Bird evolution

[RonO]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/bigger-better-bird-tree-life-will-soon-fly-view

Over 10,000 species of birds are scheduled to have their genomes
sequenced, but a group of researchers are not going to wait for the
whole genomes. They have picked out around 5,000 pieces of the genome
that they are going to sequence for over 10K species so that they will
get the avian phylogeny before the genome sequences are finished.

They should be able to do a pretty good job. We have the basic outlines
of the avian phylogeny using a limited set of genes and the
mitochondrial genome, but the genome sequencing that has been done has
allowed the team to select the pieces of the genome that should be most
informative.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What a surprise, another half-assed job done by the reptiles grow feathers crowd in order to cherry-pick their data. Then they can do a half-assed job with reptiles to do the same. The only job the reptiles grow feathers crowd can do completely is bungle the basic science and mathematics of rmns. Misson accomplished SlowO.

[erik simpson]

If you could read for comprehension, the study described is a *genonic* study,
exactly what you tout as the only meaningful way to study organisms. You're
confirming everyone's opinion that you're certainly a crank, and perhaps a
quack as well. Do you read medical journals with the same level of attention?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are too stupid to understand the half-assed job they are doing. From the article:
"The U.S. National Science Foundation–funded effort will tap extensive museum collections as much as possible, instead of freshly caught bird samples, and will sequence about 5000 short pieces of the DNA, focusing on regions that are very highly conserved among all birds."
Dumb clucks like you ignore all the genetic differences. This is why you are a space case. Fish turning into mammals and reptiles growing feathers and wings, how stupid can you get. Wait, you can get dumber, life spontaneously occurring in the primordial soup. Do you even know what a stochastic process is?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <ae7a2e94-83be-4408...@googlegroups.com>,

So far, the only "evidence" you've offered for the impossibility of fish
evolving into tetrapods is that your equation (the one that you've not
provided any empirical support for) allegedly prevents this from
happening.

So here's a question for you. If you are convinced that your work has
profound implications which will overturn all of modern biology, why
don't you actually hint at this in any of your papers?

In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
on usenet forums?

Andre

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

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <ae7a2e94-83be-4408...@googlegroups.com>,

The only evidence you've offered is a complete ignorance of how rmns works. You have no idea what Kishony and Lenski had to do to get their rmns experiments to work.

>
> So here's a question for you. If you are convinced that your work has
> profound implications which will overturn all of modern biology, why
> don't you actually hint at this in any of your papers?

Have you actually read my papers? If you had you might have gotten the hint from the last sentence from this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25244620
"This is a consequence of the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon and the multiplication rule of probabilities."

>
> In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
> three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
> like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
> as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
> explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
> on usenet forums?

That claim is based on the population sizes that malaria can achieve and the mutation rates for this parasite. The probability of a double beneficial mutation falls into the sigmoidal portion of the probability curve. And if you understand that malaria kills about a million people a year, that's a lot of trials for that double beneficial mutation. And people who claim that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings certainly don't understand the impact of the multiplication rule on evolution by rmns. And re-read that paper and see how many times I made reference to how the multiplication rule governs rmns. Can't you take a hint?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:05:56 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

Allie's basic problem is that he imagines that math
controls, rather than describes, reality. So when he managed
to formulate an equation which doesn't reflect reality he
imagined reality would change to obey.

>So here's a question for you. If you are convinced that your work has
>profound implications which will overturn all of modern biology, why
>don't you actually hint at this in any of your papers?
>
>In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
>three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
>like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
>as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
>explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
>on usenet forums?
>
>Andre
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:05:56 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>
> >In article <ae7a2e94-83be-4408...@googlegroups.com>,

Your parsing of grammar is no better than your mathematical skills. And you have demonstrated no skill in mathematics.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <6722b3e1-ebd6-4dd9...@googlegroups.com>,

And anyone reading that will assume you are referring to the example of
multi-drug resistance under discussion, but will not assume you mean
this to apply to all instances of evolution.

Why not explicitly state your position that this rules out evolution of
tetrapods from lobe-finned fish?

> > In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
> > three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
> > like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
> > as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
> > explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
> > on usenet forums?
> That claim is based on the population sizes that malaria can achieve and the
> mutation rates for this parasite. The probability of a double beneficial
> mutation falls into the sigmoidal portion of the probability curve. And if
> you understand that malaria kills about a million people a year, that's a lot
> of trials for that double beneficial mutation. And people who claim that fish
> turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings certainly don't
> understand the impact of the multiplication rule on evolution by rmns. And
> re-read that paper and see how many times I made reference to how the
> multiplication rule governs rmns. Can't you take a hint?

You also only discuss multi-drug resistance, which, as has been pointed
out to you, is a special case. Now I realise you don't accept that it's
a special case, but since biologists do accept this you'd think you
would have spent some time in your paper pointing out this error and
making it explicit that this applies not only to multidrug resistance.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <6722b3e1-ebd6-4dd9...@googlegroups.com>,

Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute thinks that the multiplication rule does not apply at all to biological evolution. What makes you think that the multiplication rule doesn't apply to the evolution of variants to other selection pressures such as starvation by rmns?

>
> Why not explicitly state your position that this rules out evolution of
> tetrapods from lobe-finned fish?

I used specific empirical examples to derive the mathematics which governs rmns. These examples are real, measurable and repeatable. If you think that the multiplication rule somehow disappears with the evolution of tetrapods from lobe-finned fish, make your case. I contend that biologists have failed to properly describe a fundamental phenomenon of evolution, rmns. Instead, you have a preconceived notion of how life arose and came to be as we see today without ever correctly describing the physics and governing mathematics.

>
> > > In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
> > > three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
> > > like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
> > > as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
> > > explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
> > > on usenet forums?
> > That claim is based on the population sizes that malaria can achieve and the
> > mutation rates for this parasite. The probability of a double beneficial
> > mutation falls into the sigmoidal portion of the probability curve. And if
> > you understand that malaria kills about a million people a year, that's a lot
> > of trials for that double beneficial mutation. And people who claim that fish
> > turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings certainly don't
> > understand the impact of the multiplication rule on evolution by rmns. And
> > re-read that paper and see how many times I made reference to how the
> > multiplication rule governs rmns. Can't you take a hint?
>
> You also only discuss multi-drug resistance, which, as has been pointed
> out to you, is a special case. Now I realise you don't accept that it's
> a special case, but since biologists do accept this you'd think you
> would have spent some time in your paper pointing out this error and
> making it explicit that this applies not only to multidrug resistance.

If you read this link carefully, you will see that I wrote a paragraph which explained how to apply the mathematics of multiple simultaneous selection pressures to oncological problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501057
And why should you think that rmns works differently for other selection pressures? This mathematics along with the mathematics of Haldane or Kimura also describes the Lenski experiment, even though you complain that it doesn't. Just be aware that it is taking e11 replications for each beneficial mutation in the Lenski experiment. How many of those replications are for the most fit variant and how many of those replications are for those variants going extinct?

[RonO]

What a bonehead. From the 300 bird genomes that we already have we know
the best parts of the genome to sequence to get the most information
most efficiently. Do you have any reason why 5000 parts of the genome
aren't enough to sequence? Do you know how much DNA sequence that is
per species?

The fact that your stupid and bogus probability argument didn't make the
best IDiot list just means that it is as stupid and bogus as it was
found to be over 30 years ago. Denial of reality won't change the fact
that a bogus argument is bogus.

Real science will learn something in the next few years, so why won't
that happen for creationists like you?

The data will produce even more evidence that birds evolved from reptile
like animals and that birds have an amphibian and fish vertebrate
ancestor, but what this study has as a main goal is to determine how all
extant birds are related to each other. This just happens to
demonstrate that they all share an ancestor that was fully flight
capable. You have to use non avian outgroups like mammals and reptiles
to figure out how birds are related to the non avian lineages.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

SlowO's crystal ball doesn't see that mutations are random independent events but does see that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. This is something only a naive school child could believe.

[RonO]

Denial is stupid and dishonest, so why is it the only thing that you can
think of to do? Why aren't you wallowing in the "Best" that IDiocy has
to offer instead of putting up your denial of all that you can't equal?

Insanity isn't a defense it is an excuse. Reality doesn't change. You
will still be just as wrong as you always have been.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

SlowO thinks that fish turning into mammals and reptiles growing wings and feathers is reality. That explains why we have drug-resistant microbes, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. As long as we have mathematically incompetent nitwits like SlowO, the physics and mathematics of rmns will never be properly taught.

[RonO]

The insanity defense is not a defense it is an excuse for being what you
are. Reality doesn't change. There is no reason to continue the
insanity defense if you aren't insane and do not need that excuse.

The ID perps have given you their best evidence, and what are you doing
with it? It is obviously better than your probability argument, so what
do you think that you are doing with this type of stupid denial?

Even your own reference told you that you were wrong in your math. You
could do the calculation that you run from doing and demonstrate that
fact for yourself. Running away in denial of reality isn't going to
change reality. You will always be wrong, nothing is going to change
that fact. Nothing that I could ever do would change the fact that you
are wrong. I could even claim that you are correct and you know that
you would still be wrong.

The insanity defense isn't a defense. If you are still competent enough
to understand that fact, you might want to stop using it as an excuse.
You will always be wrong. Doing what you are currently doing will not
change that fact.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.

[RonO]

I am not joking around.

Who won't add 2+2? Why won't you do the calculation that would
demonstrate that you are wrong? Why run in denial of reality when your
own reference told you that you are wrong?

Are you really a medical doctor? Do you practice medicine? Maybe you
should seek some help. What would you think if your doctor acted like
you are acting? This is turning into a serious issue. There seems to
be no excuse for doing what you are doing. You won't listen to reason,
and you are so far into denial that you obviously can't cope with reality.

What do you do if a nurse or another doctor tells you that you may be
wrong in a diagnosis of a patient and there is a simple test that you
could do in order to demonstrate if you were wrong or right. Would you
refuse to do the testing because the indications are that you are wrong?
Would you continue to proceed with the patient as if you were right?

What have you been doing on TO for months? Reality isn't going to
change. There is a simple calculation that you could do in order to
demonstrate that you are wrong, and what do you do? You have even been
directed to a web site that will do the calculations for you if you put
in the parameters.

This is getting sad. You would rather persist in grade school name
calling instead of demonstrating to yourself how wrong you are. This is
not how a medical doctor should act.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It's you who can't add 2+2. You claim you took a course in probability theory. So show us how to calculate the probability of at least 1 beneficial mutation in a population "N" with mutation rate "m". Show us you can do this simple calculation SlowO.

>
> Are you really a medical doctor? Do you practice medicine? Maybe you
> should seek some help. What would you think if your doctor acted like
> you are acting? This is turning into a serious issue. There seems to
> be no excuse for doing what you are doing. You won't listen to reason,
> and you are so far into denial that you obviously can't cope with reality.

Maybe you should report me to the medical board because I think that anyone who believes that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings is psychotic.

>
> What do you do if a nurse or another doctor tells you that you may be
> wrong in a diagnosis of a patient and there is a simple test that you
> could do in order to demonstrate if you were wrong or right. Would you
> refuse to do the testing because the indications are that you are wrong?
> Would you continue to proceed with the patient as if you were right?

Don't be silly, you think that fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings is the correct diagnosis? Considering that I've treated thousands of infections, I have a bit more experience using selection pressures than you. And I certainly understand much more about the physics and mathematics of rmns than you do. Why do you think combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv?

>
> What have you been doing on TO for months? Reality isn't going to
> change. There is a simple calculation that you could do in order to
> demonstrate that you are wrong, and what do you do? You have even been
> directed to a web site that will do the calculations for you if you put
> in the parameters.

Despite your claim that you've taken a course in probability theory, you don't have the foggiest idea of how rmns works. You don't understand the binomial distribution and you don't understand how to use the at least one rule.

>
> This is getting sad. You would rather persist in grade school name
> calling instead of demonstrating to yourself how wrong you are. This is
> not how a medical doctor should act.

If you think that a medical doctor has to accept the stupidity of fish turning into mammals and reptiles growing feathers, you are right, I don't act that way. But if you think a medical doctor should understand how drug-resistance occurs and why cancer treatments fail, I'm your doc. And you biologists have done a crappy job training physicians in population genetics and how rmns works. But that is understandable because biologists have no idea how rmns works and that includes you SlowO.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>SlowO's crystal ball doesn't see that mutations are random independent events but does see that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. This is something only a naive school child could believe.

Yes, only a naive school child could believe anything you say.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.

How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.

[RonO]

This is why you are so tragic. Why lie about something like this. You
know that it is you that will not do the calculation that will
demonstrate that you are wrong. Your continued name calling and lying
about this reality is why my post is needed. If you are a medical
doctor you have a problem that is a serious problem. We joke around on
TO, but this is no joke. In your case lives may be at stake.

>>
>> Are you really a medical doctor? Do you practice medicine? Maybe you
>> should seek some help. What would you think if your doctor acted like
>> you are acting? This is turning into a serious issue. There seems to
>> be no excuse for doing what you are doing. You won't listen to reason,
>> and you are so far into denial that you obviously can't cope with reality.
> Maybe you should report me to the medical board because I think that anyone who believes that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings is psychotic.

So you can't even admit to being what you are. Why would I report you
to a medical board if I don't even know if you are a medical doctor or
not? This type if denial is the issue. If you are a medical doctor
your statement above is projection of what you are onto someone else.
It serves no other purpose, but to continue to deny reality. You
obviously have a problem, and you should get help before you do
something stupid and insane where it matters.

>>
>> What do you do if a nurse or another doctor tells you that you may be
>> wrong in a diagnosis of a patient and there is a simple test that you
>> could do in order to demonstrate if you were wrong or right. Would you
>> refuse to do the testing because the indications are that you are wrong?
>> Would you continue to proceed with the patient as if you were right?
> Don't be silly, you think that fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings is the correct diagnosis? Considering that I've treated thousands of infections, I have a bit more experience using selection pressures than you. And I certainly understand much more about the physics and mathematics of rmns than you do. Why do you think combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv?

Denial like this is the issue. You are just demonstrating that you
truely have a problem. Projecting your own inadequacies onto someone
else in order to maintain your denial in the face of reality is not just
sad in this case if you are a medical doctor. Projection is some type
of psychological defense mechanism, but I do not know how it works
because the individual has to understand his own inadequacies in order
to project them onto someone else. Projection does not solve your
problem. You could do a simple test in order to demonstrate that you
are wrong, but you will not do that. What are you doing instead? What
do you tell the nurse or another doctor?

>>
>> What have you been doing on TO for months? Reality isn't going to
>> change. There is a simple calculation that you could do in order to
>> demonstrate that you are wrong, and what do you do? You have even been
>> directed to a web site that will do the calculations for you if you put
>> in the parameters.
> Despite your claim that you've taken a course in probability theory, you don't have the foggiest idea of how rmns works. You don't understand the binomial distribution and you don't understand how to use the at least one rule.

Projection of your own inadequacies like this seems to be your only
defense. Biological evolution works the way that I claim and not the
way you claim. Once one mutation has already occurred it is no longer
independent of the second mutation. Lifeforms are not created every
generations. That you can't understand that, and that you can't
understand why the binomial distribution should be used in this case is
the reason that your denial is so sad. You should seek help if you are
a medical doctor and patients depend on your reasoning ability because
you have a serious issue.

>>
>> This is getting sad. You would rather persist in grade school name
>> calling instead of demonstrating to yourself how wrong you are. This is
>> not how a medical doctor should act.
> If you think that a medical doctor has to accept the stupidity of fish turning into mammals and reptiles growing feathers, you are right, I don't act that way. But if you think a medical doctor should understand how drug-resistance occurs and why cancer treatments fail, I'm your doc. And you biologists have done a crappy job training physicians in population genetics and how rmns works. But that is understandable because biologists have no idea how rmns works and that includes you SlowO.

A medical doctor has to be able to reason and apply the tools available
to him. A medical doctor can't ignore the possiblity that they are
wrong when there is a simple test that can be done in order to
demonstrate that they are wrong. A medical doctor can't keep denying
reality and hoping that reality will change. You will never be correct.
You could demonstrate that for yourself, but you will not do it.
Instead of doing what would be the right thing to do you resort to name
calling, projection of your own inadequacies, and misdirection. That
isn't the ethical or even the smart thing to do. A medical doctor can't
afford to be like you are. That is why this is a serious issue. You
may need help before you do something that you will regret due to your
mental state.

This has obviously stopped being a joke. You do have a serious issue
that you need to deal with. It has nothing to do with biological
evolution. It has to do with the fact that you are obviously wrong, you
could demonstrate that to yourself, but this insanity is all that you
can muster.

Really, get some help. Since I can't help you, you join the Nyikos
list. I will just repost this post if you respond to one of my posts.
I can't do anything else to help you out.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <aa038f40-ec73-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,

None of this is remotely related to my question. I was asking why you
didn't *explicitly* make your sweeping conclusion in your paper, namely
that your theory precludes almost all of natural history as currently
understood. If this is your position, I'd think you'd actually come out
and state this in your papers.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

Really? Please show my error(s); be specific. Do it here:

> And you have demonstrated no skill in mathematics.

Nor have you; you can't even plug numbers into your own
"equation" and solve it to show it correctly predicts the
results of the experiments you so love to tout.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:35:52 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
>
>
>How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation.

Actually, he didn't; he missed doing the math and posting
the result. Perhaps it's beyond his ability...

> Too bad for
>you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
>experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:43:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dexter" <n...@home.org>:

>> > described is a genonic >> > study, >> > exactly what

>You haven't either. So what's your point?

He has none; he was also wrong about my grammar. Wiggling
and insults are all he has.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
>
>
> How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
> you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
> experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.

I need to keep it very simple for Barbie.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So SlowO can't calculate the probability of at least one beneficial mutation occurring in a population size "N" with mutation rate "m". You could have said this in a lot fewer words.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> >

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <aa038f40-ec73-4ca9...@googlegroups.com>,

You are just not very good at taking a hint. It is the multiplication rule which governs the behavior of rmns. That why the Kishony experiment works the way it does. That's why the Lenski experiment works the way it does. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. That's why all real, measurable and repeatable examples of rmns behave the way they do. And you don't have any empirical examples which demonstrate otherwise.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Somebody forgot to plug your bulb in.

[RonO]

Are you so lost that you can't understand what you just did? What do
you think that the binomial will calculate. The first mutation has
already occurred. The population with the first mutation is now N after
a few hour or a day this will be a very large number. All you have to
do is go to the Stat Trek web site and feed in the parameters. It will
calculate the probability for a population up to 100,000 with the first
mutation. The probability of the two mutations occurring in the same
lineage is no longer calculated using the product rule because the first
mutation has already occurred and doesn't have to reoccur every generation.

Lying to yourself, running in denial and projecting your own stupidity
onto someone else is not a rational and sane thing to do.

Do you realize what you are doing? Can you get help from anyone that
you trust? This is scary if you are a medical doctor.

Ron Okimoto

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

[Wolffan]

On 19 Apr 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<fecb193f-05d0-4807...@googlegroups.com>):

You’re completely incapable of showing your work about anything, aren’t
you, Ferather Fetish Boy?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 4/19/2018 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2018 9:32 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:10:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2018 8:11 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/18/2018 7:32 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:10:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:57 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 10:41 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:30:05 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/bigger-better-bird-tree-life-will-soon-fly-view
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over 10,000 species of birds are scheduled to have their genomes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequenced, but a group of researchers are not going to wait for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole genomes. They have picked out around 5,000 pieces of the genome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they are going to sequence for over 10K species so that they will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the avian phylogeny before the genome sequences are finished.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They should be able to do a pretty good job. We have the basic outlines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the avian phylogeny using a limited set of genes and the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mitochondrial genome, but the genome sequencing that has been done has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed the team to select the pieces of the genome that should be most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informative.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What a surprise, another half-assed job done by the reptiles grow feathers crowd in order to cherry-pick their data. Then they can do a half-assed job with reptiles to do the same. The only job the reptiles grow feathers crowd can do completely is bungle the basic science and mathematics of rmns. Misson accomplished SlowO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you could read for comprehension, the study described is a *genonic* study,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what you tout as the only meaningful way to study organisms. You're
> >>>>>>>>>>>> confirming everyone's opinion that you're certainly a crank, and perhaps a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> quack as well. Do you read medical journals with the same level of attention?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are too stupid to understand the half-assed job they are doing. From the article:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "The U.S. National Science Foundation–funded effort will tap extensive museum collections as much as possible, instead of freshly caught bird samples, and will sequence about 5000 short pieces of the DNA, focusing on regions that are very highly conserved among all birds."
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dumb clucks like you ignore all the genetic differences. This is why you are a space case. Fish turning into mammals and reptiles growing feathers and wings, how stupid can you get. Wait, you can get dumber, life spontaneously occurring in the primordial soup. Do you even know what a stochastic process is?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>

Don't worry SlowO, there's nothing wrong with not being able to do a simple probability problem. On the other hand, that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers thing you believe may make people think you use too much wacky tabacky.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
>>
>>
>> How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
>> you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
>> experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.
>I need to keep it very simple for Barbie.

Nope. Just post your calculations post haste, or prove once again
that you don't know how.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
> >>
> >>
> >> How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
> >> you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
> >> experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.
> >I need to keep it very simple for Barbie.
>
>
> Nope. Just post your calculations post haste, or prove once again
> that you don't know how.

Post my calculations again? Why? You didn't understand them the first time, the second time, the third time,... Math is hard Barbie.

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:04:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
>> >> you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
>> >> experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.
>> >I need to keep it very simple for Barbie.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Just post your calculations post haste, or prove once again
>> that you don't know how.
>Post my calculations again?

Lying troll. You never posted your calculations to T.O.

>Why? You didn't understand them the first time, the second time, the third time,... Math is hard Barbie.

Yes, everything is easier in your imagination.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:04:53 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >SlowO thinks he is sane because he believes fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. To bad SlowO can't add 2+2.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How 'bout that, you finally posted an actual calculation. Too bad for
> >> >> you it has nothing to do with either the Lenski or Kishony
> >> >> experiments. Oh well, one incremental step at a time.
> >> >I need to keep it very simple for Barbie.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. Just post your calculations post haste, or prove once again
> >> that you don't know how.
> >Post my calculations again?
>
>
> Lying troll. You never posted your calculations to T.O.

Silly Barbie is correct. I've never posted my calculations in dumb cluck so that Barbie could understand them.

>
>
> >Why? You didn't understand them the first time, the second time, the third time,... Math is hard Barbie.
>
>
> Yes, everything is easier in your imagination.

I know, fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings, that's imagination. And I'm finally convinced, dinosaurs can evolve into dumb clucks.

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>I know, fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings, that's imagination. And I'm finally convinced, dinosaurs can evolve into dumb clucks.

So post your explanation of their origins. Let's see who's the dumb
cluck then.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >I know, fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings, that's imagination. And I'm finally convinced, dinosaurs can evolve into dumb clucks.
>
>
> So post your explanation of their origins. Let's see who's the dumb
> cluck then.

We already know who are the dumb clucks. It all started with the primordial dumb cluck soup and then dinosaurs evolved into dumb cluck. See, math isn't that difficult when you translate it into dumb cluck.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I know, fish turning into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings, that's imagination. And I'm finally convinced, dinosaurs can evolve into dumb clucks.
>>
>>
>> So post your explanation of their origins. Let's see who's the dumb
>> cluck then.

>We already know who are the dumb clucks.

Yes, we do; it's the one who refuses to support his claims
or tell the group where mammals and feathers came from.

> It all started with the primordial dumb cluck soup and then dinosaurs evolved into dumb cluck. See, math isn't that difficult when you translate it into dumb cluck.

Suuuure, Allie.

Wiggle, wiggle...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

<klei...@sti.net>:

[Crickets...]

So, no grammar errors. Thanks for confirming.

>> > And you have demonstrated no skill in mathematics.

>> Nor have you; you can't even plug numbers into your own
>> "equation" and solve it to show it correctly predicts the
>> results of the experiments you so love to tout.

>Somebody forgot to plug your bulb in.

You forgot to plug numbers into your own "equation" and

solve it to show it correctly predicts the results of the
experiments you so love to tout.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:56:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Is this the dumb cluck version of Groundhog day?

[RonO]

Repost for the hopeless:

Ron Okimoto
END Repost:

Get some help.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I certainly wouldn't expect it from someone who thinks that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings. When are you going to derive the equation for the probability of at least one beneficial mutation occurring in a population size "N" and mutation rate "m"? It's easy and will help clear up your confusion.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>We already know who are the dumb clucks

Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you just
playing with yourself again?

[RonO]

Reality is the same today as it was yesterday. You are still as wrong
as you always were. Do you know what the repost is for. Even someone
as lost as Nyikos understands what it is for. I just do not want to
deal with someone like you. Until you can face reality there is nothing
that I can do to help you out and I do not want to contribute to your
further degeneration.

Go bug someone else.

Repost for the clueless:

End Repost:

Name calling, denial, projection of your own short comings, and
misdirection will not change your reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >We already know who are the dumb clucks
>
>
> Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you just
> playing with yourself again?

We who know how to do simple probability problems dumb cluck Barbie.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

And SlowO has no understanding of reality. He doesn't understand why combination therapy works for hiv when single drug therapy gives resistant variants in a week, he doesn't understand how the Kishony experiment works, he doesn't understand how the Lenski experiment works, SlowO doesn't understand how rmns. But in SlowO's reality, fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow wings and feathers. SlowO has lost contact with reality.
>
> Go bug someone else.
SlowO doesn't want to face reality. It bugs him. SlowO is bugs. It's about time for you to learn how rmns actually works. Of course, you are a little slow in learning introductory probability theory. Did you really have a class on this subject? If so, tell us what the probability of rolling at least a single 1 with the roll of ten dice.

[RonO]

You really are too far gone to understand what you are doing. I'd
repost again, but it obviously wouldn't do any good.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

At least SlowO is not repeating his silly claim that fish turn into mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

<klei...@sti.net>:

Nah, it's the non-dumb-cluck version of "Allie has no actual
data which supports his assertions, and his beloved equation
doesn't predict the results of the experiments he loves to
tout." And he can't tell the group where mammals and
feathers came from, since all he has is "IS NOT!!!" and an
equation which doesn't do what he claims.

Prove me wrong, Allie; post the calculations. *Not*, it
apparently needs to be noted for the terminally clueless,
the equation; the actual solved equation using actual
numbers which show the equation correctly predicts the
results of the experiments.

>> >> >> >So here's a question for you. If you are convinced that your work has
>> >> >> >profound implications which will overturn all of modern biology, why
>> >> >> >don't you actually hint at this in any of your papers?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In your 2016 Statist Med. paper, for example, you conclude that
>> >> >> >three-drug therapy would required to properly treat malaria. This seems
>> >> >> >like a far less significant result than precluding evolutionary history
>> >> >> >as presently understood, yet you don't mention this at all. Why not
>> >> >> >explicitly mention this more significant conclusion anywhere other than
>> >> >> >on usenet forums?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:10:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Post the calculations again? There is no reason for anyone to believe you would understand the calculations this time either. Take an introductory course in probability theory dim bulb.

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 04:44:33 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >We already know who are the dumb clucks
>>
>>
>> Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you just
>> playing with yourself again?
>We who know how to do simple probability problems dumb cluck Barbie.

That excludes you, since you can't post your calculations, lying
troll.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:18:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

<klei...@sti.net>:

You've never posted the calculations; only the equation you
*claim* does what you say it does. Stop lying.

> There is no reason for anyone to believe you would understand the calculations this time either. Take an introductory course in probability theory dim bulb.

Post the calculations for the first time, liar. Or STFU (or
make irrelevant insults), showing everyone (again) that you
can't support your claims.

[John Harshman]

On 4/17/18 3:54 PM, RonO wrote:
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/bigger-better-bird-tree-life-will-soon-fly-view

>
>
> Over 10,000 species of birds are scheduled to have their genomes
> sequenced, but a group of researchers are not going to wait for the
> whole genomes.  They have picked out around 5,000 pieces of the genome
> that they are going to sequence for over 10K species so that they will
> get the avian phylogeny before the genome sequences are finished.
>
> They should be able to do a pretty good job.  We have the basic outlines
> of the avian phylogeny using a limited set of genes and the
> mitochondrial genome, but the genome sequencing that has been done has
> allowed the team to select the pieces of the genome that should be most
> informative.

Offhand, this doesn't seem like a very good way to go about it. The most
conserved regions will be the least informative. Are they talking about
the flanking regions of UCRs? They really should be looking at introns,
mostly, and they should be going for large, contiguous chunks rather
than many small pieces.

[RonO]

My guess is that they are going after the regions that all birds have,
and most of their phylogenetic information is going to come from the
flanking regions. It is what they found doing something similar before
with fewer species.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

All birds have most regions, not just the UCEs. It's just easier to
design probes for UCEs and have them work everywhere. I'm worried about
2 things: incomplete lineage sorting with independently assorting small
fragments and potential base composition bias effects (introns have low
variability in base composition compared to other sequences examined so
far).

[RonO]

I don't know why they are limited to 5000 bits of the genome. They
don't say how much they are going to sequence from those 5000 target
sequences. The new tech should allow them to pull out and sequence more
than 5000. Almost 200,000 targets are pulled out for whole exome
sequencing. They do claim to want to use as little DNA as possible.
Some of the samples are rare, and some people want to use the existing
DNA for the whole genome sequencing. I don't know what quality DNA they
usually get from museum specimens, but it likely isn't that good.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

If they're targeting UCEs using sequence capture that's what they're
likely to get for a big taxon sample. I don't actually know anything
they're doing except for what that Science puff piece said. I presume
that by "museum specimens" they actually mean frozen tissue samples.