> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
>> >> >> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
>> >> >> by anyone?
>> >> >I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
>> >>
>> >> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
>> >> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?
>> >I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion.
>>
>> Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
>> certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.
>When did I say evolution doesn't occur? In fact, I've correctly described how rmns works. It is the theory of evolution that is a falsehood.

So your religious beliefs are relevant if you want to replace the
theory of evolution with God.

If God is creating adaptations in the wild, why don't we ever see him
doing it? And why would he create evil and suffering in living
things?

> rmns can not accomplish the transformations that are called for by the theory of evolution. In a biological science class, teach the mechanisms of genetic transformation correctly then let the student draw the conclusion whether life began in some primordial soup and then by rmns selection we came about or whether we were created. And if you draw the conclusion that it makes more sense that we were created, you can then decide if you want to seek to know your Creator.
>>
>> >I'm interested in the correct physics and mathematics of rmns.
>>
>> Sure, but you can be interested in other things as well.
>I have lots of interests. As a physician who is interested in being better at my profession, rmns happens to be one of my central interests.
>>
>> >> Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
>> >> white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
>> >> largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
>> >> quantitatively rule out?
>> >Certainly adaptation occurs, I've correctly describe how it works by rmns.
>>
>> Okay; give an example of adaptation that you believe in that doesn't
>> have anything to do with the medical profession.
>In agriculture, farmers have figured out empirically that using combination herbicides impairs the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds.
>>
>> >What limits biologic change
>>
>> Could you quantify this limit for people who are interested in things
>> besides medicine?
>The description I've given above answers this. Two genetic loci targeted simultaneously is the upper limit for evolution by rmns.

And why would two loci always have to be targeted simultaneously?

>> > by rmns is the number of simultaneous beneficial mutations required to improve fitness. The most common successful examples of rmns occur when you have a single targeted selection pressure to a single genetic locus which requires only a single beneficial mutation to improve fitness. The common examples of these are resistance to antimicrobial agents, resistance to targeted herbicides and so on. When rmns requires two beneficial mutations simultaneously, then the population size has to be exponentially larger for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. These examples are seen with the use of combination targeted selection pressure (2 at a time). When the selection conditions require three simultaneous beneficial mutations the probabilities are so low that it requires massive populations for there to be any chance of this. This is the reason for the
>> >success of combination therapy for HIV.
>>
>> You didn't answer my question about what's the largest amount of
>> change in the biological world that you can quantitatively rule out.
>>
>> Do you believe in speciation, for example?
>It depends on what you mean by speciation.

A new species evolving. What else would I mean?

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!

[Ernest Major]

> My, my, so we have someone skilled in math. So answer this simple question. If you double the population size, do you double the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring?

Strictly speaking the answer is no, but in the limit of small population
sizes and small mutation probabilities it is very close to true. In the
other limit of large population sizes and large mutation probabilities
it is far from true.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Inez]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:35:04 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 8:50:04 AM UTC-7, Inez wrote:

> > Why so coy? I thought you had Truth (TM) and Math (TM) on your side. Why not just tell us cretins what really happened?
> Hi Inez, its been a while. Don't be so hard on yourself, you have just been misinformed on how rmns works.

Hello! It has been a while, hasn't it? I don't think I have been misinformed on how "rmns" work. Also, you didn't answer my question, which is fine really, I just find it odd that you come to talk.origins and start threads with no intent of you known, talking about origins.

> > > > > I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> > > > > descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
> > > >
> > > > Sure you can. So what am I, then?
> > > If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
> >

> > How is evolving from primordial life from space mathematically different than evolving from primordial life from earth?
> A totally valid question.

I notice you didn't try and answer it though.

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:00:36 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>LOL!


Your vocabulary hasn't improved.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:20:04 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Sean, I responded to your post on Steady Eddie's thread. Now if you want to learn how rmns actually works, start here:
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <a7421b86-80c7-45c6...@googlegroups.com>,
> Sean Dillon <seand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

That privilege of choosing the terminology belongs to the one who correctly describes the phenomenon. And I have correctly described the phenomenon (rmns). You had better get used to it because it is not going away.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Do you really expect flat earthers to come up with the evidence that the earth is not flat?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

All the interesting stuff occurs in the non-linear portion of the curve. But your answer indicates that you can not tell the difference between complementary events and additive events.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:40:05 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Theoretically, it can be any number of generations. For example, it can be e11 members replicating for 10 generations or e12 replications in 1 generation. From a practical point of view, the replications have to occur before the selection pressures are applied. Again, an example, people suffering from Malaria can have e12 parasites in their system. In a population that size, there is a reasonable probability that you will have at least 1 member with a double beneficial mutation. On the other hand, if someone has Malaria with only let's say e9 parasites when you administer treatment, the probability of a double beneficial mutation is very small and the population is driven to extinction by the treatment.

>
> > to have a reasonable probability of getting a double beneficial mutation. Targeting two genetic loci with three selection pressures gives a successful treatment of HIV. I've seen a paper where the number of genetic loci to transform reptile scales to feathers is eight.
> >>
> >> >> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
> >> >> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
> >> >> out quantitatively?
> >> >It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.
> >>
> >> So do you have any calculations indicating that it's not
> >> mathematically reasonable?
> >Yes, my publication on rmns with multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
> >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
>
> You did calculations about birds and dinosaurs in that paper?

I did my calculation based on Bill Rogers publication on the failure of two drug combination therapy for Malaria. In case you didn't know, malaria sexually reproduces in part of its life cycle. What makes you think that rmns works differently in birds and dinosaurs?

>
> >> >> >> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
> >> >> >> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
> >> >> >> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
> >> >> >> by anyone?
> >> >> >I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
> >> >> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?
> >> >I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion.
> >>
> >> Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
> >> certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.
> >When did I say evolution doesn't occur? In fact, I've correctly described how rmns works. It is the theory of evolution that is a falsehood.
>
> So your religious beliefs are relevant if you want to replace the
> theory of evolution with God.

When did I say that? I think that biologists need to learn and teach correctly how rmns works.

>
> If God is creating adaptations in the wild, why don't we ever see him
> doing it? And why would he create evil and suffering in living
> things?

I believe that God created the laws which govern the physical (and moral) universe. He gives us the freedom to study, learn and understand these laws. Evil and suffering are a result of disobedience to these laws. But God is also the author of justice and mercy. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it doesn't occur on our schedule.

>
> > rmns can not accomplish the transformations that are called for by the theory of evolution. In a biological science class, teach the mechanisms of genetic transformation correctly then let the student draw the conclusion whether life began in some primordial soup and then by rmns selection we came about or whether we were created. And if you draw the conclusion that it makes more sense that we were created, you can then decide if you want to seek to know your Creator.
> >>
> >> >I'm interested in the correct physics and mathematics of rmns.
> >>
> >> Sure, but you can be interested in other things as well.
> >I have lots of interests. As a physician who is interested in being better at my profession, rmns happens to be one of my central interests.
> >>
> >> >> Do you believe in any sort of adaptation at all (polar bears turning
> >> >> white, for example, or birds' beaks changing shape)? What's the
> >> >> largest change amount of change in the biological world that you can
> >> >> quantitatively rule out?
> >> >Certainly adaptation occurs, I've correctly describe how it works by rmns.
> >>
> >> Okay; give an example of adaptation that you believe in that doesn't
> >> have anything to do with the medical profession.
> >In agriculture, farmers have figured out empirically that using combination herbicides impairs the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds.
> >>
> >> >What limits biologic change
> >>
> >> Could you quantify this limit for people who are interested in things
> >> besides medicine?
> >The description I've given above answers this. Two genetic loci targeted simultaneously is the upper limit for evolution by rmns.
>
> And why would two loci always have to be targeted simultaneously?

Obviously they have not, that's why we have MRSA.

>
> >> > by rmns is the number of simultaneous beneficial mutations required to improve fitness. The most common successful examples of rmns occur when you have a single targeted selection pressure to a single genetic locus which requires only a single beneficial mutation to improve fitness. The common examples of these are resistance to antimicrobial agents, resistance to targeted herbicides and so on. When rmns requires two beneficial mutations simultaneously, then the population size has to be exponentially larger for there to be a reasonable probability of a double beneficial mutation. These examples are seen with the use of combination targeted selection pressure (2 at a time). When the selection conditions require three simultaneous beneficial mutations the probabilities are so low that it requires massive populations for there to be any chance of this. This is the reason for the
> >> >success of combination therapy for HIV.
> >>
> >> You didn't answer my question about what's the largest amount of
> >> change in the biological world that you can quantitatively rule out.
> >>
> >> Do you believe in speciation, for example?
> >It depends on what you mean by speciation.
>
> A new species evolving. What else would I mean?

Do you mean a new variant?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The mathematics of origins was done years ago by scientists at MIT. Do you want to review it? I've shown how natural selection can change the probabilities of a particular mutation occurring. The scientists at MIT computed the probability of a simple protein forming by random additions of amino acids. It's not a pretty sight for those who believe in spontaneous generation.

As far as I know, there is no difference.

[John Harshman]

I see that your numbers assume a constant population size. That's the
only way you can have e11 members replicating for 10 generations and end
up with e12 replications. Isn't that odd?

>>> to have a reasonable probability of getting a double beneficial mutation. Targeting two genetic loci with three selection pressures gives a successful treatment of HIV. I've seen a paper where the number of genetic loci to transform reptile scales to feathers is eight.
>>>>
>>>>>> How many replications would it take for a bird to evolve from
>>>>>> dinosaurs? And if you say you don't know, how can you rule this idea
>>>>>> out quantitatively?
>>>>> It is not even mathematically reasonable to transform reptile scales into feathers, even if you could imagine the appropriate selection pressure.
>>>>
>>>> So do you have any calculations indicating that it's not
>>>> mathematically reasonable?
>>> Yes, my publication on rmns with multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
>>
>> You did calculations about birds and dinosaurs in that paper?

> I did my calculation based on Bill Rogers publication on the failure
> of two drug combination therapy for Malaria. In case you didn't know,
> malaria sexually reproduces in part of its life cycle. What makes you
> think that rmns works differently in birds and dinosaurs?

Once again, you do not model selection at all. You model mutation,
period. And you model the probability of 8 particular, simultaneous
mutations happening in a single individual. That bears no resemblance to
the way evolution works.

>>>>>>>> And is evolution below the species level impossible, according to your
>>>>>>>> equations? Do the space aliens in your panspermia suggestion appear
>>>>>>>> like every year or decade, to create new species -- without being seen
>>>>>>>> by anyone?
>>>>>>> I definitely don't believe in panspermia. This idea that R2D2 takes the starship Enterprise to the planet Krypton to bring life here is a belief that belongs to others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, if not aliens, then God; in your view, does God step in every
>>>>>> time a new species occurs? And if so, why don't we ever see him?
>>>>> I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on religion.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you want to discuss your religious beliefs? They're
>>>> certainly relevant if you intend to replace evolution with God.
>>> When did I say evolution doesn't occur? In fact, I've correctly described how rmns works. It is the theory of evolution that is a falsehood.
>>
>> So your religious beliefs are relevant if you want to replace the
>> theory of evolution with God.
> When did I say that? I think that biologists need to learn and teach correctly how rmns works.
>>
>> If God is creating adaptations in the wild, why don't we ever see him
>> doing it? And why would he create evil and suffering in living
>> things?

> I believe that God created the laws which govern the physical (and
> moral) universe. He gives us the freedom to study, learn and
> understand these laws. Evil and suffering are a result of
> disobedience to these laws. But God is also the author of justice and
> mercy. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it doesn't occur on our
> schedule.

You will have to explain how a child with river blindness or a
caterpillar parasitized by a wasp has disobeyed God's laws.

He means a new species. Do you have any idea of what species are? For
example, if the common ancestor (unnamed) of Carpodacus mexicanus and
Carpodacus purpureus splits, eventually resulting in those two species,
at least one new species has evolved. Similarly, if the common ancestor
of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes splits, eventually resulting in
those two species (and others I haven't mentioned), at least one new
species has evolved. Do you believe that that sort of thing happens?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 7:15:02 PM UTC-7, trol...@go.com wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:

> > I sense a certain unwillingness to come out of the closet.

> > How limited a sense?

> >
> >>>> I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> >>>> descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
> >>>
> >>> Sure you can. So what am I, then?
> >
> >> If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
> >

> > Come on, you can tell me. Nobody else will know.
>
> Apparently you have come across the 'physics
> dilemma'.
>
> The 'physics dilemma' is the general idea that
> if someone scribbles esoteric symbols on a
> piece of paper in a back corner and fiddles
> with a slide rule it must be true.
>
> Even if all of the mathematics is correct, it
> may very well apply to something totally different
> than what the slide rule fiddler claims. Beyond
> that the fiddler can say 'ahah' and say that it
> obviously means something that a specific part
> of the mathematics does not say at all.
>
> As long as the symbols are esoteric, then few
> can challenge the lies said about the symbols,
> and if there are a few who actually understand
> them, then the fiddler can resort to ad hominem
> and invent new symbols on the fly to the few
> who understand them to throw them off track.
>
> The solution - change the terminology so that
> no one can even remotely understand what is
> being talked about. We came across an example
> of it a while ago when people started confusing
> 'cosmic inflation' with the 'Hubble constant'.
>
> Why call this the 'physics dilemma'? Well
> misuse and abuse of mathematics gradually
> becomes more and more prevalent the more
> you get into the 'harder sciences'.
My esoteric symbols are easily understood by anyone with a basic understanding of probability theory.

[trol...@go.com]

And yet you hide behind them, knowing completely
that your theories would be much more easily
eviscerated if written in plain English.

[Steady Eddie]

Abuse of mathematics! LOL
That's rich from a biologist.

[Inez]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 5:50:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-7, Inez wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:35:04 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 8:50:04 AM UTC-7, Inez wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 8:35:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

<snip>

> > > > > > Go on. If the theory of evolution isn't true, what is?
> > > > > Perhaps you want to join the panspermia crowd.
> > > > > >
> > > > Why so coy? I thought you had Truth (TM) and Math (TM) on your side. Why not just tell us cretins what really happened?
> > > Hi Inez, its been a while. Don't be so hard on yourself, you have just been misinformed on how rmns works.
> >
> > Hello! It has been a while, hasn't it? I don't think I have been misinformed on how "rmns" work. Also, you didn't answer my question, which is fine really, I just find it odd that you come to talk.origins and start threads with no intent of you known, talking about origins.

> The mathematics of origins was done years ago by scientists at MIT. Do you want to review it? I've shown how natural selection can change the probabilities of a particular mutation occurring. The scientists at MIT computed the probability of a simple protein forming by random additions of amino acids. It's not a pretty sight for those who believe in spontaneous generation.
> > > >

<snip>

> > > > > > > I can tell you with mathematical certainty that you are not a
> > > > > > > descendant of some simple replicator from the primordial soup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure you can. So what am I, then?
> > > > > If you find the story reasonable, perhaps it was panspermia.
> > > >
> > > > How is evolving from primordial life from space mathematically different than evolving from primordial life from earth?
> > > A totally valid question.
> >
> > I notice you didn't try and answer it though.
> As far as I know, there is no difference.

Then why did you bring it up?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
How's your plain English?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I was just trying to give John some help, an alternative to his primordial soup myth. You know the old saying, one good myth deserves another.

[trol...@go.com]

I have read this article and I have two problems with
it.

1. Lack of recognition that sex and genetic transfers
within a population can allow for the more rapid combination
of beneficial traits into organisms that then make themut
even more able to be selected in favor of.

but the main one is this:

'The mathematical significance of broad spectrum selection pressures is that replicators can not evolve efficiently to these pressures because to many genetic loci are targeted simultaneously.'

Selection can happen on more than one gene at the same time.

This is because a trait such as one as generic as
'resistance to negative selection by bleach' can
be coded for by more than one gene (as defined by
specific sequences of DNA, however if gene means
heritable trait the interrelation of nearly the
entire DNA code might produce x such as
'resistance to negative selection by bleach.') .

Over all, however, I would say that this article is much
more in plain English than a vast number of other ones.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <3e3dfdd5-0506-458b...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:

<snip>

> > 8. You insist on using your own idiosyncratic terminology (rmns,
> > amplification, etc.) rather than the terms used by those working in the
> > field, suggesting a lack of familiarity with the field in question.
> That privilege of choosing the terminology belongs to the one who correctly
> describes the phenomenon. And I have correctly described the phenomenon
> (rmns). You had better get used to it because it is not going away.

Which is presumably why Einstein replaced the term 'gravitation' with
'Einsteination'.

Oh wait, he didn't. Perhaps because he had some actual desire to
communicate his ideas rather than to engage in self-aggrandisement.