Math errors and assumptions

[wgpi...@gmail.com]

OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.

First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.

Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?

Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?

How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?

Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?

Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!

[Mogley 98]

If their is no after life, No god why in the hell doesn't man kind let evolution do its thing.Why are we allowing, rather assisting defective genetics to destroy us? IE: Diabetes shouldn't natural selection cause them all to die and NOT share the gene? Of course morality exists even when we say we don't believe in God?

[Ernest Major]

On 21/02/2020 20:23, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
>
> First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.

One of the math errors MarkE (a creationist) is making is to assume that
we can make a meaningful estimate of the probability of spontaneous
abiogenesis. To do that we either need a sufficiently large sample to
estimate the probability by observation or a working model so we can
make a theoretical estimate. We have neither - a sample of one is
insufficient. At best, if Hoylean panspermia and supernatural
abiogenesis are excluded, we can conclude that the probability is
greater than 0.

Another error is to use a strawman model.

Another error is to calculate the probability from a single trial, and
ignore the number of trials.

>
> Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?

The last event capable of eliminating life on this planet was the Late
Heavy Bombardment, which was more the 3.5 billion years ago. Nothing
since seems to have even managed to kill of multicellular life, never
mind life as a whole.

>
> Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
>
> How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?

No.

>
> Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?

No. Isn't that a creationist position?

>
> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 21/02/2020 20:23, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
> >
> > First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
>
> One of the math errors MarkE (a creationist) is making is to assume that
> we can make a meaningful estimate of the probability of spontaneous
> abiogenesis. To do that we either need a sufficiently large sample to
> estimate the probability by observation or a working model so we can
> make a theoretical estimate. We have neither - a sample of one is
> insufficient. At best, if Hoylean panspermia and supernatural
> abiogenesis are excluded, we can conclude that the probability is
> greater than 0.
>
> Another error is to use a strawman model.
>
> Another error is to calculate the probability from a single trial, and
> ignore the number of trials.

You reptifeatharians can't do the physics and mathematics of evolution correctly which is a real and measurable phenomenon. But now you think you can do the mathematics of the OOL? Use as many trials as you want but make sure you show your math. You won't.

[Ernest Major]

Are you illiterate? I explicitly we stated that no-one can do the
mathematics.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 21/02/2020 20:34, Mogley 98 wrote:
> If their is no after life, No god why in the hell doesn't man kind let evolution do its thing.Why are we allowing, rather assisting defective genetics to destroy us? IE: Diabetes shouldn't natural selection cause them all to die and NOT share the gene?

What are your answers to those questions? (Too many American Christians
are Social Tennysonists.)

> Of course morality exists even when we say we don't believe in God?

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

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

--
alias Ernest Major

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:50 -0800 (PST), wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:

>OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
>
>First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
>
>Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?
>
>Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
>
>How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?

No. It wasn't that cataclysmic an event.

>Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?
>
>Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap

No, it's creationists that invoke magic. Everyone else tries to
figure out how things happened, instead of just throwing up their
hands and saying "God did it by magic!"

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

We know that Witless Minor can't do the mathematics, none of you reptifeatharians can do the mathematics. You proved that when you failed to do the physics and mathematics of evolution.
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Have you learned the physics and mathematics of evolution yet?

[RonO]

Your math is wrong. You aren't just believing in one magic thing.
Think about it.

Only creationists think that lifeforms got it right the first time.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Has moRON figured out which two numbers to multiply yet?

[Robert Camp]

This is brilliant...



..it is satire, right?

[RonO]

When are you going to stop lying about the past? It was you that wanted
to multiply those two numbers. The product rule did not apply and you
would have gotten the wrong answer. You will always have been wrong, so
lying about it will never change reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

moRON still hasn't learned which two numbers to multiply.

[RonO]

Why did you start lying about this stupidity again? What kind of loser
would do what you are doing? Are you just loaded or too high to
understand what you are doing?

Do you have the ability to understand what you are doing? Why would
anyone do what you are doing? It must get to you when you project your
own stupidity onto me. Who wanted to do the multiplication? Who
misapplied the product rule? Who can't multiply those two numbers to
save his life because he knows that it would give him the wrong answer?

Ron Okimoto

[Vincent Maycock]

That 1- (1-p)^n stuff? Sure. But aren't there other approaches to
these questions besides yours?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Not if you want to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr's math is a useless straw man of evolution based on his idiosyncratic terminology and creationist biases. It's value is a product of his imagination.

gregwrld

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr's math is a useless straw man of evolution based on his idiosyncratic terminology and creationist wishful thinking. It's only of value to him.

gregwrld

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 5:50:02 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Drdr's math is a useless straw man of evolution based on his idiosyncratic terminology and creationist biases. It's value is a product of his imagination.
>
> gregwrld

Don't expect gregweird to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly.

[Pro Plyd]

wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>

Hrm. Why think when you can call up a pixie?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Where is your scientific explanation for the OOL and ToE?

[Kalkidas]

wgpi...@gmail.com Wrote in message:r

> OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making. First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc. Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today? Starts ticking dow
n your time line for evolution doesn't it? How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again? Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them? Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!

Indeed, from the low information content of the laws of physics
and chemistry, one would expect "evolution" to produce nothing
but formless blobs of goo, no matter how much time is
allowed.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[christi...@brown.edu]

Hey, all ---- how long do you think it will be before Alan starts blaming all of us 'reptifeatherians' for the spread of the Corona virus?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Don't be a silly emeritus professor of fossil tea-leaf reading from an Ivy League university. Now, if they find a drug-treatment for the virus and the virus rapidly evolves resistance to that single-drug therapy and you don't understand why this happens, that I will blame on you mathematically incompetent reptifeatharians. By the way, I noticed that there were 5 reads of my papers by people from Columbia University. Any of them, unlike you, competent in the physics and mathematics of evolution?

[christi...@brown.edu]

Who knows about the people from Columbia University. The proof of the pudding will be if any of them cite you in their own research work. Absent such verification from the scientific community, I can only conclude that people who read your work think that it is wrong and/or of little importance.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

They will if they want to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution. You certainly haven't done it.

[jillery]

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[christi...@brown.edu]

If they do cite your research, then they will be among the first to cite your work. So, keep your fingers crossed.

You know, the impact factor of journals relates to how often their papers are cited. Your record certainly isn't helping to raise the impact factor of Statistics in Medicine.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

If you know how to calculate probabilities, you don't need to depend on luck. If you want to learn about the mathematics of evolution, start with the concept of the mutation rate. That is the frequency (probability) of a mutation occurring at a given site in a single replication. The mathematics is straightforward from there. Well, straightforward if you understand introductory probability theory. If you do understand introductory probability theory, then it becomes obvious why it takes a billion replications for each beneficial mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments due to the multiplication rule. The mathematics of DNA evolution really isn't that difficult. It should be taught in Biology 1.

>
> You know, the impact factor of journals relates to how often their papers are cited. Your record certainly isn't helping to raise the impact factor of Statistics in Medicine.

Just because your work gets cited doesn't mean it is correct. In fact, if you understood the physics and mathematics of evolution, you would know that there is no reasonable probability of your clades being correct. There is nothing wrong with publishing in Statistics in Medicine. At least they understand the mathematics of DNA evolution.

And consider this. Lenski has written a paper about his experiment where drug-resistant variants were in his founder's populations even though his populations were never exposed to these antibiotics. Do you have any idea why this could happen? Lenski hasn't explained why this has happened.

[christi...@brown.edu]

You keep posting links to your papers here, but they're really rather bog-standard ruminations about the mathematics of antibiotic resistance (which is doubtless why "Science" recommended that you try a more specalized journal). One has to really read between the lines to see the conclusions that you yourself draw from your equations; I suspect that your readers do not, and that your reviewers also did not (although perhaps you were more explicit in earlier drafts and were told to tone things down).

But if, as you say, "there is no reasonable probability of [my] clades being correct", then the only conclusion is that there are no lineages of organisms, and that each and every taxon is an act of independent creation. That is, that the mathematics that you present is not the 'mathematics of evolution' but the 'mathematics that prevents evolution'.


You really ought to take the bull by the horns and publish that conclusion somewhere: the problem is, where? Outside of the purview of "Statistics in Medicine", and probably not publishable anywhere in the scientific literature as that notion contradicts all of the evidence we have about organismal diversity from literally dozens of other areas of science. I was going to suggest "BioComplexity", but even creationists now allow for a certain amount of evolution "within kinds", that would be prohibited by your model.

So, perhaps ranting at scientists and people interested in science on an obscure internet forum is, indeed, your best venue.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What is clear is that the emeritus professor of fossil tea-leaf reading from an Ivy League university and the editors at the journal "Science" doesn't understand the correct mathematics for Weinreich's paper "Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins" which was published in that journal.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5770/111
The blunder that Weinreich makes and which the editors and peer-reviewers failed to recognize is that fixation is not required for DNA evolution to occur. It doesn't matter how high the impact factor is for a journal if their editors and peer reviewers don't understand the subject and you and those peer-reviewers and editors don't understand the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.

All the fossil tea-leaf in the world will not change this mathematical and empirical fact of life. If you want to understand the correct mathematics for the Weinreich paper, read this paper which was peer-reviewed by people trained and experienced in these kinds of problems:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sim.6307

Of course, you won't get much out of this paper unless you have a high school level of understanding of introductory probability theory which you don't have.

>
> But if, as you say, "there is no reasonable probability of [my] clades being correct", then the only conclusion is that there are no lineages of organisms, and that each and every taxon is an act of independent creation. That is, that the mathematics that you present is not the 'mathematics of evolution' but the 'mathematics that prevents evolution'.

You are confused emeritus professor of fossil tea-leaf reading from an Ivy League university. You are confusing the concept of "evolution" with your idea of the "theory of evolution". You can watch DNA evolution in action, just watch any of the many videos from the Kishony experiment. All you need for DNA evolutionary adaptation to operate on a lineage is for there to be sufficiently large populations for the process to work. And for a single selection condition environment, you need about (1/mutation rate)replications for each evolutionary step. Now, if Kishony were to run his evolution experiment with two drugs, that number of replications goes up exponentially. I'd show you how to do that math but you are having so much difficulty with the simpler case. You have spent way to much time in your fossil tea-leaf echo chamber which explains why you have no scientific understanding of evolution.

>
>
> You really ought to take the bull by the horns and publish that conclusion somewhere: the problem is, where? Outside of the purview of "Statistics in Medicine", and probably not publishable anywhere in the scientific literature as that notion contradicts all of the evidence we have about organismal diversity from literally dozens of other areas of science. I was going to suggest "BioComplexity", but even creationists now allow for a certain amount of evolution "within kinds", that would be prohibited by your model.

It's already published sweety and it is peer-reviewed by people who have the training and experience to understand such problems (which you and the editors of the journal Science don't have). And it shows exactly how evolution works "within kinds" such as the evolution of antimicrobial resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Now, if you want to believe that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals, good! All you need, under the best of circumstances, is a billion replications for each evolutionary step on each of these evolutionary trajectories. And what I mean by the "best of circumstances", I mean evolution to a single selection pressure. If multiple selection pressures are acting on the population simultaneously, well just look at what happens to the evolution of hiv subject when just 3 selection pressures are targeting only 2 genetic loci. It's that stochastic process thing and the multiplication rule, you should learn about it. Then you might understand something about DNA evolution.

>
> So, perhaps ranting at scientists and people interested in science on an obscure internet forum is, indeed, your best venue.

Wrong on three points. The first point is that I am not ranting, I'm trying to teach an emeritus professor fossil tea-leaf reading from an Ivy League university the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution. The second point is that you are not a scientist. You might think you are playing scientist by measuring the size of fossils and from that writing stories about evolution but it is all based on a lack of understanding of how evolution actually operates. And the third point is that there is nothing wrong with this "obscure" internet forum. Debates with people on this forum helped sharpen my understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution. And don't get me wrong, I'll debate this issue on any forum you like. It's just not a subject that reptifeatharians want to debate. You reptifeatharians would much rather claim that the multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution. But what can you expect from pseudo-scientists, even those that publish in high-impact journals?

[christi...@brown.edu]

There is, in all seriousness, nothing more damning (not to mention funny) I could say than to reiterate your own conviction that your paper was turned down by "Science" because the editors don't understand your mathematics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's a fact sweety. If they did understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, they would have caught and corrected Weinreich's blunder before they published his paper. But neither you nor the editors of the journal Science understand this math.

[christi...@brown.edu]

What is a "fact" Alan, is that "Science" rejected your paper (likely for the reason, as you told us, that it was not of broad enough interest for their journal, the second best in the world, that rejects over 90% of papers submitted for their consideration) and your publications have been barely cited by the scientific community (only around half a dozen times, the other instances being self-citations). It is also a fact that I am a recognised scientist, albeit not a specialist in mathematical biology, but there are many disciplines within science. All else from you here is conjecture and wishful thinking.

It's a commonly held opinion (I won't call it a 'fact') that people who continually resort to personally insulting others in internet postings are indeed "ranting": they are most certainly not engaging in rational conversation. And, indeed, the internet is the only place where you have a forum for debate, because you have failed to make any impact on the world of real science, and so that venue is not open to you.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Hey stupid, watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas&t=13s
No fixation, only DNA evolution occurring. The less fit variants are happily growing, they are not being driven to extinction by competition as they are in the Lenski experiment because of the limited carrying capacity of his environment. Competition and fixation is a separate physical phenomenon from DNA evolution. And competition slows DNA evolution. You are just too poorly trained to understand this. It appears they didn't teach you this in your fossil tea-leaf reading class.

>
> It's a commonly held opinion (I won't call it a 'fact') that people who continually resort to personally insulting others in internet postings are indeed "ranting": they are most certainly not engaging in rational conversation. And, indeed, the internet is the only place where you have a forum for debate, because you have failed to make any impact on the world of real science, and so that venue is not open to you.

Well sweety, your impact on the world is drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. I hope you are happy with your impact, you mathematically incompetent twit. You are stupid and harmful. And the editors of the journal Science do no better because they failed to recognize Weinreich blunder.

[christi...@brown.edu]

Alan, I have had zero impact on the world of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. These aspects of medical biology are completely outside of my purview as a scientist, and calling me 'stupid and harmful' is not only silly, it discredits you rather than me.

Perhaps you have had an impact on this world of which you speak; it's hard to know, as very few people have cited your research. But, I should note, that the word you want here is "sweetIE". (River Song is my alter ego.)


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hello%20sweetie

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Oh, that's right, your job is to mislead naive school children how evolution works. You tell them reptiles evolve feathers and fish evolve into mammals. Too bad you can't explain the simplest experimental examples of evolution. Remember the days when you claimed that the evolution of drug-resistance was proof for your ToE? Too bad you didn't (and don't) understand how it happens.

>
> Perhaps you have had an impact on this world of which you speak; it's hard to know, as very few people have cited your research. But, I should note, that the word you want here is "sweetIE". (River Song is my alter ego.)

The only thing that you reptifeatharians have done well is permeated the field of biology with your mathematically irrational nonsense. Too bad you reptifeatharians take dumbbell math and science courses before you get to what you really want to do, fictional writing. If you actually had learned some physics and math, you could actually have correctly described Darwinian evolution, you dummIE.
>
>
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hello%20sweetie

[christi...@brown.edu]

No, Alan, people who accept the evidence for evolutionary change over time *are* the field of biology of which you speak (this includes Lenski, Kishony, and just about every other biologist you would like to name). The people who would believe your "mathematics and physics of evolution", that would prevent evolution from taking place, are not in the 'field of biology', but rather are creationists.

And "Dummy" is indeed spelled with a "y".

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What you accept from your fossil tea-leaf reading is a delusion. You don't understand the physics and mathematics of evolution but that has never prevented you from making up stories about fossils. And where is Lenski's paper where he correctly describes why his experiment behaves the way it does? Where's his mathematics of fixation and adaptation? And why hasn't Kishony performed his experiment with two drugs? You reptifeatharians have failed to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of your own experiments.

>
> And "Dummy" is indeed spelled with a "y".

Wow, the emeritus professor of fossil tea-leaf reading must have a spell checker. Why doesn't this emeritus professor of fossil tea-leaf get a math checker and learn how evolution works? And you won't learn this by reading fossil tea-leaves.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:53:07 -0800 (PST), christi...@brown.edu

Not to put too fine a point on it, neither does Alan. Just sayin'.

> These aspects of medical biology are completely outside of my purview as a scientist, and calling me 'stupid and harmful' is not only silly, it discredits you rather than me.
>
>Perhaps you have had an impact on this world of which you speak; it's hard to know, as very few people have cited your research. But, I should note, that the word you want here is "sweetIE". (River Song is my alter ego.)
>
>
>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hello%20sweetie

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

When is half a banana going to tell us how she evolved from a banana? Just wonderin'.

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:07:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>When is half a banana going to tell us how she evolved from a banana? Just wonderin'.

When is drdr polypolybonzo going to explain any of the real-life
examples of evolution I have cited mulitple times?

I don't wonder, because he's proved multiple times he has no idea what
he's talking about and is proud of it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:07:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >When is half a banana going to tell us how she evolved from a banana? Just wonderin'.
>
>
> When is drdr polypolybonzo going to explain any of the real-life
> examples of evolution I have cited mulitple times?

99% of all species have gone extinct but half a banana evolved from a banana.

>
> I don't wonder, because he's proved multiple times he has no idea what
> he's talking about and is proud of it.

That's half a banana thinking that when something happens, its probability is 1. Since half a banana is half a banana, does that make your probability 1/2?

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:37:01 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:07:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >When is half a banana going to tell us how she evolved from a banana? Just wonderin'.
>>
>>
>> When is drdr polypolybonzo going to explain any of the real-life
>> examples of evolution I have cited mulitple times?
>
>99% of all species have gone extinct but half a banana evolved from a banana.
>>
>> I don't wonder, because he's proved multiple times he has no idea what
>> he's talking about and is proud of it.
>
>That's half a banana thinking that when something happens, its probability is 1. Since half a banana is half a banana, does that make your probability 1/2?

ONCE AGAIN you evade the issue and instead post your boring and
wilfully stupid nonsense non-sequiturs and asinine ad-hominems. Not
sure how you think that makes you look clever.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.
It's kind of sad, really but that's what creationism encourages.

gregwrld

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:38:08 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by czeba...@gmail.com:

>Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself.

I have to take exception to that phrasing. In my view,
"presents as" is an indication that the presentation is
incorrect, usually showing favoritism to the subject, as
when one of our denizens presents himself as a financial
expert, or another (a tenured professor of mathematics)
presents himself as an expert in several fields. In the case
you note, however, the "presentation" is accurate: He
actually *is* "a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone

else is wrong but himself".

Just sayin'...
--

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]

gregweird should be angry about drug-resistant infection and failed cancer treatments.

[Peter Nyikos]

I missed this thread until now. But it may not matter: the person who
posted this OP hasn't returned up to now to deal with replies. Whatever
the reason, I am replying since some issues in the OP have not yet
been meaningfully addressed.

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:25:03 PM UTC-5, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
>
> First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.

I don't know, but Hurd acts as though he believes that progress towards
life as we know it has proceeded in an unbroken chain since some time in the
Hadean (~4.5 to ~4.0 gigayears ago) and his groupies, including
jillery and her bosom buddy Oxyaena, have backed him on this effort
to the hilt.

All three ignore what I write about complications down the line
on the high school debating league assertion that I am talking
about progress from early life to the LUCA (last common ancestor of the life
we see around us). But they conveniently neglect to give any hint
as to where they put the dividing line between life and non-life:
I haven't even seen them say one way or the other whether
they think viruses or viroids (two separate categories) are life.

More importantly, they are FAR more interested in seeing Hurd
win arguments about the early Hadean than they are in learning anything
new about how the LUCA came to exist. Jillery has even excused this
by claiming, without any evidence or even any explicit say-so by Hurd,
that the early Hadean is "at the cutting edge of research".

>
> Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times?

Since the late heavy bombardment was over, I think the best hypothesis
was that THIS was where the chemicals that ultimately resulted in
life as we know it first started. Ernest Major came close to opting
for this, and he explicitly ruled out any later start.

> And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?

If anyone has issues with what I wrote just now, besides those
who have backed Hurd to the hilt in the other thread, I'd like to
hear from THEM.

That other thread was:
Subject: Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/IeR984pc2Zc%5B1-25%5D

>
> Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?

Not significantly. The huge mystery of why eumetazoans began less than
600 million years ago is mostly a problem for those who go with the standard
conventional wisdom that the direct route to them began on earth
3.5 or more gigayears ago.

> How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not?

Yes, but you don't seem to know how little was affected. No animal phylum
for which we have fossil evidence has ever become extinct, not even
in the still greater end of Permian extinction.

These two extinctions only ushered in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras,
in which animals got some major new directions in evolution.

> Starting over again?

Of course not. A fair variety of Birds and mammals survived and quickly fanned out morphologically.

> Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing
or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?

Belief on this is split three major ways. I happen to think the most likely
is that a multiverse with an incredible variety and number of separate
universes came to be, and that our universe is one of the incredibly
lucky ones where life not only got started but evolved to an
intelligent species on at least one planet. There are many distinguished
scientists who believe this, including Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
of England and Cambridge University Prorfessor. He wrote a fine book,
_Just Six Numbers_, which provides support for this belief.

> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!

That's the second alternative. The third is the blind faith of most
people here that the fine tuning of which Martin Rees writes, and
the major unsolved problems with the existence of life as we know it,
will all be explained some day to where no one will think that
there is anything magical or even extraordinary about it.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

That would be an improvement on you, who only rant at us instead
of telling us how you got out and

1. advised people in medicine to make ballpark estimates of the size of
cancer tumors, and to tell them how many different treatments are
necessary on that basis and

2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
infections.

I've never seen you breathe a word about how many people you've contacted
in either way. This is your chance to brag about the number
for the first time ever AFAIK. Make the most of it in the
space I've provided below.




Peter Nyikos

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.
>
> > > It's kind of sad, really but that's what creationism encourages.
> > >
> > > gregwrld
> >
> > gregweird should be angry about drug-resistant infection and failed cancer treatments.
>
> That would be an improvement on you, who only rant at us instead
> of telling us how you got out and
>
> 1. advised people in medicine to make ballpark estimates of the size of
> cancer tumors, and to tell them how many different treatments are
> necessary on that basis and

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/pdf/SIM-35-5391.pdf
"What the previous calculation shows is that durable treatment for malaria will most likely require three-drug therapy because of the huge populations of parasites and the large number of people subject to malaria infections. The same concept can be applied to the treatment of any replicator causing disease. The clinical physician can estimate the size of the population of replicators (bacteria, virus, parasite, and cancer cell). Then the clinician can examine Figures 2, 3, or 5 and determine the probability that resistant
variants exist in the population for 1, 2, or 3 selection pressures.

As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor. A pathologist can do histological studies of the tumor and determine the number of cancer cells per volume and from the total size of the tumor and the number of cancer cells per volume, the total number of cells can be computed. This total number of cells would give guidance in the number of targeted selection pressures necessary in order to have a reasonable probability of driving the cancer to extinction."

>
> 2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
> avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
> infections.

Why not start with Ezekiel Emanuel. He is an oncologist that thinks that physicians should use antibiotics the way he does and if not they should be punished. Of course, when he treats breast cancer with single-drug estrogen blocking agents that fail when a drug-resistance cell line appears would never accuse himself of using his treatments improperly.

>
> I've never seen you breathe a word about how many people you've contacted
> in either way. This is your chance to brag about the number
> for the first time ever AFAIK. Make the most of it in the
> space I've provided below.

Many, including Kishony, Weinreich, and Lenski. I know that Kishony wants to perform his experiment with two drugs. I sent him the paper I linked above so he could estimate the size of the petri dish he would need. I suggested he could possibly do a limited experiment with two drugs with only two bands in his existing petri dish. One band without any drug which would occupy most of the plate and then a single band with low concentration of both drugs. He might achieve the trillion member colony necessary for one evolutionary step. I've told many physicians about these concepts but it flies in the face of so-called expert advice which is to reduce the usage of antibiotics. The consequence of this is that I've had to treat 3 cases of scarlet fever in the past year and many cases of erysipelas as well. I had never seen a case of scarlet fever except in books over 30 years. I've sent these papers to many population geneticists but here's the typical response:

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/03/A-novel-feature-with-new-information.html
Start with Felsonstein's line, "I had that irony in mind when choosing the post title." and read the little discussion I had with him.

These people think they know it all. If they did, they would have done the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments long ago. Instead, we have a consensus based on an incorrect understanding of evolution.
>
>
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 3/9/2020 10:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I missed this thread until now. But it may not matter: the person who
> posted this OP hasn't returned up to now to deal with replies. Whatever
> the reason, I am replying since some issues in the OP have not yet
> been meaningfully addressed.
>
> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:25:03 PM UTC-5, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
>>
>> First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
>
>
> I don't know, but Hurd acts as though he believes that progress towards
> life as we know it has proceeded in an unbroken chain since some time in the
> Hadean (~4.5 to ~4.0 gigayears ago) and his groupies, including
> jillery and her bosom buddy Oxyaena, have backed him on this effort
> to the hilt.

Your inability to halt these passive-aggressive microaggressions of
yours is duly noted.

>
> All three ignore what I write about complications down the line
> on the high school debating league assertion that I am talking

QED.

> about progress from early life to the LUCA (last common ancestor of the life
> we see around us). But they conveniently neglect to give any hint
> as to where they put the dividing line between life and non-life:
> I haven't even seen them say one way or the other whether
> they think viruses or viroids (two separate categories) are life.

It's never come up.

>
> More importantly, they are FAR more interested in seeing Hurd
> win arguments about the early Hadean than they are in learning anything
> new about how the LUCA came to exist. Jillery has even excused this
> by claiming, without any evidence or even any explicit say-so by Hurd,
> that the early Hadean is "at the cutting edge of research".

Liar, you know no such thing.

>
>>
>> Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times?
>
> Since the late heavy bombardment was over, I think the best hypothesis
> was that THIS was where the chemicals that ultimately resulted in
> life as we know it first started. Ernest Major came close to opting
> for this, and he explicitly ruled out any later start.
>
>
>> And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?
>
> If anyone has issues with what I wrote just now, besides those
> who have backed Hurd to the hilt in the other thread, I'd like to
> hear from THEM.
>
> That other thread was:
> Subject: Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/IeR984pc2Zc%5B1-25%5D
>
>>
>> Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
>
> Not significantly. The huge mystery of why eumetazoans began less than
> 600 million years ago is mostly a problem for those who go with the standard
> conventional wisdom that the direct route to them began on earth
> 3.5 or more gigayears ago.

All life on earth share the same genetic code, furthermore they share
three hundred genes that have been identified as being present in the
LUCA of life on earth. What are you alluding to here?

>
>
>> How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not?
>
> Yes, but you don't seem to know how little was affected. No animal phylum
> for which we have fossil evidence has ever become extinct, not even
> in the still greater end of Permian extinction.
>
> These two extinctions only ushered in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras,
> in which animals got some major new directions in evolution.
>
>> Starting over again?
>
> Of course not. A fair variety of Birds and mammals survived and quickly fanned out morphologically.
>
>
>> Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing
> or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?
>
> Belief on this is split three major ways. I happen to think the most likely
> is that a multiverse with an incredible variety and number of separate
> universes came to be, and that our universe is one of the incredibly
> lucky ones where life not only got started but evolved to an
> intelligent species on at least one planet. There are many distinguished
> scientists who believe this, including Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
> of England and Cambridge University Prorfessor. He wrote a fine book,
> _Just Six Numbers_, which provides support for this belief.
>
>> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>
> That's the second alternative. The third is the blind faith of most
> people here that the fine tuning of which Martin Rees writes, and
> the major unsolved problems with the existence of life as we know it,
> will all be explained some day to where no one will think that
> there is anything magical or even extraordinary about it.

That isn't blind faith, it's a sound logical inference. Whenever we had
previously assumed supernatural causation of events and phenomena in
nature, it always turned out sooner or later to be of decidedly more
worldly than otherworldly origins, even the infamous ball lightning has
been shown to have natural origins.

The God of the Gaps has continuously fewer gaps to hide in, the question
of existence is probably the only one it has left.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

--
"I would rather be the son of an ape than be descended from a man afraid
to face the truth." - TH Huxley

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I missed this thread until now. But it may not matter: the person who
>posted this OP hasn't returned up to now to deal with replies. Whatever
>the reason, I am replying since some issues in the OP have not yet
>been meaningfully addressed.

It doesn't matter, because you don't know what you're talking about
and are proud of it.

<snip for focus>

>More importantly, they are FAR more interested in seeing Hurd
>win arguments about the early Hadean than they are in learning anything
>new about how the LUCA came to exist. Jillery has even excused this
>by claiming, without any evidence or even any explicit say-so by Hurd,
>that the early Hadean is "at the cutting edge of research".

Your lies about jillery get ever more stupid and pointless with every
post you make.

[Oxyaena]

And he wonders why people think he's an unpleasant ass.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 4:10:04 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 3/11/2020 3:46 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> > <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I missed this thread until now. But it may not matter: the person who
> >> posted this OP hasn't returned up to now to deal with replies. Whatever
> >> the reason, I am replying since some issues in the OP have not yet
> >> been meaningfully addressed.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't matter, because you don't know what you're talking about
> > and are proud of it.
> >
> > <snip for focus>
> >
> >
> >> More importantly, they are FAR more interested in seeing Hurd
> >> win arguments about the early Hadean than they are in learning anything
> >> new about how the LUCA came to exist. Jillery has even excused this
> >> by claiming, without any evidence or even any explicit say-so by Hurd,
> >> that the early Hadean is "at the cutting edge of research".
> >
> >
> > Your lies about jillery get ever more stupid and pointless with every
> > post you make.
>
> And he wonders why people think he's an unpleasant ass.

What makes you think that you reptifeatharians are pleasant? I think you reptifeatharians are mathematically incompetent nitwits that when told that that in a stochastic process where the probability of success is the mutation rate, you will have to do many trials (replications) for that successful outcome to occur, respond with a vile, ignorant mouth.

[jillery]

Your vile, ignorant mouth disqualifies you from complaining about the
alleged same from others. Tu quoque back atcha, bonzo.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.

> > > > It's kind of sad, really but that's what creationism encourages.
> > > >
> > > > gregwrld
> > >
> > > gregweird should be angry about drug-resistant infection and failed cancer treatments.
> >
> > That would be an improvement on you, who only rant at us instead
> > of telling us how you got out and
> >
> > 1. advised people in medicine to make ballpark estimates of the size of
> > cancer tumors, and to tell them how many different treatments are
> > necessary on that basis and
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/pdf/SIM-35-5391.pdf

BZZZZZT! "got out and" refers to real-time, face-to-face or at least
one-on-one in private conversations (phone, skype, email, etc.) with
clinical-practice MD's or people engaged in medical research on these
very things.


<SNIP for focus>

> As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor.

Earlier, you tried to pass off ballpark estimates as an example of STATISTICS,
not radiological studies. This was in response to the never-refuted claim
that your 2014 and 2016 papers contained no statistics, despite your
having published them in _Statistics in Medicine_.


<SNIP for focus>

> > 2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
> > avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
> > infections.

> Why not start with Ezekiel Emanuel.

Why don't you? You give no hint that you ever had a one-on-one
exchange with him.

> He is an oncologist that thinks that physicians should use antibiotics the way he does and if not they should be punished.
> Of course, when he treats breast cancer with single-drug estrogen blocking agents that fail when a drug-resistance cell line appears would never accuse himself of using his treatments improperly.

Are you afraid that, if you told him this, he will accuse
you of insulting his intelligence? More importantly, are you
afraid that he will set you straight on your HYPOTHETICAL example
which you use to insinuate that HE did not realize that an ACTUAL
treatment of his failed because of the appearance of a drug-resistant
cell line?

> >
> > I've never seen you breathe a word about how many people you've contacted
> > in either way. This is your chance to brag about the number
> > for the first time ever AFAIK. Make the most of it in the
> > space I've provided below.
>
> Many, including Kishony, Weinreich, and Lenski.

None of whom are in medical practice, and none of whom you gave
specific advice on ACTUAL examples of failed drug and antibiotic
treatments, or failure to measure ACTUAL cancer tumors. RIGHT?

Heck, you have had access to Bill Rogers for years now in talk.origins,
yet when it came to applying your elementary probability calculations
to malaria, you made up a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL example. This shows
that your use of Rogers's paper as window dressing had nothing to do with
your actual 2016 calculations.


Concluded in next reply, to be done shortly after I've seen
that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.
>
> > > > > It's kind of sad, really but that's what creationism encourages.
> > > > >
> > > > > gregwrld
> > > >
> > > > gregweird should be angry about drug-resistant infection and failed cancer treatments.
> > >
> > > That would be an improvement on you, who only rant at us instead
> > > of telling us how you got out and
> > >
> > > 1. advised people in medicine to make ballpark estimates of the size of
> > > cancer tumors, and to tell them how many different treatments are
> > > necessary on that basis and
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/pdf/SIM-35-5391.pdf
>
> BZZZZZT! "got out and" refers to real-time, face-to-face or at least
> one-on-one in private conversations (phone, skype, email, etc.) with
> clinical-practice MD's or people engaged in medical research on these
> very things.

I tell anyone who will listen. I tell all the physicians and physician assistants that I work with and all the physicians I know, I've sent emails to many population geneticists at faculties around the country and many others. If you know of anyone who might be interested, I'd be happy to explain the physics and mathematics of evolution, especially the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance and cancer treatment failures.

>
>
> <SNIP for focus>
>
>
> > As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor.
>
> Earlier, you tried to pass off ballpark estimates as an example of STATISTICS,
> not radiological studies. This was in response to the never-refuted claim
> that your 2014 and 2016 papers contained no statistics, despite your
> having published them in _Statistics in Medicine_.

Do I have to do the simple mathematics for a math professor? A 1cm3 tumor consists of about 100 million to a billion cells. If the mutation rate is e-9, that means on average, there will be a mutation at every site in the genome in some cell of that population. Now, do I have to explain to you what happens when a targeted treatment such as an antibody encounters that mutated protein, what could happen? You had better hope that the antibody crossreacts with that mutated protein or you have treatment failure.

>
>
> <SNIP for focus>
>
> > > 2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
> > > avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
> > > infections.
>
> > Why not start with Ezekiel Emanuel.
>
> Why don't you? You give no hint that you ever had a one-on-one
> exchange with him.

I've sent him an email explaining the problem with his argument and that he makes the same error treating his cancer patients that he accuses physicians of doing treating infectious diseases.

>
>
> > He is an oncologist that thinks that physicians should use antibiotics the way he does and if not they should be punished.
> > Of course, when he treats breast cancer with single-drug estrogen blocking agents that fail when a drug-resistance cell line appears would never accuse himself of using his treatments improperly.
>
> Are you afraid that, if you told him this, he will accuse
> you of insulting his intelligence? More importantly, are you
> afraid that he will set you straight on your HYPOTHETICAL example
> which you use to insinuate that HE did not realize that an ACTUAL
> treatment of his failed because of the appearance of a drug-resistant
> cell line?

I have told him, I doubt he listened. He's a know it all like you.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > I've never seen you breathe a word about how many people you've contacted
> > > in either way. This is your chance to brag about the number
> > > for the first time ever AFAIK. Make the most of it in the
> > > space I've provided below.
> >
> > Many, including Kishony, Weinreich, and Lenski.
>
> None of whom are in medical practice, and none of whom you gave
> specific advice on ACTUAL examples of failed drug and antibiotic
> treatments, or failure to measure ACTUAL cancer tumors. RIGHT?

WRONG. I had an oncologist who told me about a targeted treatment he uses for malignant melanoma. He said that his treatment would get rid of the cancer for 5-6 weeks but then would come back with a vengeance. I explained the obvious to him that the cell line he was treating were not exact clones and he would need more than a single drug to achieve a successful treatment. There are others as well, but if you know of anyone who wants this subject explained to them, I would be happy to do it.

>
> Heck, you have had access to Bill Rogers for years now in talk.origins,
> yet when it came to applying your elementary probability calculations
> to malaria, you made up a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL example. This shows
> that your use of Rogers's paper as window dressing had nothing to do with
> your actual 2016 calculations.

Rogers is confused on this subject, if he understood it, at least one of his 50 papers would have correctly explained the evolution of drug-resistance and given a description of how to achieve a durable treatment for malaria. It's worse than that, Rogers has zero clinical experience and because of this, he squandered an opportunity to get useful data from his study. Rogers should have put some effort into understanding exactly why some of his patients failed treatment. Rogers doesn't even know the ages of the patients that failed his treatments let alone any comorbidities.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.

There will be ample evidence of the above-described behavior from you in this,
my second and concluding reply to this slippery, evasive post of yours, Alan.

Picking up where I left off in the first reply:

> I know that Kishony wants to perform his experiment with two drugs.

And why hasn't he done so? Could it be because that part of his
grant proposals isn't being funded?

> I sent him the paper I linked above so he could estimate the size of the petri dish he would need.

How did he respond, if at all?

> I suggested he could possibly do a limited experiment with two drugs with only two bands
>in his existing petri dish. One band without any drug which would occupy most of the plate
>and then a single band with low concentration of both drugs. He might achieve the trillion
>member colony necessary for one evolutionary step. I've told many physicians about these concepts

This is rich. You told many physicians about these experiments,
having no relevance to actual examples of clinical work. It's just
like your hypothetical example in which you USED Bill Rogers to
make your work seem more medically relevant than it actually is.

> but it flies in the face of so-called expert advice which is to reduce the usage of antibiotics.

Did ANY of them tell you this, or are you wandering off on a tangent again?

> The consequence of this is that I've had to treat 3 cases of scarlet fever
> in the past year and many cases of erysipelas as well.

Did the patients tell you the names of physicians who
refused to give them the proper treatment that you gave them?

If so, did you actually seize the opportunity to do a REAL
example for items number 1. and 2.? Here is 2. again:

> > 2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
> > avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
> > infections.

Evidently you did NOT do that, otherwise you would have talked about them
in addressing item 2. [See my first reply for what you DID do.]

> I had never seen a case of scarlet fever except in books over 30 years. I've sent these papers to many population geneticists

...never breathing a word about ACTUAL cases in your practice,
like the ones you are claiming here. RIGHT?

> but here's the typical response:
>
> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/03/A-novel-feature-with-new-information.html
> Start with Felsonstein's line, "I had that irony in mind when choosing the post title." and read the little discussion I had with him.

You don't dare quote anything relevant, and with good reason.
You came from completely out in left field, trying to hijack a thread
which had absolutely nothing to do with the Lenski, etc. experiments.

Typical crank behavior. Mike Elzinga skewered you, and you didn't
have the knowledge or guts to counter his astute observation with which
he justified his parting shots:

The probabilities of permutations and combinations of inert objects have
nothing to do with the probabilities of atomic and molecular states.

Read for comprehension, not for interpretation.

You need to take your trolling elsewhere. It has nothing to do with
Recent Comments widgets or biology.

You just went on with your one-on-one with Felsenstein, completely
ignoring the topic of the thread you were hijacking.

>
> These people think they know it all.

Mike Elzinga made it clear that you are projecting big-time here.

>If they did, they would have done the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments long ago.

Baloney. YOU haven't done them, despite a MAJOR obsession with the experiments.
Your mathematics and physics are LESS relevant to these experiments
than your hypothetical example was relevant to treatment of actual malaria cases.

At least, you mentioned malaria in the 2016 paper; but no mention
of either Kishony or Lenski in either that or your 2014 paper.

> Instead, we have a consensus based on an incorrect understanding of evolution.

Your understanding of evolution is not only incorrect, it is fraudulent:
On the one hand, you have NEVER challenged my mathematics on feather evolution;
on the other hand, the ONLY reason you give for the claim that your math and
physics has relevance to clinical medicine or evolution is that the
excruciatingly elementary mathematics is correct.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
attention I can spare for you until Friday.

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 12:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > > As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor.
> >
> > Earlier, you tried to pass off ballpark estimates as an example of STATISTICS,
> > not radiological studies. This was in response to the never-refuted claim
> > that your 2014 and 2016 papers contained no statistics, despite your
> > having published them in _Statistics in Medicine_.
>
> Do I have to do the simple mathematics for a math professor?

No, you have to show me some use of statistics, which is NOT a
branch of probability theory.


<snip irrelevant talk of probability and antibodies, on which I helped
with research in my Army days>


My statement that your two papers contain no statistics continues
unchallenged.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS Some day, you might learn that statistics and mathematics have far
less to do with each other than do physics and mathematics.
But that day is definitely not now.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:55:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 8:15:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Drdr presents himself as a bitter, angry crank who thinks everyone else is wrong but himself. He hasn't convinced anyone but other cranks and creos that his views on evolution actually matter.
>
> There will be ample evidence of the above-described behavior from you in this,
> my second and concluding reply to this slippery, evasive post of yours, Alan.

gregweird's contribution to this discussion is slightly, no, make that way less than white noise.

>
> Picking up where I left off in the first reply:
>
> > I know that Kishony wants to perform his experiment with two drugs.
>
> And why hasn't he done so? Could it be because that part of his
> grant proposals isn't being funded?

You probably aren't aware that his single-drug experiment only works when the increases in the concentration of drug are limited so that a single mutation gives improved fitness for that region. The same math that applies to the A,B evolution problem as to the A1,A2 evolution problem. Money isn't the problem.

>
>
> > I sent him the paper I linked above so he could estimate the size of the petri dish he would need.
>
> How did he respond, if at all?

I haven't heard from him, but I'm pretty sure he got the point. He already knows what he had to do with his single drug experiment to get it to work. And as you know, the math is elementary once you understand it.

>
> > I suggested he could possibly do a limited experiment with two drugs with only two bands
> >in his existing petri dish. One band without any drug which would occupy most of the plate
> >and then a single band with low concentration of both drugs. He might achieve the trillion
> >member colony necessary for one evolutionary step. I've told many physicians about these concepts
>
> This is rich. You told many physicians about these experiments,
> having no relevance to actual examples of clinical work. It's just
> like your hypothetical example in which you USED Bill Rogers to
> make your work seem more medically relevant than it actually is.

Do you know what it is like trying to turn the Titanic as it is heading toward the iceberg? And how would you know what is medically relevant? Do you have a few years under your belt practicing medicine?

>
>
> > but it flies in the face of so-called expert advice which is to reduce the usage of antibiotics.
>
> Did ANY of them tell you this, or are you wandering off on a tangent again?

Not only do they tell me this, I often end up seeing these patients with more severe infections than they had to be if they were treated in a timely manner. Telling someone who comes to the doctor with a fever and sore throat with a negative rapid strep test that they have hay fever or a virus and then not following up the next day to see how their patients are doing is opening the door to malpractice.

>
>
>
> > The consequence of this is that I've had to treat 3 cases of scarlet fever
> > in the past year and many cases of erysipelas as well.
>
> Did the patients tell you the names of physicians who
> refused to give them the proper treatment that you gave them?

Sometimes. What I try to do with the patients who see me in situations like this, if they are told they have a viral infection or allergies when they initially present, but are getting worse is to tell their doctor this. And if the doctor won't listen, find another doctor. A critical part of practicing medicine is doing a close follow-up. I always tell my patients that if they are not rapidly improving to call.

>
> If so, did you actually seize the opportunity to do a REAL
> example for items number 1. and 2.? Here is 2. again:
>
> > > 2. hunting down any MDs who promote failed cancer treatments and
> > > avoid the right method of fighting drug-and-antibiotic resistant
> > > infections.
>
> Evidently you did NOT do that, otherwise you would have talked about them
> in addressing item 2. [See my first reply for what you DID do.]

Some people listen, others don't. If they are willing to listen, I explain. I don't think it is well understood what the delay in instituting antimicrobial treatment is doing to the medical system. Next time you talk with your doctor, ask him what the most common medical reason is for hospital admission is.

>
>
> > I had never seen a case of scarlet fever except in books over 30 years. I've sent these papers to many population geneticists
>
> ...never breathing a word about ACTUAL cases in your practice,
> like the ones you are claiming here. RIGHT?

What? Do you want me to publish case reports?

>
>
> > but here's the typical response:
> >
> > https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/03/A-novel-feature-with-new-information.html
> > Start with Felsonstein's line, "I had that irony in mind when choosing the post title." and read the little discussion I had with him.
>
> You don't dare quote anything relevant, and with good reason.
> You came from completely out in left field, trying to hijack a thread
> which had absolutely nothing to do with the Lenski, etc. experiments.

That jerk Felsenstein made some claim about the Creationist understanding of the concept of information. He can't even explain a simple evolutionary experiment like the Lenski experiment. He's like you, an arrogant know it all that has done a disservice to society for failing to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution.

>
> Typical crank behavior. Mike Elzinga skewered you, and you didn't
> have the knowledge or guts to counter his astute observation with which
> he justified his parting shots:
>
> The probabilities of permutations and combinations of inert objects have
> nothing to do with the probabilities of atomic and molecular states.
>
> Read for comprehension, not for interpretation.
>
> You need to take your trolling elsewhere. It has nothing to do with
> Recent Comments widgets or biology.
>
> You just went on with your one-on-one with Felsenstein, completely
> ignoring the topic of the thread you were hijacking.

That reptifeatharian Felsenstein asked for it with his ignorant comment about Creationists. He is the one that doesn't understand the mathematical meaning of information and how it applies to DNA evolution. I've listened to his lectures, he's a muddler.

>
> >
> > These people think they know it all.
>
> Mike Elzinga made it clear that you are projecting big-time here.

Sorry, I have no idea who Mike Elzinga is and the only thing I'm projecting here is the correct physics and mathematics of evolution.

>
>
>
> >If they did, they would have done the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments long ago.
>
> Baloney. YOU haven't done them, despite a MAJOR obsession with the experiments.
> Your mathematics and physics are LESS relevant to these experiments
> than your hypothetical example was relevant to treatment of actual malaria cases.

That's ok Nomathos, leave the application of the physics and mathematics of evolution to those who have to deal with those problems. You should put some effort into your calculus lectures so that your students would better understand the subject.

>
> At least, you mentioned malaria in the 2016 paper; but no mention
> of either Kishony or Lenski in either that or your 2014 paper.

Are you going senile? I wrote my 2014 publication before Kishony ever ran his experiment. Actually, I have Rogers to thank who pointed me to the Kishony experiment. And the Lenski experiment also involved competition and deserved an additional paper to explain. And you probably missed this line from my 2016 paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175190/
"The derivation of the equations, which describe the evolution of drug resistance in the context of combination therapy, will be carried out using an empirical example. This example describes the emergence of drug‐resistant malaria in the context of two‐drug therapy. While this example is of particular importance to the use of selection pressures in the practice of treatment of malaria, the principle is more general and can be applied to the evolution of drug‐resistant variants in the treatment of infectious diseases, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects, and failure of cancer treatments in the context of multiple simultaneous selection pressures."

That math even applies to reptiles evolving feathers.

>
>
> > Instead, we have a consensus based on an incorrect understanding of evolution.
>
> Your understanding of evolution is not only incorrect, it is fraudulent:
> On the one hand, you have NEVER challenged my mathematics on feather evolution;
> on the other hand, the ONLY reason you give for the claim that your math and
> physics has relevance to clinical medicine or evolution is that the
> excruciatingly elementary mathematics is correct.

Try again Nomathos, this excruciatingly elementary mathematics, and the underlying physics used to derive this math gives the correct explanation of evolution. But feel free to find a real, measurable and repeatable example that contradicts this math. That would make this discussion interesting. Instead, yawn, you can really get boring at times.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
> attention I can spare for you until Friday.

You really should put more thought into your posts. Try thinking quality, not quantity.
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 12:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>

> > > > As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor.
> > >
> > > Earlier, you tried to pass off ballpark estimates as an example of STATISTICS,
> > > not radiological studies. This was in response to the never-refuted claim
> > > that your 2014 and 2016 papers contained no statistics, despite your
> > > having published them in _Statistics in Medicine_.
> >
> > Do I have to do the simple mathematics for a math professor?
>
> No, you have to show me some use of statistics, which is NOT a
> branch of probability theory.

You really don't understand the difference between probability theory and statistics. Think of it this way, probability theory gives us the mathematical rules which govern random experiments. If you know all the possible outcomes from a random experiment and the frequency at which these outcomes occur, then you can accurately define the distribution function. Statistics, on the other hand, is the application of the principles of probability theory where you have only a limited sample of the possible outcomes of a random experiment and you assume a distribution function. You can then test your outcomes against that assumed distribution function to see if it is correct. Sometimes statistics works and sometimes it doesn't. And why would you want me to show you some uses of statistics that is not part of probability theory?

>
>
> <snip irrelevant talk of probability and antibodies, on which I helped
> with research in my Army days>

Why? You asked how to apply this math in a clinical situation and I showed you. It really isn't that difficult. And the message to be learned is to treat infections early because, with smaller populations, you are less likely to have drug-resistant variants in that population.

>
>
> My statement that your two papers contain no statistics continues
> unchallenged.

Finally, you got something right. Neither of those two papers is statistics papers.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> PS Some day, you might learn that statistics and mathematics have far
> less to do with each other than do physics and mathematics.
> But that day is definitely not now.

Some physical problems require probability theory to correctly explain. Statistics is more applicable to experimental work.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:50 -0800 (PST), wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
> >
> >First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
> >

> >Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?

> >
> >Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
> >

> >How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?
>
> No. It wasn't that cataclysmic an event.

Good job, Vince; but you might learn something from my much more
detailed reply to the OP.

> >Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?
> >

> >Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap

> No, it's creationists that invoke magic. Everyone else tries to
> figure out how things happened,

Wrong. Almost everyone else reads what others have figured out,
or think others have figured out. I have seen NO original
thinking that would add to *standard* evolutionary theory by anyone in
talk.origins.

For more about the weaknesses of standard evolutionary theory,
the thread where the following appeared today is a good place to start.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/TiigkD0NrPY/Qmj-aMumBQAJ
Subject: Re: Wide Spread
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6bec8360-6af4-47f5...@googlegroups.com>

The paper co-authored by Woese, referenced in the above link,
is the big drawing card. If you can't get beyond the paywall,
you can see it here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4125.pdf


> instead of just throwing up their
> hands and saying "God did it by magic!"

Instead, they sit on their hands and typically rely on one of the following
in their arguments:


Darwin of the Gaps:

This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:

"Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."



Nobody of the Gaps:

"Nobody ever claimed that _________________ works like _________."

or

"Nobody ever claimed that _________________
evolved in a random way."




Extrapolator of the Gaps:

"Evolution of organisms has
been shown to produce amazing things such as ourselves in highly un-
random ways. Doubtless, biochemical evolution is capable of such
things by a similar process."


Exaptor of the Gaps:

"The ____________[enzyme, structure, system] you are
skeptical about was exapted from another, which was exapted from another, ..."

Here is an extended, hypothetical example which illustrates how
much has to be behind "Exaptor of the Gaps" in order for it to
be a useful explanation for anything in explaining the "magic"
of how the vast panoply of life as we know it came about:

"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
string],

"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...

...

"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."


And here is a polemical argument that I named after someone
who used it often in his heyday:

Gans of the Gaps Rebuttal:

"I don't care how enormous the gaps you mention are, or how nobody alive
today has the foggiest idea of steps whereby those gaps MIGHT be spanned;
any attempt to claim that these gaps pose a problem for evolution is
pure Argument From Personal Incredulity."

This one formula [less candidly worded, of course] has kept Paul Gans
and a number of copycats from ever having to learn any biochemistry,
paleontology, geology, or anything relevant to evolution or abiogenesis.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:

> On 2/21/20 12:23 PM, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
> >
> > First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
> >
> > Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?
> >
> > Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
> >
> > How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?
> >

> > Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?
> >

> > Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>
>

> This is brilliant...
>
>
>
> ..it is satire, right?

Wrong. And I wonder whether you are being sincere here, or are simply
finding yourself out of your depth where the history of life on earth
is concerned.

And I mean the history from its very humblest beginnings, the
formation of standing bodies of water at some point in the Hadean,
or possibly even earlier, at the point where the earth had coalesced
enough to have a continuous atmosphere.

Did life proceed in an unbroken chain from the first amino acids
and other organic molecules in the early Hadean (ca. 4.4 gigayears ago)
or did it have to start afresh from those primitive building blocks
3.8 billion or 3.5 billion years ago?


Or, at the opposite extreme, might it even have been after the first
major "ice age" about 2 gigayears after the Hadean?
That is written about here:

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

A decade and a half ago, a hot topic was whether that glaciation
was an actual "snowball earth" episode. There is no real hint about that
excitement in Wikipedia nowadays, except in the title of one
reference:

5/ Kopp, Robert (14 June 2005). "The Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: A climate disaster triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis". PNAS. 102 (32): 11131-6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0504878102. PMC 1183582. PMID 16061801.

Here is a url for that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1183582/

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS I don't think anyone knows the answer to my questions. Of course,
the post to which you are replying makes a huge mistake in even
*suggesting* that life might have started afresh at the end of the Mesozoic,
but the big question is, when did life as we know it have its REAL
beginning?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
> > attention I can spare for you until Friday.
>
> You really should put more thought into your posts. Try thinking quality, not quantity.

Stop playing dumb. I am a set theoretic topologist, and almost ALL my
research is qualitative. As is what I write below.

Moreover, I put a LOT of thought into my posts. Unlike you,
I do not have the luxury of indulging in outrageous binges of insincerity,
hypocrisy, cowardice and evasiveness. My conscience does not allow it.

Your conscience, on the other hand, is better explained by being
a clandestine Muslim than in being a Christian. You let everyone
think you are a Christian, just like the Muslims who pretended
to be Christians in the days around the end of the Reconquista,
so they could rise high in the society of their time.

You are like them in key ways. See my parting shot at the end of this post
for one way.

> >
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 12:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > > > > As a specific example of how to use the previous calculation for the field of oncology, radiological studies can be carried out to estimate the size of a tumor.
> > > >
> > > > Earlier, you tried to pass off ballpark estimates as an example of STATISTICS,
> > > > not radiological studies.

You develop convenient amnesia below about this, Kleinman.

> > > > This was in response to the never-refuted claim
> > > > that your 2014 and 2016 papers contained no statistics, despite your
> > > > having published them in _Statistics in Medicine_.
> > >
> > > Do I have to do the simple mathematics for a math professor?
> >
> > No, you have to show me some use of statistics, which is NOT a
> > branch of probability theory.
>
> You really don't understand the difference between probability theory and statistics.

I understand it perfectly. You don't understand the difference between
mathematics and the applications of mathematics, nor the difference
between statistics and the applications of statistics.

> Think of it this way, probability theory gives us the mathematical rules which govern random experiments. If you know all the possible outcomes from a random experiment and the frequency at which these outcomes occur, then you can accurately define the distribution function.

That is a fictitious "if". Mere experimentation will never tell you
the frequencies. All it does is give you more and more data
on which to do STATISTICS.

> Statistics, on the other hand, is the application of the principles of probability theory where you have only a limited sample of the possible outcomes of a random experiment

Probability theory does that too, and precisely. You love to talk
about rolls of dice, flips of coins, and hands of cards, all of which
have a finite sample of outcomes. Statistics comes in when you
want to know whether the dice are loaded, etc. And you can never
be absolutely sure you have what is called "a fair coin" on your hands.
No amount of statistical testing is enough for that.


You are continuing to show your ignorance of where probability theory
ends and statistics begins AND where these end and applications begin.

> and you assume a distribution function. You can then test your outcomes against that assumed distribution function to see if it is correct. Sometimes statistics works and sometimes it doesn't. And why would you want me to show you some uses of statistics that is not part of probability theory?

First, you "feigned the 'tard", now you feign amnesia about what I wrote
at the very beginning. And you are doing the latter quite expertly,
with a disngenouosness that seems quite new to you.

Have you been taking posting lessons from John Harshman? He is a master
of low-IQ simulations and convenient, disingenuous feignings of amnesia.
The only person who excels at these things more than he does is his
perennial net.sidekick, Erik Simpson.

Because you LIED that you had done some statistics near the end of your
2016 paper.

> >
> >
> > <snip irrelevant talk of probability and antibodies, on which I helped
> > with research in my Army days>
>
> Why? You asked how to apply this math in a clinical situation

When did I do that? Are you spin-doctoring the questions I wrote
about you buttonholing people actually engaged in clinical work
to tell THEM how to do their work?

Your answers were cunningly evasive. You never identified a
single person who changed his practice as a result of the
elementary math in your 2014 and 2016 papers.

> and I showed you. It really isn't that difficult. And the message to be learned is to treat infections early because, with smaller populations, you are less likely to have drug-resistant variants in that population.

That message has nothing to do with anything I asked you.

> >
> >
> > My statement that your two papers contain no statistics continues
> > unchallenged.
>
> Finally, you got something right.

Here is where your feigning of amnesia about your LIE about
your 2016 paper becomes downright obnoxious.

> Neither of those two papers is statistics papers.

That's nothing like the lie you told, prevaricator. Your lie
was that there was a bit of statistics at the end of your 2016 paper.


Your entire performance in this post could be an example
of what Muslims call "taquiyah" [transliterations vary],
translated as "permissible lying."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Obviously, Nomathos hasn't taken my advice about quality over quantity.

[Burkhard]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
>>> attention I can spare for you until Friday.
>>
>> You really should put more thought into your posts. Try thinking quality, not quantity.
>
> Stop playing dumb. I am a set theoretic topologist, and almost ALL my
> research is qualitative. As is what I write below.
>
> Moreover, I put a LOT of thought into my posts. Unlike you,
> I do not have the luxury of indulging in outrageous binges of insincerity,
> hypocrisy, cowardice and evasiveness. My conscience does not allow it.
>
> Your conscience, on the other hand, is better explained by being
> a clandestine Muslim than in being a Christian. You let everyone
> think you are a Christian, just like the Muslims who pretended
> to be Christians in the days around the end of the Reconquista,
> so they could rise high in the society of their time.
>

You mean so that they could survive? The rebellion of the Alpujarras was
a reaction to the torture, imprisonment and enforced conversion of
Muslims under the Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de
Cisneros. The "success" of this conversion in Granada led Isabella of
Castile to ban Islam in 1502. And in 1515 the Crown of Aragon broke its
coronation oath (that included a commitment to religious tolerance) and
force-converted its Muslim population. It was King Charles of Aragon
who petitioned the Pope to rule that these forced conversions were
valid, the converted as a result subject to the Inquisition. And in
1524, the Pope also released him from his oath protecting Muslims'
freedom of religion, resulting in the edict of conversion of 1525.

That made practicing Islam illegal and subject to torture and death in
all of Spain - and even fleing from the persecution was for most not an
option, as the Crown also prohibited emigration for all but the most
wealthy (Granada charged e.g. 10 gold doblas for the privilege to leave
your estate behind and flee from persecution)

Other laws restricted the places to which they were allowed to immigrate
so much that it was in practice impossible (the edict of Castile), or

you find all this and more in Leonard Patrick Harvey's 2006 book
"Muslims In Spain, 1500–1614"

I recall the discussion we had when you tried to minimize the
persecution of the Nazis of people with Down's syndrome -you to have a
worrying tendency of blaming the victims of some of the most horrendous
persecutions history has seen.



>snip

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Does the egghead Professor of Computational Legal Theory still think that it is more economical to use antibiotics incorrectly? Do you care to elucidate how we should do that?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
> >>> attention I can spare for you until Friday.
> >>
> >> You really should put more thought into your posts. Try thinking quality, not quantity.
> >
> > Stop playing dumb. I am a set theoretic topologist, and almost ALL my
> > research is qualitative. As is what I write below.
> >
> > Moreover, I put a LOT of thought into my posts. Unlike you,
> > I do not have the luxury of indulging in outrageous binges of insincerity,
> > hypocrisy, cowardice and evasiveness. My conscience does not allow it.
> >
> > Your conscience, on the other hand, is better explained by being
> > a clandestine Muslim than in being a Christian. You let everyone
> > think you are a Christian, just like the Muslims who pretended
> > to be Christians in the days around the end of the Reconquista,
> > so they could rise high in the society of their time.

You make no direct comment on the above. You and the Dr.Dr. certainly
make strange bedfellows.

>
> You mean so that they could survive?

I was talking about prosperity, not survival.

There was a very easy way for them to
survive when brought before the Spanish Inquisition.
Are you unaware of it, or are you just playing dumb?

> The rebellion of the Alpujarras was
> a reaction to the torture, imprisonment

on what grounds? You segue into something that could be
totally unrelated:

> and enforced conversion of
> Muslims under the Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de
> Cisneros.

I could talk about *recent* events in the other direction which have
not been punished nor repudiated by the governments of various
Islamic states.

If I did that, would you accuse me of Islamophobia for bringing these
atrocities up? If so, you would then be complicit in what can only
be called a present-day, implicit, Non-Aggression Pact between
radical Islam and people who share your values on LGBTQ issues.

Once traditional Christianity is safely relegated to second
rate status in the secular West and the Islamic East --
as it already is in North Korea and increasingly in China--
one can expect something on the scale of the June 1941 breaking of the
well-known Non-Aggression Pact. The actual events may be completely
different, but I think the outcome will be as spectacular in its own way.


<snip to get to you bringing up something much further out in left field>

>
> I recall the discussion we had when you tried to minimize the
> persecution of the Nazis of people with Down's syndrome

I don't recall what it is that you are spin-doctoring in this way.

I do recall how you blew your credibility sky-high by accusing
me of "unethical" behavior for revealing atrocious behavior
by John Harshman, which he never dared to deny and which you
never challenged me to show the truth of.

You left me with the impression that you consider whistle-blowers
in the big outside world to be far more unethical than the people
on whose wrongful behavior they blow the whistle.

> -you to have a
> worrying tendency of blaming the victims of some of the most horrendous
> persecutions history has seen.

What I wrote just now was carefully reasoned. What you are writing
here is bordering on legally actionable libel.


Peter Nyikos

PS I almost forgot to tell you: the pretense of the Muslims in long-ago
Spain was to them "permissible deceit," known as taquiyah. The problem with
that is that in order to show their alleged innocence they had
to do an auto-da-fe in which they swore to God that they were Christians.
Some refused to do that, fearing that Allah, the compassionate,
the merciful, might look upon their oath as apostasy. And so they
were turned over to the civil authorities.

[Burkhard]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Busy on other threads as I am, this little snippet is all the additional
>>>>> attention I can spare for you until Friday.
>>>>
>>>> You really should put more thought into your posts. Try thinking quality, not quantity.
>>>
>>> Stop playing dumb. I am a set theoretic topologist, and almost ALL my
>>> research is qualitative. As is what I write below.
>>>
>>> Moreover, I put a LOT of thought into my posts. Unlike you,
>>> I do not have the luxury of indulging in outrageous binges of insincerity,
>>> hypocrisy, cowardice and evasiveness. My conscience does not allow it.
>>>
>>> Your conscience, on the other hand, is better explained by being
>>> a clandestine Muslim than in being a Christian. You let everyone
>>> think you are a Christian, just like the Muslims who pretended
>>> to be Christians in the days around the end of the Reconquista,
>>> so they could rise high in the society of their time.
>
> You make no direct comment on the above.

why would I? There is nothing of substance or interest in there. I'm not
going to get involved in your mud slinging.

You and the Dr.Dr. certainly
> make strange bedfellows.
>
>
>>
>> You mean so that they could survive?
>
> I was talking about prosperity, not survival.

Yes, that was my point - do you understand the concept of a rhetorical
question? The part that followed should have made this clear. Framing it
as "prospering" as opposed to "saving their lives" flies in the face of
everything we know about that period and is immoral shifting of blame to
and casting aspersion on the victims of persecution.

Even those who did convert sincerely were subject not only to persistent
suspicion, but also often racialised) forced relocation, legal
restrictions, (prohibited form traveling to the colonies from owning
land, most offices - typically based on overtly racial criteria: : "Do
not consent, or provide space that there may go to the Indies neither
Muslims or Jews, or heretics, or the reconciled, or persons newly
converted to our faith."

>
> There was a very easy way for them to
> survive when brought before the Spanish Inquisition.
> Are you unaware of it, or are you just playing dumb?

Yes, pretending to be Christians. That's the point. A strategy of
survival, not of "prospering"

Which would however protect them for only so long, as the persecution of
the Moriscos continued and they eventually expulsed from Spain in a
massive campaign of ethnic cleanings that caught both sincere and
insinsere converts:

'The Moriscos to depart, under the pain of death and confiscation,
without trial or sentence... to take with them no money, bullion, jewels
or bills of exchange.... just what they could carry.' (edict by King
Philip III of 1609)

Or they could have tried to reach the colonies. While officially
prohibited from doing so, the local authorities did not enforce the laws
rigidly and were quite happy to tolerate Muslim workers as long as they
were not "openly Muslim" under the "obedezco pero no cumplo" policy (I
obey but don't comply)

>
>
>> The rebellion of the Alpujarras was
>> a reaction to the torture, imprisonment
>
> on what grounds?

On the ground of being a Muslim, as I say in the very next sentence

You segue into something that could be
> totally unrelated:

Not for anyone who knows what the rebellion of the Alpujarras was about,
and anyone who doesn't really should not opine about "the end of the
Reconquista"

>
>
>> and enforced conversion of
>> Muslims under the Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de
>> Cisneros.
>
> I could talk about *recent* events in the other direction which have
> not been punished nor repudiated by the governments of various
> Islamic states.

You could, sure, nobody can prevent you from making you look even worse.
But it would not contribute to the discussion. You made a claim about a
historical event that is as factually wrong as it is morally odious. I
responded to that claim

Your "other people do bad things too" is
a) utterly irrelevant for this historical issue
b) shows moral relativism at its worst - it argues in essence that
Muslims persecuted in the 15th and 16th century had it coming" because
of things Muslims do in the 21th century. There is no universe in which
that makes sense

>
> If I did that, would you accuse me of Islamophobia for bringing these
> atrocities up?

I would accuse you of making utterly irrelevant claims, derailing the
discussion, "what -about ism" and a particularly repugnant form of
moral relativism hat tries to justify past atrocities by present
atrocities committed by entirely different people.

If so, you would then be complicit in what can only
> be called a present-day, implicit, Non-Aggression Pact between
> radical Islam and people who share your values on LGBTQ issues.
>
> Once traditional Christianity is safely relegated to second
> rate status in the secular West and the Islamic East --
> as it already is in North Korea and increasingly in China--
> one can expect something on the scale of the June 1941 breaking of the
> well-known Non-Aggression Pact. The actual events may be completely
> different, but I think the outcome will be as spectacular in its own way.

and none of this has diddle to do with your crass mischaracterization of
the impact of the reconquisita on the Muslim population.

>
>
> <snip to get to you bringing up something much further out in left field>

snip the evidence I provided, with citation to the relevant academic
literature, that once again you had no clue what you were talking about.

>
>>
>> I recall the discussion we had when you tried to minimize the
>> persecution of the Nazis of people with Down's syndrome
>
> I don't recall what it is that you are spin-doctoring in this way.
>
> I do recall how you blew your credibility sky-high by accusing
> me of "unethical" behavior for revealing atrocious behavior
> by John Harshman,

The "atrocious behavior" of being unemployed that is. Shows just how
misaligned your moral compass is to describe it this way.

which he never dared to deny and which you
> never challenged me to show the truth of.

It wasn't a question of truth. One can be truthful and yet unethical.

>
> You left me with the impression that you consider whistle-blowers
> in the big outside world to be far more unethical than the people
> on whose wrongful behavior they blow the whistle.

Nothing in that event had anything to do with whistle-blowing, it was
just your creepy intrusion into peoples' privacy and when you found out
about hurtful events in their life using them for your bullying

>
>
>> -you to have a
>> worrying tendency of blaming the victims of some of the most horrendous
>> persecutions history has seen.
>
> What I wrote just now was carefully reasoned. What you are writing
> here is bordering on legally actionable libel.

Truth is a defense for libel. since you seem to be suffering from a
massive memory loss, here the relevant thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0%5B1-25%5D

and my specific replies to you at the time are here
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/uidf9_1uCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/njRZETylCgAJ

in it you (in no particular order)
- claimed that the toddlers the Nazis murdered were not targeted for
their Down syndrome but their "inability to work and be economically useful"
- claimed that the fact that some people with Down survived Nazism
proved that there was no systematic persecution (the same type f
argument holocaust deniers make when they point at individual Jews who
survived)
- claimed that the forms that were used for assessment for the killing
program did not really prove there was a killing program
- cast doubt on the evidential value of a photograph of one of the Down
children who was killed because it "was in a text that was written after
the war" (the picture was visibly dated 20.2.1940)
- claimed that the "lack of an official contemporary document" meant the
mass murder of Down children was dubious - despite me having cited
several of contemporary documents.
- claimed the Nazis only sterilized, but did not kill people with Down's
syndrome

and much more.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS I almost forgot to tell you: the pretense of the Muslims in long-ago
> Spain was to them "permissible deceit," known as taquiyah.

More specifically, they followed the Oran fatwa issued by Al-Wahrani
that gave concrete (and more permissive) interpretation of the concept
of taqiyya and kitman. So what? It is an extremely sensible and
humanist policy that allows survival under oppression.

Early Christianity had the same idea - after all, Peter was forgiven and
became later the first Bishop of Rome. Pity that mainstream Christianity
never drew the obvious conclusion from this and instead glorified
martyrs. Though similar strategies could be found in England and
Scotland throughout the post-reformation period, often with secular
counterparts (I always make sure that if I have to give a toast on the
Crown, I hold my drink over a glass of water)

The problem with
> that is that in order to show their alleged innocence

Remind us, "alleged innocence" of what? Don't be coy. It's their
"alleged innocence" of the "crime" of being a Muslim.

they had
> to do an auto-da-fe in which they swore to God that they were Christians.

Not quite. The auto-da fe is not part of the proof process, but the
solemn declaration of the sentencing. Only those convicted of being
crypto-muslims (or other heretics) participate in the auto-da-fe. Those
convicted ot death would be handed over to the secular authories. But
other possible sentence are penance or reconciliation. These would have
as a part a Mass, including public confession of faith, to reconcile
and reintroduce the convict into the Christian faith. That part of the
sentencing is what you confuse with "swearing to god that they are
Christians". And it woudl have been only a part. In addition there could
have been financial penalties, loss of their lands, imprisonment or
service on the galleys.

> Some refused to do that, fearing that Allah, the compassionate,
> the merciful, might look upon their oath as apostasy.

Well, martyrdom was also regarded in Christianity as the appropriate
course of action under these conditions and a direct road to saintood
and paradise. Me, I think a deity that want me to die for them rather
than to live for them is not a deity worth worshiping

And so they
> were turned over to the civil authorities.

No idea what point you try to make here. And in any case rather
misleading. The inquisition could torture and imprison, they only could
not execute the death penalty that they had ordered - that required
"relaxation", i.e. handing over to the secular authorities.
>

[Pro Plyd]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 6:35:03 PM UTC-8, Pro Plyd wrote:

>> wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>>>
>>

>> Hrm. Why think when you can call up a pixie?
>
> Where is your scientific explanation for the OOL and ToE?
>

They don't involve the supernatural.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

And they don't offer any mathematical or physical evidence other than chemical reactions occur and given enough time anything can happen and except that you can't learn the correct physics and mathematics evolution.

[Pro Plyd]

So you're saying it has to be supernatural?

[Jonathan]

On 2/21/2020 3:23 PM, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:





"Shut the fuck up. Post on topic here or get banned. Your choice."

--D. (Moderator)


I'm quoting the moderator, those are not my words or sentiment.
I like your posts and attempts to discuss interesting topics.

But our moderator is rather close minded, as you can see.

> OK so I have been reading quite a bit and here is the attempt to debunk some of the errors people are making.
>
> First if we assume life evolved without any intelligent design intervention and we use the mathematical calculations circulated first error is assuming life got it right the first or trillionth time! IE: What makes anyone assume if life just evolved that it didn't subsequently die right away, you would have to have potentially trillions of life events before life would have gotten lucky enough to provide for a method of sustaining itself by splitting, procreation etc.
>
> Next even if we assume that happened JACK up the numbers again because how many life destroying events have occurred on this planet? So lets assume life began 3.5 billion years ago with a RNA string of some prebiotic substance it would have had to start over how many times? And with climate changes, asteroids etc. How many times did life just happen to start AND evolve as we know life today?
>
> Starts ticking down your time line for evolution doesn't it?
>
> How long ago did the Dino's live here? And whatever event killed them off did a number on other life forms did it not? Starting over again?
>
> Finally do you really believe some magic matter dust stuff just magically appeared in a universe that just magically created itself from nothing or "just always was" and all life as we know it just magically got lucky enough in a few billion years to create all living things as we know them?
>

> Hell it is FAR easier for me to believe in ONE magic thing, GOD then to think of all the magic crap that had to happen to allow evolution and natural selection to get us where we are today!
>

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 2/21/2020 3:23 PM, wgpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "Shut the fuck up. Post on topic here or get banned. Your choice."
>
> --D. (Moderator)
>
>
> I'm quoting the moderator, those are not my words or sentiment.
> I like your posts and attempts to discuss interesting topics.
>
> But our moderator is rather close minded, as you can see.

I suspect most of us already read DIG's post. If I were trying not to get banned, I probably wouldn't spam an identical message about that post into a whole bunch of threads.