HOW DOES EVOLUTION WORK

[Thomos.Roberts]

In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
was through random mutation and natural selection.
That didn't tell me nothing.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hi Thomos.Roberts, you are asking a very important question. Random mutation and natural selection does occur but your biology teacher does not understand how it works.
Here's a simple example which might make it clearer for you. Let's say that in order for your family to survive, your family must win two lotteries. And the probability of winning the first lottery is 1 in a million and the probability of winning the second lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability will be 1 in a million times 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, a very low probability. But let's say you are lucky enough to win one of the lotteries and now you are very wealthy and because of all your wealth, you can raise a very large family. And now all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, you will have a reasonable probability that your family will win both lotteries.

Now let's extend this idea to a real example of random mutation and natural selection. Let's say I want to treat someone with an infection with an antibiotic. And let's say the bacteria I'm treating need 3 mutations to become resistant to the antibiotic. It's very unlikely that in a single replication that a bacterium will get all 3 mutations but let one lucky member get the first beneficial mutation. Now that member has to replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with that mutation and then there is a reasonable probability that one of those members will get the second beneficial mutation. That new member must now replicate for many generations so there are millions of members with the first 2 mutations and then some lucky member gets the third beneficial mutation and now is resistant to the antibiotic. So random mutation and natural selection works in a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation (increase in number of those with that mutation) to improve the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring.

But what happens if we use two drugs? Let's say the first drug requires mutations A, B, and C and the second drug requires mutation X, Y and Z. Even if some lucky member gets mutation A, the second drug interferes with the amplification of that member. And if some lucky member gets mutation X, the first drug interferes with the amplification of that member. It is this principle that has led to the successful treatment of HIV.

I hope this gives you a little understanding of random mutation and natural selection. But understand this, random mutation and natural selection can not transform reptiles into birds. Don't argue with your teacher about this but there is a mathematical reason this can not happen. If you want to learn more about this, study the mathematics called probability theory. This is the mathematics of coin tossing, dice rolling, card drawing and other "random experiments". If you have any questions, let me know.

[John Harshman]

A 12th grade biology class may not be the best place to learn the
details. And there's a bit of a dichotomy. We know a whole lot about
what happened, for example what the common ancestor of cows and humans
and whales looked like, but much less about why. Still, the best guess
on the latter is random mutation and natural selection.

Now, most people who post things like you did here aren't interested in
answers to their questions, only in testifyin' about how evolution is is
lie. But I'm sure you aren't like that, right? Ask a question and see
what answers you get.

[Thomos.Roberts]

With probabilities like that we could not survive. I don't think that's
reasonable when hundreds of millions of people buy lottery tickets
week after week after week and nobody wins. I believe I would needs
hundreds of millions of descendants and thousands of generations.
I understand your example, I'm sorry, but I don't see how it relates.
In your example of resistance to anti-bacteria. How do you tell the
difference between mutations and adaption. Things adapt to their
environment.
So, if you create an environment which challenges the survival
of a strain of bacteria does it, over time adapt to the new
environment or does it evolve through mutations and natural
selection to fit the new environment? We studied both
conditions, and I saw no difference. The bacteria was still
bacteria. And bugs that change color due to dark tree trunks are
the same species of bugs and can breed within the species.

I graduated from High School this year, so I will not be arguing
with my teacher. I am now enrolled in college as a freshman.

[Bill Rogers]

Somehow you failed to notice that Alan Kleinman, MD, PhD is on your team. If you are so ready to argue that you cannot even notice when someone is agreeing with you, perhaps you should take a few deep breaths.

[jillery]

Based on your testimony above, she was a poor teacher. So what have
you done since then to teach yourself?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

If you are really interested in the subject you should go to a thread
like "Why cannot we see evolution happening today?" and check it out.
Why is the creationist side only denial as what you are putting up? Why
do the issues fall apart when you actually understand what is being denied?

What you will not see is any type of alternative being put forward and
defended. There isn't any alternative worth defending. That is just
fact. It is well known that what the creationists have is not as good
as what they claim is not good enough. Demonstrate that fact for
yourself. Put up your alternative and compare it to what you do not
think is good enough. There is a very simple reason why biological
evolution is the best option that we have to explain the diversity of
life as we know it. Try to figure out what that simple reason is.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/Xw1r1-rKBAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[raven1]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
<tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Troll alert.

[Thomos.Roberts]

I'm not saying that. I'm serious. I would like to understand.

[Thomos.Roberts]

I suppose I'm supposed to write in your blank space.
I am right now a freshman in college. I am thinking
on being a park ranger when i graduate.

[Thomos.Roberts]

Don't mean to be arguing. He brought up mutations. In class the
teacher discussed mutation and natural selection and adaptions, but the
differences are not very clear.

[John Harshman]

If by "how" you mean the various intermediate stages, we can do quite a
lot for that. If by "how" you mean what caused various changes to spread
through a population millions of years ago, that's much more difficult,
and there is most often no way to test hypotheses.

If you have any specific questions about particular bits of evolution,
various people here could have a go at them.

[John Harshman]

Might I suggest you take a class in evolutionary biology? There should
be one for non-majors and another for majors, though the majors course
probably would require freshman general biology as a prerequisite.
Still, that's a good start. If you're technically minded enough, Doug
Futuyma's textbooks, either Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, would be
a good read. I suspect they're both in your college library.

Or you could try popular accounts. I very much like Richard Dawkins' The
Ancestor's Tale, and a couple of collections of Steven J. Gould's
essays, Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb.

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-5, Thomos.Roberts wrote:

[snip]

> I asked her how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
> was through random mutation and natural selection.
> That didn't tell me nothing.

You're not going to get much more than that in a 12th grade biology
class, especially in a single class session. A satisfactory answer would
be a good chunk of an undergrad biology degree and possibly some graduate
work.

You're asking for everything from how mutations happen at the molecular
level to how those mutations are expressed in the organism, to how traits
become fixed in a population, to how selection pressures work, to what
happens when selection pressures change over time, to whether speciation
is allopatric or sympatric (or a combination of both), etc.

Demanding a high school biology teacher explain all of that is asking
a bit much. You might as well ask your English teacher to trace the
evolution of English (and German, and French, and Italian) all the way back
to proto-Indo-European in the span of a single class session.

Yes, "mutation plus selection" by itself isn't terribly satisfactory if
you're interested in the deep-down nitty-gritty details, but that's why
people pursue graduate degrees.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are correct that you would need a lot of descendants in order to have a reasonable probability of one of your descendants winning that second lottery. But when you are talking about microbes, it's easy to have populations in the trillions or even much greater. Random mutation and natural selection is not much different than the mathematics of lotteries. You have to have lots of players for a least one that wins. It's the same way with random mutation and natural selection, you need lots of players to have a chance for that rare beneficial mutation.

> So, if you create an environment which challenges the survival
> of a strain of bacteria does it, over time adapt to the new
> environment or does it evolve through mutations and natural
> selection to fit the new environment? We studied both
> conditions, and I saw no difference. The bacteria was still
> bacteria. And bugs that change color due to dark tree trunks are
> the same species of bugs and can breed within the species.

Random mutation and natural selection is a form of adaptation. It's a way replicators can create new alleles (new forms of genes) and if the allele happens to be beneficial, they are more successful replicators and their numbers increase over the generations. If they can increase enough, then one of their members can have a reasonable chance of getting another beneficial mutation.

>
> I graduated from High School this year, so I will not be arguing
> with my teacher. I am now enrolled in college as a freshman.

College biology teachers won't do any better at explaining random mutation and natural selection than your high school teachers.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Bill Rogers is a researcher trying to find durable treatments for Malaria. Malaria can achieve huge populations. With these huge size populations, not only is it likely that some of his parasites will win one lottery, a subset of his population will win two lotteries. This is why he won't see durable treatment for this disease without using at least 3 effective drugs.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

But evolutionists either can't understand or do not want to understand how random mutation and natural selection works. This is very bad for society because this phenomenon affects the practice of medicine, agriculture and many other aspects of society.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Mutations are errors which occur in the replication of the genome (usually DNA but in some cases RNA). These mutations don't occur very often and they can be detrimental (impairs that member from being able to replicate), neutral (has no effect on the ability of that member to replicate), or beneficial (improves the ability of that member to replicate). Natural selection is simply an increase in numbers of the particular variant. That's how you get more players in the game for the next lottery.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/28/16 1:17 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> > On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

You won't get the correct explanation for random mutation and natural selection from any of these sources.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Note the fact that Alan argues the veracity of Darwinian concepts like a true Darwinist. Yet Alan has proclaimed the falsity of evolutionary theory tirelessly over the recent and distant past.

Thomos Roberts: Alan is not a reliable source. If you don't believe me then click on the link below and see for yourself. Note how Alan titled his topic:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/y4J7-CAM5k0%5B1-25%5D

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Ridiculous as it gets.

Both Dawkins and Gould are self-described Darwinists. This means they obtained their view of natural selection from its founder, Charles Darwin. Your comment equates to an inadvertent admission that your view of natural selection (non-cumulative) is subjective.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Thomos.Roberts, you have probably surmised by now that Kleinman is some
kind of crank. You are correct.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/28/16 1:03 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:

My first thought is that you start by looking at whale evolution. See
the relatively gradual changes from Pakicetus (a quadruped) to modern
dolphins and baleen whales. The overall change is profound, but the
individual changes to get from one step to the next are not particularly
large. The "Understanding Evolution" website -- evolution.berkeley.edu
-- has a page on the subject:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 , along
with plenty of other information that you might find useful, especially
their "evolution 101" course.

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

[John Harshman]

Thomos.Roberts: In case it's unclear, Ray is yet another crank. We have
a lot of them here, unfortunately.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

But I'm not the kind of crank that thinks that if you double population size that you double the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Ok, so take Dawkins or Goulds work and explain why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.
>
> Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Darwin only got it half right. Evolution does occur but the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection can not transform reptiles into birds.

>
> Thomos Roberts: Alan is not a reliable source. If you don't believe me then click on the link below and see for yourself. Note how Alan titled his topic:

Really? My work is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. And based on this work, I was invited to be co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. Evolutionists may not like my work but those who must deal with the real problems caused by random mutation and natural selection recognize the importance of this work. And I already use these principles in my medical practice for the treatment of multidrug resistant infection. Random mutation and natural selection does occur but this phenomenon will not transform reptiles into birds except in the mathematically incompetent minds of evolutionists.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/y4J7-CAM5k0%5B1-25%5D
>
> Ray

[Jonathan]

Quite a thread, the answer to the question appears to be
"I haven't the faintest idea".


This is a sorry commentary on the state of classical
reductionist evolutionary thought.


s

[Thomos.Roberts]

So, anybody who ask questions is a troll in your way of thinking.

[Thomos.Roberts]

On 9/28/2016 7:40 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 9/27/2016 9:58 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
>>
>> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
>> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
>> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
>> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
>> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
>> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
>> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
>> was through random mutation and natural selection.
>> That didn't tell me nothing.
>>
>
> If you are really interested in the subject you should go to a thread
> like "Why cannot we see evolution happening today?" and check it out.
> Why is the creationist side only denial as what you are putting up? Why
> do the issues fall apart when you actually understand what is being denied?
>

I certainly don't know about creation, except what I learned one time in
bible school.

>
> What you will not see is any type of alternative being put forward and
> defended. There isn't any alternative worth defending. That is just
> fact. It is well known that what the creationists have is not as good
> as what they claim is not good enough. Demonstrate that fact for
> yourself. Put up your alternative and compare it to what you do not
> think is good enough. There is a very simple reason why biological
> evolution is the best option that we have to explain the diversity of
> life as we know it. Try to figure out what that simple reason is.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/mq1OKVRyRp4/Xw1r1-rKBAAJ
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

Thanks I read this. It was good information.

[Thomos.Roberts]

First of all what is meant by evolution.
Is it a bacteria becoming immune to anti-viral drugs?
is it all living things descending from a single ancestor
that lived billions of years ago?
Is it moths changing color with the darkening tree bark?
Is it a change in Allele frequency?
Or is it all of these?

[Thomos.Roberts]

Thank for the recommendations. But One thing I'm discovering, college
courses covers so much more material in a shorter time than high school.
Just keeping up is almost to much.

[Thomos.Roberts]

Seeing how rapidly microbes multiply it's not hard to see how you
explanation could work.
Thank you.

[Thomos.Roberts]

Most of what I read on this, goes right over my head.
>

[Thomos.Roberts]

This is interesting. I didn't understand the Hiopotamus. Surely it's
not an ancestor of theses animals. I see a really big jump between
Pekicetus and Ambulocetus. Also in looking at the first whale ancestor,
Indohyus which lived about 45 million years ago to the appearance of
Mysticetes looks like about 10 million years. Isn't that really fast
for such a massive change?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 5:40:02 PM UTC-7, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 8:58 AM, raven1 wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

> > wrote:
> >
> > Troll alert.
> >
> So, anybody who ask questions is a troll in your way of thinking.

Tommie, you need to understand something about evolutionists. They would rather advance their belief system than to correctly understand how and why drug resistance occurs or why cancer treatments fail. If you understand how random mutation and natural selection works, you can develop strategies for preventing drug resistance and develop more durable cancer treatments. These important principles are not taught in today's biology classes. This is why you were confused by your high school biology teacher and your college biology teacher will do no better.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are welcome, and all experimental and empirical evidence verifies what I've told you. There is no evidence that random mutation and natural selection works any other way than what I've explained to you.

[Thomos.Roberts]

I have tests coming up. I have got to go to study.


Thanks

[John Harshman]

Briefly, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.

> Is it a bacteria becoming immune to anti-viral drugs?

Yes.

> is it all living things descending from a single ancestor
> that lived billions of years ago?

Yes.

> Is it moths changing color with the darkening tree bark?

Yes.

> Is it a change in Allele frequency?

Yes.

> Or is it all of these?

Bingo, because all of those are changes in allele frequencies (plus
frequencies of certain other mutations that one might not want to call
alleles.)

[John Harshman]

Medical journal. That's not the same thing.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Bacteria are not viruses, and are usually not affected by antivirals. What
you undoubtedly meant to ask is, "Is bacteria becoming immune to specific
antibiotics an evolutionary change?"

The answer is yes.

> is it all living things descending from a single ancestor
> that lived billions of years ago?
> Is it moths changing color with the darkening tree bark?
> Is it a change in Allele frequency?
> Or is it all of these?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:17:29 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
<tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

>> <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
>>> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
>>> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
>>> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
>>> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
>>> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
>>> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
>>> was through random mutation and natural selection.
>>> That didn't tell me nothing.
>>
>>

>> Based on your testimony above, she was a poor teacher. So what have
>> you done since then to teach yourself?
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>
>I suppose I'm supposed to write in your blank space.

That is better than you writing in my not blank space. It's so much
easier to read everything that way.

>I am right now a freshman in college. I am thinking
>on being a park ranger when i graduate.

Ok, but apparently those things haven't told you what you think your
past teacher missed, else you wouldn't have posted what you did. So
have you done anything on your own to reduce your ignorance about
evolution?

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify which
source you think gives the correct explanation... besides yourself, of
course.

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to identify which
source you think gives the correct explanation... besides yourself, of
course.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:05:03 PM UTC-7, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/27/2016 11:41 PM, John Harshman wrote:

>> > On 9/27/16 7:58 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
>> >> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
>> >> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
>> >> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
>> >> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
>> >> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
>> >> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
>> >> was through random mutation and natural selection.
>> >> That didn't tell me nothing.
>> >>

>> > A 12th grade biology class may not be the best place to learn the
>> > details. And there's a bit of a dichotomy. We know a whole lot about
>> > what happened, for example what the common ancestor of cows and humans
>> > and whales looked like, but much less about why. Still, the best guess
>> > on the latter is random mutation and natural selection.
>> >
>> > Now, most people who post things like you did here aren't interested in
>> > answers to their questions, only in testifyin' about how evolution is is
>> > lie. But I'm sure you aren't like that, right? Ask a question and see
>> > what answers you get.
>> >
>> I'm not saying that. I'm serious. I would like to understand.
>

>But evolutionists either can't understand or do not want to understand how random mutation and natural selection works. This is very bad for society because this phenomenon affects the practice of medicine, agriculture and many other aspects of society.


That's not it. Instead, it's that evolutionists don't buy what you're
pimping.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:39:37 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 9/28/16 1:17 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

>>> <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
>>>> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
>>>> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
>>>> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
>>>> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
>>>> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
>>>> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
>>>> was through random mutation and natural selection.
>>>> That didn't tell me nothing.
>>>
>>>

>>> Based on your testimony above, she was a poor teacher. So what have
>>> you done since then to teach yourself?

>>> --
>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>>

>> I suppose I'm supposed to write in your blank space.
>> I am right now a freshman in college. I am thinking
>> on being a park ranger when i graduate.
>>
>Might I suggest you take a class in evolutionary biology? There should
>be one for non-majors and another for majors, though the majors course
>probably would require freshman general biology as a prerequisite.
>Still, that's a good start. If you're technically minded enough, Doug
>Futuyma's textbooks, either Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, would be
>a good read. I suspect they're both in your college library.
>
>Or you could try popular accounts. I very much like Richard Dawkins' The
>Ancestor's Tale, and a couple of collections of Steven J. Gould's
>essays, Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb.

Or he could take some Coursera courses online, perhaps one by Noor.

[Burkhard]

potentially all of these (and some of them are related - 1,2 and
potentially 3 are all cases of 4). With 3 you probably allude to the
peppered moth which is an example of evolution, though in principle, if
you observe a change in colour of a species, you still need to rule out
potential competitor explanations.

[raven1]

No, but someone who pops up on alt.atheism out of the blue making
provocative remarks about the Presidential debate, and then shows up
the next day on talk.origins asking "how does evolution work?" is
overwhelmingly likely to be a troll.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/28/16 1:17 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:

>> > On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
>> >>> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
>> >>> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
>> >>> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
>> >>> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
>> >>> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
>> >>> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
>> >>> was through random mutation and natural selection.
>> >>> That didn't tell me nothing.
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> Based on your testimony above, she was a poor teacher. So what have
>> >> you done since then to teach yourself?
>> >> --
>> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
>> >>
>> > I suppose I'm supposed to write in your blank space.
>> > I am right now a freshman in college. I am thinking
>> > on being a park ranger when i graduate.
>> >
>> Might I suggest you take a class in evolutionary biology? There should
>> be one for non-majors and another for majors, though the majors course
>> probably would require freshman general biology as a prerequisite.
>> Still, that's a good start. If you're technically minded enough, Doug
>> Futuyma's textbooks, either Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, would be
>> a good read. I suspect they're both in your college library.
>>
>> Or you could try popular accounts. I very much like Richard Dawkins' The
>> Ancestor's Tale, and a couple of collections of Steven J. Gould's
>> essays, Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb.
>

>You won't get the correct explanation for random mutation and natural selection from any of these sources.

Yes, Alan, we all know that there is only one source of True
Knowledge, that you are that source, and that no
professional biologist knows more math than grade school
arithmetic, and certainly, even population geneticists,
can't deal with statistics. According to you, of course.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

The lines connecting those animals are important -- both their lengths
and where they branch. At the far left of the tree (it's still called a
tree even though it is sideways), at about 54 million years ago, would
be the common ancestor of whales and hippos. It is not pictured because
no fossils of it have been found. From it, one branch evolved for 54
million years to produce the hippo; the intermediate steps and any
further branches of that lineage are not shown on the diagram. The
other branch evolved for 54 million years, branching again several times
along the way, to produce whales and dolphins.

Note, too, that the fossils shown -- Pakicetus, Kutchicetus, and the
rest -- are not the actual common ancestors at the branches. They are
merely not far removed from the common ancestors, so they give a fairly
good idea of what the common ancestor looked like. At least, usually
they do. Indohyus is about 5 million years evolved from its common
ancestor with Pakicetus, which is about the same amount of time between
Pakicetus and Kutchicetus, so the degree of difference between those two
is what we might expect between Indohyus and the actual ancestor it had
with Pakicetus.

You say you see a big jump between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. But the
changes you see are merely to the size of body parts. The legs are
shorter, but they are still there, and still jointed in pretty much the
same way. And the feet are broader, and the ear flaps shrunk to
practically nothing, and that's about it. Consider that you yourself
have probably seen people less than four feet and more than seven feet
tall just within your own population, and such changes don't seem all
that drastic. At least they don't to me.

As for the difference between Indohyus and Mysticetes, remember that
Indoyus spent 5 million years evolving in a different direction. Also,
the picture used for Mysticetes (and Odonotcetes) are of modern animals
(probably for convenience of the artist), so the difference you are
seeing in the pictures is actually 30 million years greater. The short
answer to your question is that the time was closer to 15 million years,
and yes, a lot can happen in 15 million years. Even if were just 10
million years, that amount of change would still be plausible.

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

[Thomos.Roberts]

This is true, This is my first vote. And truth is I really
don't like either of our choices. But one will be president,
I just hope the best person wins who ever that might be.

I just came across this Origins group and I had a question
which was answered. I'm in college now, and I have a
part time job. So, I doubt I'll be able to be involved in this
discussion very much, any more.

Thank you,

[Mark Isaak]

I again recommend the "Understanding Evolution" website,
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/, and more than just the one page of it I
have commented on. In particular, the "Evolution 101" section
(evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01) seems designed with
people like you as its audience, and you can take it at your own rate.

Another option, which is likely more entertaining but also more pricey,
is courses on DVD from The Great Courses (www.thegreatcourses.com). A
few of their courses sound like they might interest you, such as "A New
History of Life", "Darwinian Revolution", "Major Transitions in
Evolution", and "Biology: The Science of Life." I have not seen any of
those, but most of their courses I have seen are very high quality.

Be aware, though, that evolution is a big subject. The basic idea can
be expressed in a few sentences (Variations happen within populations,
some of which are harmful to those that have them, and some of which are
beneficial. The harmful variations, being harmful, die out, and the
beneficial ones predominate. Since these variations are hereditary,
future generations get to keep them, plus new ones which come along.
And so it goes.). But to really understand the details requires, at a
minimum I think, an understanding of genetics, population biology, and a
little bit of earth history.

[Thomos.Roberts]

It's beginning to make sense. Nothing I was taught in school went into
such detail. I appreciate your explanations.

I'm not going to be able to keep up with my study, my work and this
group, so I got to drop this. I may be able to drop in sometimes, but
I can't keep up with the talk origins group.

Thank you.

[John Harshman]

On 9/29/16 11:35 AM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 8:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:40:28 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
>> <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/28/2016 8:58 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
>>>> <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Troll alert.
>>>>
>>> So, anybody who ask questions is a troll in your way of thinking.
>>
>> No, but someone who pops up on alt.atheism out of the blue making
>> provocative remarks about the Presidential debate, and then shows up
>> the next day on talk.origins asking "how does evolution work?" is
>> overwhelmingly likely to be a troll.
>>
> This is true, This is my first vote. And truth is I really
> don't like either of our choices. But one will be president,
> I just hope the best person wins who ever that might be.

If you're actually going to vote, don't you think you should have
decided by now "who ever that might be"? If you watched the debate, I
think that was instructive. For one thing, I don't think a person who is
unable to finish a single sentence without being distracted by something
else would make a very good president.

> I just came across this Origins group and I had a question
> which was answered. I'm in college now, and I have a
> part time job. So, I doubt I'll be able to be involved in this
> discussion very much, any more.

I'd go with the books I recommended if you don't have time for a class.
(Though you probably have a Freshman science requirement. Maybe that
evolution course could fulfill it.)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Oh really John? The editors of this journal are experts in probability theory, an area of mathematics for which you have no understanding, and medicine, an area of science which is plagued my rmns. Evolutionists have been no help in elucidating the physics of this phenomenon and people suffering from drug resistant infections and failing cancer treatments have evolutionists like you to thank. A 12th grader can easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you haven't.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45:01 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

On rmns, it appears I am the only correct source. While evolutionists muddle around with the mathematics of fixation which has nothing to do with rmns, I've published the correct mathematics and physics which governs the phenomenon. It explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, it explains the Lenski experiment, it explains the video of bacteria evolving resistance to a drug, it explains why Bill Rogers still sees antimalarial drug resistance despite using combination therapy, it explains every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Of course, in all your evolutionist wisdom, you have posted zero real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns that contradict the math and physics I published.

[John Harshman]

Yes, really.

> The editors of this journal are experts in probability theory, an
> area of mathematics for which you have no understanding, and
> medicine, an area of science which is plagued my rmns.

Are they experts in population genetics, which would be the relevant
subject?

> Evolutionists
> have been no help in elucidating the physics of this phenomenon and
> people suffering from drug resistant infections and failing cancer
> treatments have evolutionists like you to thank. A 12th grader can
> easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you
> haven't.

That would imply that you haven't explained it correctly.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Yes, one of the peer reviewers required that I address Kimura's work. Not only did I address Kimura's model, but I also explained Haldane's model and where they have made their errors in the physics which leads to errors in describing rmns. It requires some skill in the mathematics and physics of rmns to see the error. But once you see it, it becomes clear why their models are incorrect. Fixation or changes in allele frequencies is not the correct way to describe evolution by rmns. The editors understood my argument and published my papers.

>
> > Evolutionists
> > have been no help in elucidating the physics of this phenomenon and
> > people suffering from drug resistant infections and failing cancer
> > treatments have evolutionists like you to thank. A 12th grader can
> > easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you
> > haven't.
>
> That would imply that you haven't explained it correctly.

Let me rephrase this. An unbiased 12th grader can easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you haven't.

[John Harshman]

Wouldn't a more appropriate venue for a critique of population genetics
models have been a population genetics journal, say Evolution?

>>> Evolutionists
>>> have been no help in elucidating the physics of this phenomenon and
>>> people suffering from drug resistant infections and failing cancer
>>> treatments have evolutionists like you to thank. A 12th grader can
>>> easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you
>>> haven't.
>>
>> That would imply that you haven't explained it correctly.
> Let me rephrase this. An unbiased 12th grader can easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you haven't.

So it's my fault, then. Blame the victim.

[jillery]

I look forward to your Nobel Prize. Until then...

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 5:53 PM, John Bode wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-5, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> >
> > [snip]

> >
> >> I asked her how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
> >> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
> >> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
> >> was through random mutation and natural selection.
> >> That didn't tell me nothing.
> >

> > You're not going to get much more than that in a 12th grade biology
> > class, especially in a single class session. A satisfactory answer would
> > be a good chunk of an undergrad biology degree and possibly some graduate
> > work.
> >
> > You're asking for everything from how mutations happen at the molecular
> > level to how those mutations are expressed in the organism, to how traits
> > become fixed in a population, to how selection pressures work, to what
> > happens when selection pressures change over time, to whether speciation
> > is allopatric or sympatric (or a combination of both), etc.
> >
> > Demanding a high school biology teacher explain all of that is asking
> > a bit much. You might as well ask your English teacher to trace the
> > evolution of English (and German, and French, and Italian) all the way back
> > to proto-Indo-European in the span of a single class session.
> >
> > Yes, "mutation plus selection" by itself isn't terribly satisfactory if
> > you're interested in the deep-down nitty-gritty details, but that's why
> > people pursue graduate degrees.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Quite a thread, the answer to the question appears to be
> "I haven't the faintest idea".
>
>

How did you get that from what I wrote?

> This is a sorry commentary on the state of classical
> reductionist evolutionary thought.
>

Or, a sorry commentary on your ability to read for comprehension.

>
> s

[John Bode]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 1:35:01 PM UTC-5, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 8:41 AM, raven1 wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:40:28 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
> > <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/28/2016 8:58 AM, raven1 wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"
> >>> <tomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Troll alert.
> >>>
> >> So, anybody who ask questions is a troll in your way of thinking.
> >
> > No, but someone who pops up on alt.atheism out of the blue making
> > provocative remarks about the Presidential debate, and then shows up
> > the next day on talk.origins asking "how does evolution work?" is
> > overwhelmingly likely to be a troll.
> >
> This is true, This is my first vote. And truth is I really
> don't like either of our choices. But one will be president,
> I just hope the best person wins who ever that might be.
>

I don't *like* either choice myself, but right now, this year, the
Republican nominee is *grossly* unfit for the office. Clinton could be
dirtier than Nixon and I'd still vote for her in a heartbeat. She could be
guilty of every offense that every unhinged inhabitant of the fever swamps
of the Internet have horked up, and she'd *still* be far and away the clear
choice over Trump.

When the Dallas Morning News and Arizona Republic are endorsing the
Democrat, that's a clear sign that there's *something wrong* with the
Republican nominee. When almost the entire national security community all
the way back to Henry Freaking Kissinger are endorsing the Democrat, that's
a clear sign that the Republican nominee is *unfit for the job*.

> I just came across this Origins group and I had a question
> which was answered. I'm in college now, and I have a
> part time job. So, I doubt I'll be able to be involved in this
> discussion very much, any more.
>
> Thank you,

FWIW, your teacher wasn't *wrong* - variation plus selection is the main
driving force of evolution, applied over billions of years. That
answer isn't terribly precise. But getting into the details of it takes
real time and effort.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I chose "Statistics in Medicine" because they were specifically looking for mathematical papers which describe empirical examples of importance in the field of medicine. Population geneticists are free to challenge the validity of my model since I have challenged the validity of their models. Perhaps you would find it more appropriate if I had published my work in a genetics journal, but the editors of "Statistics in Medicine" are skilled scientists, mathematicians, and educators from top universities. I am very thankful they would take the time to read a paper from a primary care clinical physician.

>
> >>> Evolutionists
> >>> have been no help in elucidating the physics of this phenomenon and
> >>> people suffering from drug resistant infections and failing cancer
> >>> treatments have evolutionists like you to thank. A 12th grader can
> >>> easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you
> >>> haven't.
> >>
> >> That would imply that you haven't explained it correctly.
> > Let me rephrase this. An unbiased 12th grader can easily understand this phenomenon if explained correctly, which you haven't.
>
> So it's my fault, then. Blame the victim.

I truly hope that you are not ill.

[Jonathan]

I was commenting on the thread as a whole, as the sentence
clearly indicates.

>> This is a sorry commentary on the state of classical
>> reductionist evolutionary thought.
>>
>
> Or, a sorry commentary on your ability to read for comprehension.
>

Right back atcha



s





>>
>> s
>

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/28/16 3:39 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/28/16 1:17 PM, Thomos.Roberts wrote:

> >>>> On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:58:47 -0400, "Thomos.Roberts"

> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
> >>>>>> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
> >>>>>> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked

> >>>>>> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her

> >>>>>> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
> >>>>>> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
> >>>>>> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
> >>>>>> was through random mutation and natural selection.
> >>>>>> That didn't tell me nothing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Based on your testimony above, she was a poor teacher. So what have
> >>>>> you done since then to teach yourself?
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I suppose I'm supposed to write in your blank space.
> >>>> I am right now a freshman in college. I am thinking
> >>>> on being a park ranger when i graduate.
> >>>>
> >>> Might I suggest you take a class in evolutionary biology? There should
> >>> be one for non-majors and another for majors, though the majors course
> >>> probably would require freshman general biology as a prerequisite.
> >>> Still, that's a good start. If you're technically minded enough, Doug
> >>> Futuyma's textbooks, either Evolution or Evolutionary Biology, would be
> >>> a good read. I suspect they're both in your college library.
> >>>
> >>> Or you could try popular accounts. I very much like Richard Dawkins' The
> >>> Ancestor's Tale, and a couple of collections of Steven J. Gould's
> >>> essays, Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb.
> >>
> >> You won't get the correct explanation for random mutation and natural selection from any of these sources.
> >

> > Ridiculous as it gets.
> >
> > Both Dawkins and Gould are self-described Darwinists. This means they obtained their view of natural selection from its founder, Charles Darwin. Your comment equates to an inadvertent admission that your view of natural selection (non-cumulative) is subjective.
>
> Thomos.Roberts: In case it's unclear, Ray is yet another crank. We have
> a lot of them here, unfortunately.

I'm relieved to be considered a crank by a person like yourself----a person who believes the wondrous complexity and beauty found in nature was produced by accident (= random mutation).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Since I defended your point about Dawkins and Gould your description of me, as a crank, doesn't make sense. You've just implied yourself to be a crank as well with no awareness of the fact. Despite your credentials, you're not that smart, as one can see.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> Ok, so take Dawkins or Goulds work and explain why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.
>

Disease isn't the main object of explanation of evolutionary theory----sexually reproducing animal species, how they appear in the wild, is the main object of explanation. When the main object is explained evolutionary theorists then earn the right to use this explanation to explain auxiliary phenomena like disease. Whatever failures evolutionary theorists might experience in explaining disease the same doesn't affect the main object of explanation, which is the hardest or the most difficult.

So once again, Alan, much like Michael Behe and his use of malaria, you've got the cart before the horse.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:35:03 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:05:03 PM UTC-7, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 9/27/2016 11:33 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:00:03 PM UTC-7, Thomos.Roberts wrote:
> > > > >> In my 12 grade biology class, my teacher was always
> > > > >> saying evolution did this and evolution did that.
> > > > >> I asked her how did evolution work. She said it worked
> > > > >> by random mutation and natural selection. I asked her
> > > > >> how exactly did honey bees and cows and humans and
> > > > >> whales evolved to have the morphologies they have now
> > > > >> if everything came from a common ancestor. Her answer
> > > > >> was through random mutation and natural selection.
> > > > >> That didn't tell me nothing.
> > > > >

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/y4J7-CAM5k0%5B1-25%5D
>
> Really? My work is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. And based on this work, I was invited to be co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. Evolutionists may not like my work but those who must deal with the real problems caused by random mutation and natural selection recognize the importance of this work. And I already use these principles in my medical practice for the treatment of multidrug resistant infection. Random mutation and natural selection does occur but this phenomenon will not transform reptiles into birds except in the mathematically incompetent minds of evolutionists.
>

So Alan admits to contradiction: acceptance of existence of random mutation and natural selection but rejection of the extended theory----namely, cumulative selection. You argue RMNS to be true and false, which is contradictory.

You can't accept the core cause-and-effect claim as true, but reject the full theory. The same is the territory of the religious Fundamentalists. If the former exists then rejection of the latter is illogical because the latter is based on the former.

And here you are attempting to persuade a student that RMNS exists and works but the extended or extrapolated theory is false (= contradiction).

An unintelligent evolutionary process (RMNS) isn't stumping the brilliant minds of medical science as they, for decades, have attempted to solve mutating bacterial resistance, which is another contradiction created by your position. Does a first grader threaten your intelligence, Alan? Then how could an alleged phenomenon, with way less intelligence than a first grader, stump you and your colleagues in medicine regarding mutating resistance?

Mutating resistance is designed, and must be described in teleological terms. This is why you guys haven't been able to solve the problem. One cannot say the discipline of medicine has been stumped by something with far less intelligence than a first grader (= RMNS).

I'm challenging you to change your terms to match the phenomena.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Not quite right Ray. I've done the physics and mathematics of how "cumulative" selection works. rmns obeys physical and mathematical laws. Beneficial mutations only accumulate within the framework of these physical and mathematical laws. If I admit that there is a law of gravity, therefore the moon must fall into the earth?

>
> You can't accept the core cause-and-effect claim as true, but reject the full theory. The same is the territory of the religious Fundamentalists. If the former exists then rejection of the latter is illogical because the latter is based on the former.

The point of writing out physical laws in mathematical terms is that you can predict the behavior of the physical system. If you understand the law of gravity, you can sling shot a spacecraft through the solar system using the gravitational pull of the planets. rmns exists and obeys physical and mathematical laws. People who don't understand the physics and mathematics of rmns can make any type of irrational claim on what this phenomenon can do.

>
> And here you are attempting to persuade a student that RMNS exists and works but the extended or extrapolated theory is false (= contradiction).

If you ever want to develop a strategy to stop antimicrobial resistance or have more durable cancer treatments, you will do a much better job if you understand how rmns works.

>
> An unintelligent evolutionary process (RMNS) isn't stumping the brilliant minds of medical science as they, for decades, have attempted to solve mutating bacterial resistance, which is another contradiction created by your position. Does a first grader threaten your intelligence, Alan? Then how could an alleged phenomenon, with way less intelligence than a first grader, stump you and your colleagues in medicine regarding mutating resistance?

Physicians and medical researchers have muddled along trying to prevent drug resistance. The successful treatment of HIV with combination therapy should have been a big wake up call but unfortunately, the medical system continues to muddle.

>
> Mutating resistance is designed, and must be described in teleological terms. This is why you guys haven't been able to solve the problem. One cannot say the discipline of medicine has been stumped by something with far less intelligence than a first grader (= RMNS).
>
> I'm challenging you to change your terms to match the phenomena.

I'll use mathematical symbols to make my description.
>
> Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:53:12 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

See my last post.

> While evolutionists muddle around with the mathematics of fixation which has nothing to do with rmns, I've published the correct mathematics and physics which governs the phenomenon. It explains why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV, it explains the Lenski experiment, it explains the video of bacteria evolving resistance to a drug, it explains why Bill Rogers still sees antimalarial drug resistance despite using combination therapy, it explains every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Of course, in all your evolutionist wisdom, you have posted zero real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns that contradict the math and physics I published.

Oh, yes, everyone is out of step but you; you tell us so
constantly.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 9:04:59 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:53:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

It's not the first time something like this has happened flat earther.

[Mark Isaak]

You are quite welcome.

Talk.origins is not the best place to learn evolution. Since it
contains at least as much bad information as good, one must first learn
to distinguish the competent players from the cranks, which is not a job
for newcomers. Plus, it has a lot of irrelevant bickering.

For learning on your own, try other resources. I already recommended
the "Understanding Evolution" website and the Great Courses. You could
also ask a librarian at a public library for recommendations.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net

"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Tommy, you won't learn how random mutation and natural selection from evolutionist web sites.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

> > > Really? My work is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. And based on this work, I was invited to be co-chair of the molecular oncology group at the 20th World Congress on Advances in Oncology. Evolutionists may not like my work but those who must deal with the real problems caused by random mutation and natural selection recognize the importance of this work. And I already use these principles in my medical practice for the treatment of multidrug resistant infection. Random mutation and natural selection does occur but this phenomenon will not transform reptiles into birds except in the mathematically incompetent minds of evolutioists.

> >
> >
> > So Alan admits to contradiction: acceptance of existence of random mutation and natural selection but rejection of the extended theory----namely, cumulative selection. You argue RMNS to be true and false, which is contradictory.
> Not quite right Ray. I've done the physics and mathematics of how "cumulative" selection works. rmns obeys physical and mathematical laws. Beneficial mutations only accumulate within the framework of these physical and mathematical laws. If I admit that there is a law of gravity, therefore the moon must fall into the earth?
> >
> > You can't accept the core cause-and-effect claim as true, but reject the full theory. The same is the territory of the religious Fundamentalists. If the former exists then rejection of the latter is illogical because the latter is based on the former.
> The point of writing out physical laws in mathematical terms is that you can predict the behavior of the physical system. If you understand the law of gravity, you can sling shot a spacecraft through the solar system using the gravitational pull of the planets. rmns exists and obeys physical and mathematical laws. People who don't understand the physics and mathematics of rmns can make any type of irrational claim on what this phenomenon can do.
> >
> > And here you are attempting to persuade a student that RMNS exists and works but the extended or extrapolated theory is false (= contradiction).
> If you ever want to develop a strategy to stop antimicrobial resistance or have more durable cancer treatments, you will do a much better job if you understand how rmns works.
> >
> > An unintelligent evolutionary process (RMNS) isn't stumping the brilliant minds of medical science as they, for decades, have attempted to solve mutating bacterial resistance, which is another contradiction created by your position. Does a first grader threaten your intelligence, Alan? Then how could an alleged phenomenon, with way less intelligence than a first grader, stump you and your colleagues in medicine regarding mutating resistance?
> Physicians and medical researchers have muddled along trying to prevent drug resistance. The successful treatment of HIV with combination therapy should have been a big wake up call but unfortunately, the medical system continues to muddle.
> >
> > Mutating resistance is designed, and must be described in teleological terms. This is why you guys haven't been able to solve the problem. One cannot say the discipline of medicine has been stumped by something with far less intelligence than a first grader (= RMNS).
> >
> > I'm challenging you to change your terms to match the phenomena.
> I'll use mathematical symbols to make my description.
> >
> > Ray

I urge everyone to read the replies of Alan Kleinman and see that he has not addressed the points made, but has used the occasion at hand to reiterate his view. One would think a person with a Ph.D would be able to address the points. But that is not the case. Alan has evaded. I now have the right to conclude that the points I have raised and argued stand as true.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Ray, mutations are stochastic events, at least for us mortals. If you think that mutations are something other than random events, let us know.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

I suspect that's true, especially if you've had your
superiority complex for a while.

"Flat Earther", huh? Interesting...

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 8:49:55 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Oh, I see, evolutionists don't have superiority complexes, they understand rmns better than anyone. That explains why we have multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. This blunder that evolutionists make is of the magnitude of those who believe in a flat earth.

[jillery]

So you think evolutionists are responsible for multidrug resistant

microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant
insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

But you forgot to blame them for the national debt, immorality, and
the decline of Western power.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Absolutely, Edward Tatum gave and important clue on how rmns operates in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture which has been totally ignored by the evolutionist community. You are too busy indoctrinating naive school children that reptiles turn into birds by rmns to actually understand the phenomenon.

>
> But you forgot to blame them for the national debt, immorality, and
> the decline of Western power.

Don't be silly Jillery.

[jillery]

Not me. Clearly you haven't kept up with ICR, Discovery Institute,
Bill O'Reilly, and Pat Robertson.

If I wanted to be silly, I would have blamed evolutionists for global
warming. Everybody knows that's the fault of baby-killing Jews...
which of course does not mean that all Jews are baby killers.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

I kept up with Edward Tatum who recognized the key feature of rmns. If evolutionists like you had kept up with Edward Tatum, we would have much less of a problem with multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

snip

>I kept up with Edward Tatum who recognized the key feature of rmns. If evolutionists like you had kept up with Edward Tatum, we would have much less of a problem with multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

They seem to know about drug resistance here:

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

There's nothing about you or other creationists discovering drug
resistance there.

[jillery]

And if you kept up with ICR, Discovery Institute, Bill O'Reilly, and
Pat Robertson, you would have known about evolutionists' impact on the
national debt, immorality, and the decline of Western power. Clearly
you need to expand your source material.

>>If I wanted to be silly, I would have blamed evolutionists for global
>>warming. Everybody knows that's the fault of baby-killing Jews...
>>which of course does not mean that all Jews are baby killers.

No reply here. Apparently you disagree that not all Jews are
baby-killers. That's the kind of conclusion invited by your
hyperbole.

[Ray Martinez]

So Alan, like all Atheists, believes the wondrous complexity and beauty found in nature came about through accident or chance----what he called "random events."

The claim seen above is logically invalid. This is the MAIN problem infecting Alan's thought and all believers in evolution as well.

Since effects are admitted organized and complex it does not follow that the same was caused by antonymic random accidents or chance. Rather, said effects of organization correspond to the work of Intelligence, and are thus designed.

Alan has never addressed the contradiction seen above, but has used every occasion to simply reiterate or re-state his claims. Atheists, of course, have no choice but to believe life came about by accident or chance.

And Alan is fond of telling us that RMNS exists and occurs but the full theory used to explain birds and reptiles, for example, cannot be true. Yet Alan hasn't told us his view of how birds and reptiles appear in the wild?

Moreover, Alan is equally fond of telling the group that the accepted view of natural selection, as conveyed by Richard Dawkins, for example, is wrong. Yet Dawkins is the quintessential Darwinist. His view of natural selection obtained from theory founder Charles Darwin. In fact, all of science obtained their view of natural selection from theory founder Charles Darwin----that's why the theory is still called "natural selection" because the thing remains Darwinian. If the thing had been fundamentally changed or altered since Darwin first published in 1859 then it would NOT be called "natural selection." Because science has retained the name "natural selection" the thing itself is defined by Charles Darwin exclusively. Since Alan Kleinman says the thing exists and occurs, but he renounces the thing as conveyed by known Darwinists, I conclude the thing Alan is calling "natural selection" is not natural selection, but "natural selection." Only the founder determines what the thing itself is, and science has said redundantly that Darwin was correct and remains correct. So Alan Kleinman is relating a highly subjective view of natural selection, not Darwin's or the thing accepted by science.

I expect Alan to once again evade the content of this message, as he has done so many times.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >I kept up with Edward Tatum who recognized the key feature of rmns. If evolutionists like you had kept up with Edward Tatum, we would have much less of a problem with multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
>
> They seem to know about drug resistance here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_therapy
>
> There's nothing about you or other creationists discovering drug
> resistance there.

Edward Tatum wrote about this more than half a century ago. Edward Tatum recognized the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on rmns. Evolutionist still refuse to recognize how the multiplication rule impacts rmns. This fact of life doesn't fit with evolutionist dogma.

[jillery]

Edward Tatum is not someone with whom I'm familiar. I read the
Wikpedia article on him. It shows that he was a well-respected
geneticist, but the article lacks any links or cites with details
about his concerns relating to multidrug resistant microbes,
multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects, less
than durable cancer treatments, or his opinions wrt rmns and
evolution. And since he died in 1975, I wouldn't be surprised that
more recent events mooted many of his concerns.

Will you cite anything which you think supports your claim that Tatum
shared your opinion about the inability of rmns to effect evolutionary
change?

[rsNorman]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Tatum was, indeed, a highly respected geneticist. His work with
Beadle showing "one gene one enzyme" in Neurospora won them a
shared Nobel Prize. It is considered the beginning of molecular
genetics. I have no doubt that he did write about the development
of antibiotic resistance in bacteria very early on. That
resistance, in fact, was first seen to penicillin in 1947, only
some four years after the introduction of the drug.

Of course the good Dr. Dr.'s take on things is completely off
base. This is a favorite theme of his, in fact his only theme,
about evolutionary biologists' failure to teach medical students
about the development of resistance. In the past Kaplan would
run on and on about how we killed millions of people because of
this failure. Thankfully that part is now gone.

The fact is that everybody has known for almost 70 years now about
bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. We know all about
the multiplicative rule of probabilities when properly applied to
a proper probability model of evolution and the events are
independent of each other. Kaplan has one view of evolution and
one view only and everything that has ever happened to all life
on earth is viewed as simply an extension of bacteria evolving
resistance because of the improper application and use of
antibiotics. He has demonstrated no understanding of
simultaneous selection to different factors, to the notion of
drift and fixation, of allele frequency, of carrying capacity
controlling total population size...of pretty much everything
biological related and important to understanding evolution in
the real world. He did get published a paper describing a very
simple model of evolution in which the multiplicative law is
used.

Oh, I forget. Beyond the fact that we killed millions of people
by failing to recognize the multiplication rule and teaching
about it to medical students who then go out to practice medicine
base on bad teaching, there is also the total impossibility for
evolution changing a lizard into a bird.



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Do you? Doubtful, but let's see...

>, evolutionists don't have superiority complexes, they understand rmns better than anyone.

OK, to start, those to whom you're attempting to refer are
evolutionary biologists, not "evolutionists" (or should that
be "eeevilushionists"?). And yes, they understand their
field better than you do. Or, for that matter, than I do.

> That explains why we have multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

Nope. Several of the things you note are not the result of
those nasty, incompetent biologists, but of inappropriate
application of the products of pharmaceutical companies,
mostly by doctors and farmers, who are *not* biologists.

> This blunder that evolutionists make is of the magnitude of those who believe in a flat earth.

Is that blunder of the same magnitude as the blunder of
those who, because they know a little math, apply it
incorrectly since they don't really understand the subject?

[jillery]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:21:53 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> >I kept up with Edward Tatum who recognized the key feature of rmns. If evolutionists like you had kept up with Edward Tatum, we would have much less of a problem with multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
>>>
>>> They seem to know about drug resistance here:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_therapy
>>>
>>> There's nothing about you or other creationists discovering drug
>>> resistance there.
>>Edward Tatum wrote about this more than half a century ago. Edward Tatum recognized the consequences of the multiplication rule of probabilities on rmns. Evolutionist still refuse to recognize how the multiplication rule impacts rmns. This fact of life doesn't fit with evolutionist dogma.
>
>
>Edward Tatum is not someone with whom I'm familiar. I read the
>Wikpedia article on him. It shows that he was a well-respected
>geneticist, but the article lacks any links or cites with details
>about his concerns relating to multidrug resistant microbes,
>multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects, less
>than durable cancer treatments, or his opinions wrt rmns and
>evolution. And since he died in 1975, I wouldn't be surprised that
>more recent events mooted many of his concerns.
>
>Will you cite anything which you think supports your claim that Tatum
>shared your opinion about the inability of rmns to effect evolutionary
>change?

Well?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 12:24:52 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html
"In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics - such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters."
What Edward Tatum is talking about in the last sentence from this quote is the multiplication rule of probabilities. He goes on to say:
"As an important example of the application of these same concepts of microbial genetics to mammalian cells, we may cite the probable mutational origin of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents in leukemic cells44, and the increasing and effective simultaneous use of two or more chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of this disease."
Stated more than half a century ago.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 12:59:52 PM UTC-7, rsNorman wrote:
> jillery Wrote in message:

> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Our graduate student in probability theory forgot to read Edward Tatum's Nobel Laureate Lecture. If he had he would have recognized that Edward Tatum talked about the multiplication rule of probabilities being invoked when combination therapy was used to treat infections and cancers. When are you going to learn apply your graduate school education to the real world?

[jillery]

Ok, I see the part where Tatum identified the existence of multidrug
resistance. Thank you for pointing it out.

But apparently you forgot to identify anything where Tatum identified
that multidrug resistance prevented rmns from effecting evolutionary
change. As that is the substance of your claim, without it you can't
reasonably claim Tatum is someone who supports it.

Your failure to fully support your claim reinforces my impression that
your citation of Tatum is a quotemine similar to that of many
anti-evolutionists' citations of Gould and Eldredge.

[RSNorman]

I did mention that " We know all about the multiplicative rule of

probabilities when properly applied to a proper probability model of

evolution and the events are independent of each other." I also did
acknowledge that you "published a paper describing a very simple model

of evolution in which the multiplicative law is used."

Isn't it indeed strange that not one single doctor of medicine or
professor at any medical school in all these years has noticed what
Tatum so clearly layed out? At least nobody until you finally came
along and were able to reveal that otherwise hidden secret to the
wider world. That God for that! You can now lead us out of the
morass of bacterial and viral resistance. I am sure that the entire
medical profession, veterinary medical profession, agribusiness
establishment, and pharaceutical industry will suddenly wake up, jump
to their feet, and heed your admonition. They all have been strangely
blind for so long.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 10:04:47 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 19:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Tatum recognized that multiple selection pressures inhibit rmns because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. An elementary school student can recognize what he said.

>
> Your failure to fully support your claim reinforces my impression that
> your citation of Tatum is a quotemine similar to that of many
> anti-evolutionists' citations of Gould and Eldredge.

Oh, I missed Tatum's claim where he says rmns transforms reptiles into birds. Could you point that quote out for me.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-7, RSNorman wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 19:09:38 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

And it is the correct physical and mathematical model of rmns and I agree with you, it is quite simple. It also correctly predicts every real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. But feel free to find a real, measurable and repeatable empirical example of rmns that it doesn't model correctly.

>
> Isn't it indeed strange that not one single doctor of medicine or
> professor at any medical school in all these years has noticed what
> Tatum so clearly layed out? At least nobody until you finally came
> along and were able to reveal that otherwise hidden secret to the
> wider world. That God for that! You can now lead us out of the
> morass of bacterial and viral resistance. I am sure that the entire
> medical profession, veterinary medical profession, agribusiness
> establishment, and pharaceutical industry will suddenly wake up, jump
> to their feet, and heed your admonition. They all have been strangely
> blind for so long.

It wasn't so hidden, my 5th grade science teacher talked about it when I was a child. I remember asking her how the theory of evolution could be true if that was the way rmns worked. I even remember her doing the first steps of the mathematics and computing the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. I never heard about Tatum's lecture again after that. I guess Tatum's lecture didn't fit in with evolutionist dogma. The flat earth mentality is alive and well in the evolutionist community.

[jillery]

Perhaps, but apparently not you, else you would have identified where
Tatum said it. Apparently, you are *not* smarter than a fifth-grader.

>> Your failure to fully support your claim reinforces my impression that
>> your citation of Tatum is a quotemine similar to that of many
>> anti-evolutionists' citations of Gould and Eldredge.
>Oh, I missed Tatum's claim where he says rmns transforms reptiles into birds. Could you point that quote out for me.

That's not my claim. Take it up with those who said it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:54:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

You don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader to recognize that the theory of evolution isn't true. It's the multiplication rule of probabilities that does the theory in.

>
>
> >> Your failure to fully support your claim reinforces my impression that
> >> your citation of Tatum is a quotemine similar to that of many
> >> anti-evolutionists' citations of Gould and Eldredge.
> >Oh, I missed Tatum's claim where he says rmns transforms reptiles into birds. Could you point that quote out for me.
>
>
> That's not my claim. Take it up with those who said it.

What ever.

[jillery]

Since you didn't want to answer my question, it would have been a
whole lot easier if you just said so in the first place.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 7:19:42 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

What question?

[jillery]

And how 'bout them Mets.