the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part 5

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 19, 2012, 8:05:24 PM4/19/12

to

John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
science class about where birds came from.
>What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
>happen. How did birds arise?"
>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
>Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>what?
John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
folklore.

What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,
multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and
less than durable cancer treatments.

David Murdock

unread,

Apr 19, 2012, 8:31:44 PM4/19/12

to

On Apr 19, 7:05 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this

> >Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >what?
>
> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> folklore.
>
> What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
> selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,
> multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and
> less than durable cancer treatments.

Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If
so, what?

---DPM

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 19, 2012, 9:15:01 PM4/19/12

to

Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
> discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
> science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
> science class about where birds came from.
>> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
>> happen. How did birds arise?"

You didn't answer the poor kid's question. Are you just going to keep
him hanging?

>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>> what?
> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> folklore.

Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?

Prof Weird

unread,

Apr 19, 2012, 9:16:13 PM4/19/12

to

On Apr 19, 8:05 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
> discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> selection phenomenon.

Nope. He's actually presented the basic science and math; you just
shove your head further up your own arse and scream your mantras
louder.

> Rather than trying to understand this basic
> science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
> science class about where birds came from.

He already understands the reality-based science and math. What he
wanted to know was :

"How would YOU, Dr Dr Krackpot Kleinman, answer the question 'where
did birds come from ?'"

You've spent over 4000 posts howling and screaming that 'evolution is
the wrong answer !!!', yet not offered even a hint of a whisper of
what you 'think' the right answer is.

Why is that ? Afraid to demonstrate just how ignorant you are of real
world biology ? Too scared to offer up your ideas for examination ?

> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
> happen. How did birds arise?"
> >> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
> >> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
> >> religious folklore has no place in a science class.

And your 'explanation' of the real world evidence is what again ?

Oh, right - you don't actually have one. So you'll just start
screaming that everyone except you is mathematically incompetent.

Upon what basis do you assert that birds arose from reptiles to be
'pseudo-scientific religious folklore' ?

Oh, right - reality does not conform to your deranged model, so you
presume that reality is in error, for there is no way Dr Dr Krackpot
Kleinman could EVER be mistaken about anything at any time.

> >Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >what?
>
> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> folklore.

Only if one were stupid enough to 'think' that the only way a mutation
could fix in a population is by targeted lethal selection, AND that
multiple mutations had to arise in one individual to have any effect
at all.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, both requirements need not be met.

In REALITY, the mathematical and empirical evidence shows that birds
and reptiles are closely related. Your 'explanation' of fossil finds
like Archaeopteryx and feathered dinosaurs is what again ?

Oh, right - YOU DON'T HAVE ONE ! All you've got is psychotic
repetition of your mantras, and a pathological need to misunderstand
and misrepresent all science presented to you in a flaccid attempt to
make it conform to your gibbering numerology. The Dembski Delusion,
writ large.

> What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
> selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,
> multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and
> less than durable cancer treatments.

By your 'logic', multidrug resistance could not arise - it would
either be too improbable, or take 'too long'.

Every time you scream and howl about 'multidrug this and that !!', you
admit that your 'model' sucks.

On the one hand, no sane or rational person thinks that 9 mutations
had to arise in one reptile under 9 different lethal selection
conditions to produce birds - that is the sheer, gibbering idiocy of
your 'model', the flaws of which Dr Schneider pointed out.

On the other hand, at 300 generations to fix a mutation, and two years/
generation, it would take only about 5400 years to go from reptile to
bird. Which is nothing on a geological time scale. The ONLY way 5400
years would be 'far too long' is if someone were slack-witted enough
to 'think' that the world is just a few thousand years old.

So which idiocy do you subscribe to Dr Dr Krackpot Kleinman ? Since
you are prancing about like you are some sort of genius, you could at
least share a bit of it with the world by ANSWERING JOHN'S QUESTION :
"How would you answer the question : where did birds come from ?"

(you may now begin your usual evasive, egomaniacal posturing to avoid
answering a simple, direct question ... )

Walter Bushell

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 8:23:23 AM4/20/12

to

In article
<e71d8eb5-03bf-4358...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Enough information to give creationists the bird.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 10:45:36 AM4/20/12

to

The following post is a response to posts from a splinter thread on
this topic

Richard Norman Apr 19, 7:16 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:16:49 -0700
Local: Thurs, Apr 19 2012 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: The Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational
belief
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:40:43 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>>Richard, I’m going to split a hair with you here. The conditional
>>probability of B given A, P(B|A) is only time independent when A and B
>>are independent events, this is because P(B|A) = P(B) for that
>>condition. But this does not imply that P(B) is time independent. In
>>fact P(B) is changing as generations are going on (especially) when
>>those members with mutation A are amplifying. And the joint
>>probability of A and B occurring, P(A)P(B) is time dependent. It is
>>the joint probability of A and B which determine if the evolutionary
>>process has a reasonable probability of occurring, not the conditional
>>probability of A and B. But you are correct that when A and B are
>>independent events, the conditional probabilities of those events are
>>time independent.

>So much for the good double doctor understanding the basic notions of
>probability theory.

So Richard, are you going to jump on Peter’s very sparsely loaded
bandwagon and claim that all probabilities are time independent? That
would be a mathematically irrational point of view to take.

DougC Apr 20, 3:47 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: DougC <priga...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 20 2012 3:47 am
Subject: Re: The Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational
belief
Richard Norman wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:18:57 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> So much for the good double doctor understanding the basic notions of
>> probability theory.

>The good (?) double doctor seems to conclude, without saying it, that
>everything in our universe is created by a diety. What else is
>possible?

DougC, what we can say with mathematical surety is that reptiles don’t
turn into birds by mutation and selection. And for those who hold the
belief that reptiles can be transformed into birds by mutation and
selection, we can thank them for multidrug resistant microbes,

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:04:43 AM4/20/12

to

On Apr 19, 6:16 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 8:05 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
> > discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> > which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> > selection phenomenon.
>
> Nope. He's actually presented the basic science and math; you just
> shove your head further up your own arse and scream your mantras
> louder.

Prof Weird, you’ve been replaced by Prof Weirder. Only this Prof
Weirder appears to be learning how to apply probability theory to the
mutation and selection phenomenon. I’m sure you will find him much
weirder as well.

[Snip the rest of the mathematically incompetent Prof Weird’s post and
this evolutionist mathematical incompetence has given us multidrug

resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide

resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:02:37 AM4/20/12

to

What should not be said in science class is evolutionist folklore that
birds came from reptiles by mutation and selection. The failure of
evolutionism to properly describe the basic science and mathematics of
the mutation and selection phenomenon has cause multidrug resistant

microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant

insects and less than durable cancer treatments. That’s what happens
when you teach evolutionist folklore in science class.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:03:37 AM4/20/12

to

On Apr 19, 6:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> > John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
> > discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> > which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> > selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
> > science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
> > science class about where birds came from.
> >> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
> >> happen. How did birds arise?"
>
> You didn't answer the poor kid's question. Are you just going to keep
> him hanging?

Evolutionists would rather give the poor kid a wrong answer that birds
came from reptiles by mutation and selection which leads to multidrug

resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide

resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. Better to
leave the poor kid hanging.

>
> >>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
> >>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
> >>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
> >> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >> what?
> > John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> > mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> > birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> > many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> > folklore.
>
> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?

Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
your new folklore.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:05:30 AM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 5:23 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e71d8eb5-03bf-4358-b7b9-7a9aac25f...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

> David Murdock <murd...@tntech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:05 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> > > John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
>
> > > >Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> > > >what?
>
> > > John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> > > mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> > > birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> > > many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> > > folklore.
>
> > > What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
> > > selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,
> > > multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and
> > > less than durable cancer treatments.
>
> > Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If
> > so, what?
>
> > ---DPM
>
> Enough information to give creationists the bird.

Walter, you evolutionists are always giving us something, if it isn’t
the bird, it is multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant

weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer

treatments. I thank you evolutionists for giving me a lucrative
medical practice treating multidrug resistant infections.

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:15:53 AM4/20/12

to

Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
>>> discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
>>> which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
>>> selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
>>> science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
>>> science class about where birds came from.
>>>> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
>>>> happen. How did birds arise?"
>> You didn't answer the poor kid's question. Are you just going to keep
>> him hanging?
>
> Evolutionists would rather give the poor kid a wrong answer that birds
> came from reptiles by mutation and selection which leads to multidrug
> resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide
> resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. Better to
> leave the poor kid hanging.

So you are saying that it's appropriate just to ignore the question.
Your preferred option is ignorance. Right?

>>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
>>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>>>> what?
>>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
>>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
>>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
>>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
>>> folklore.
>> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
>> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
>
> Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
> and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
> your new folklore.

No, I want to hear yours.

Richard Norman

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 11:46:28 AM4/20/12

to

The basic question I referred to is whether the conditional
probability of A given B requires B to precede A in time. The notion
of conditional probability has no time dependence. The good doctor
now insists that all of probability theory is contained in his
particular special case where both A and B vary with time. Apparently
he is not familiar with stochastic processes which accurately describe
such situations and which population geneticists have used to describe
evolutionary processes for almost a century now.

David Murdock

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:11:28 PM4/20/12

to

---DPM

Prof Weird

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:27:08 PM4/20/12

to

Translation : "I can't show that Prof Weird is wrong, so I'll posture
arrogantly, vomit up some insults, and scream my mantra some more !!"

Again, twit : if it takes 300 generations to fix a single mutation,
and it takes 9 mutations to convert a reptile into a bird, and
assuming 2 years/generation,
it would only take 5400 years to accumulate the needed 9 mutations
sequentially. That is NOTHING on a geological time scale.

And fixation can occur faster in a non-deteriorating environment (ie,
one where there is not a massive die off of all non-mutants.)

Again, buffoon : no sane or rational person thinks evolution happened
by exposing a population to multiple different lethal conditions (as
your 'model' requires).
It is that sort of ignorant gibberf*ckery that Dr Schneider showed was
stupid - your 'model' is merely a thinly disguised 'since the odds of
these X specific
mutations arising in the same individual all at once is u^X, and this
is a very small number, evolution must be false, and so I must be
right !!"

You seem to have this silly idea that evolution requires lethal
selection - it doesn't. I suspect you psychotically latched onto that
idea because it is the easiest to illustrate and understand.

Too bad for you that, IN REALITY, biology is a wee bit more
complicated than your silly mathurbations.

Here's a question for you :

You have a ball pit with 1000 balls - 250 red, 250 blue, 250 green,
250 yellow.

You pick a ball at random and duplicate it (grab another ball of the
selected color from another pool), And, to keep the 'population' the
same size, you pick another ball at random to remove.

If you repeat this procedure long enough, would you see :

1. The ratios of the colors should remain pretty much the same
forever.
2. Eventually, all the balls will be the same color.
3. "I AM A MATH GOD !! YOU ** DARE ** QUESTION ME ABOUT
ANYTHING ?!?!"
4. "YOU DID NOT INVOKE THE SACRED MULTIPLICATION RULE; THEREFORE, ME
AM A MATH GOD !!!!!!!!"
5. "I AM FAR TOO POMPOUS AND ARROGANT TO WASTE MY TIME ANSWERING
QUESTIONS !!!"

The reality-based folk know that the correct answer is #2 -
eventually, all balls will be the same color.

If the winning color is red, it was not because there was selection
FOR red, nor selection AGAINST all others. It was just luck. And a
parallel of neutral drift.

A process you flatulently assert cannot happen.

You've managed to go for over 4000 posts without presenting a single
POSITIVE statement of your alternative model. Or even present an
alternative to evolution.

Again, you onerous monotonist : If evolution is the wrong answer, what
is the right answer ? Since you're prancing around pretending to be
some sort of enlightened supergenius,
ANSWERING the question should be easy.

Even for someone of your feigned 'intellect'.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:41:15 PM4/20/12

to

Yes, there is a place for discussion about bird origins in a science
class. You can discuss what is physically possible with known
phenomenon such as mutation and selection, random recombination and
random mating. If students understand the basic science and
mathematics of these phenomenons, it is readily apparent that reptiles
can not be transformed into birds by any of these physical processes.
Instead, evolutionist folklore teaches reptiles turn into birds by
mutation and selection without giving students any foundation in the
basic science and mathematics of this phenomenon which is claimed to
do this transformation. The consequence of this failed pseudo-
scientific teaching is that we have multidrug resistant microbes,

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

If you want to teach science to a student, you don’t start by
indoctrinating them with a mathematically irrational claim and tell
them it’s the truth.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:57:21 PM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 9:27 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:04 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:

[snip, you do live up to your nom de plume]

> And fixation can occur faster in a non-deteriorating environment (ie,
> one where there is not a massive die off of all non-mutants.)

So when reptiles turned into birds by cold stress, it was a non-
deteriorating environment.

[snip the rest of this nom de plume’s mathematically irrational
weirdness]

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 1:58:05 PM4/20/12

to

It has as much a place in a bio class as the origin of any other
vertebrate. Maybe even more than some, given the fascination so many
students have with dinosaurs.

Chris

Prof Weird

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 2:15:50 PM4/20/12

to

Your expected evasions are thus noted.

'Cold stress' does NOT mean 'have the mutation or DIE !!!1!!!1!!!!' as
you pathologically need to believe.

If an environmental stressor reduces everyone's fitness to 95% what it
was before, but a mutation grants one critter a 98% fitness, then that
one critter has an ADVANTAGE over the rest of the population.

And the rest of the population will not suddenly die off just because
1 individual has a mutation.

For a well-adapted population, any beneficial mutation would have to
grant an advantage over the rest of the population - BUT THE REST OF
THE POPULATION WILL NOT DIE OFF the
moment a single mutant arises (as your 'model' requires'). In this
extremely common situation, there is no novel stressor. All organisms
are competing against others of their own species, who are just as
well adapted.

So any advantage would be from 'fit to slightly more fit', not 'dying
to not dying'.

Again, twit : if it takes 300 generations to fix a single mutation,

and it takes 9 mutations to convert a reptile to a bird, it would take
9 x 300 generations, or 2700 generations.

At 2 years/generation, it would only take 5400 years to accumulate all
the needed mutations.

Given the time observed was on the order of MILLIONS of years, your
bellicose 'IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG !!1!!' rings as hollow as your
skull.

Which might explain why you keep vomiting up your numerology about
needing 9 different targetted lethal selection conditions pretty much
all at once. A model no sane or rational person uses.

So - if evolution is the wrong answer, what is the right one ? SURELY
someone of your feigned intellect should be able to answer so simple a
question. Or at least give a hint.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:10:15 PM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 8:15 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 6:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> >>> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this
> >>> discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> >>> which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> >>> selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
> >>> science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
> >>> science class about where birds came from.
> >>>> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
> >>>> happen. How did birds arise?"
> >> You didn't answer the poor kid's question. Are you just going to keep
> >> him hanging?
>
> > Evolutionists would rather give the poor kid a wrong answer that birds
> > came from reptiles by mutation and selection which leads to multidrug
> > resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide
> > resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. Better to
> > leave the poor kid hanging.
>
> So you are saying that it's appropriate just to ignore the question.
> Your preferred option is ignorance. Right?

No, John, I’m saying that it is more appropriate to not give the wrong
answer and claim that this wrong answer is mathematically and
scientifically true. It is this type of scientific blunder which gives
rise to multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,

multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer
treatments.

>
>
>
>
>

> >>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
> >>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
> >>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
> >>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >>>> what?
> >>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> >>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> >>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> >>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> >>> folklore.
> >> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
> >> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
>
> > Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
> > and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
> > your new folklore.
>
> No, I want to hear yours.

I know you want to hear this but you don’t want to hear the basic

science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon.

Until you understand the basic science and mathematics of the mutation
and selection phenomenon, you are not capable of giving a valid
scientific opinion where birds came from.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 2:44:03 PM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 10:58 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When evolutionists attribute the origin of birds from reptiles by
mutation and selection, it distracts the student from the real basic
science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon.
Lot’s of students have fascination with science fiction but that
doesn’t mean that evolutionist science fiction should be taught as
fact in science courses. Evolutionist science fiction is
mathematically irrational. And we have multidrug resistant microbes,

multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and

less than durable cancer treatments to show for this evolutionist
mathematical irrationality.

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 2:49:51 PM4/20/12

to

But what's the right answer? That's what I'm trying to get you to tell
me, and you won't.

>>>>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>>>>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
>>>>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>>>>>> what?
>>>>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
>>>>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
>>>>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
>>>>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
>>>>> folklore.
>>>> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
>>>> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
>>> Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
>>> and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
>>> your new folklore.
>> No, I want to hear yours.
>

> you are not capable of giving a valid
> scientific opinion where birds came from.

But I'm not trying to give my opinion. I'm trying to find out your
opinion. Was that not clear?

[by the way, from now on I'm just going to snip your canned rant
whenever I see it, to save space]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 2:45:06 PM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 11:15 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:57 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:27 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 11:04 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip, you do live up to your nom de plume]
>
> > > And fixation can occur faster in a non-deteriorating environment (ie,
> > > one where there is not a massive die off of all non-mutants.)
>
> > So when reptiles turned into birds by cold stress, it was a non-
> > deteriorating environment.
>
> > [snip the rest of this nom de plume’s mathematically irrational
> > weirdness]
>
> Your expected evasions are thus noted.
>
> 'Cold stress' does NOT mean 'have the mutation or DIE !!!1!!!1!!!!' as
> you pathologically need to believe.

I see, when reptiles get cold, they breed faster, grow feathers and
wings and fly off happily into the sunset. What a nice evolutionist
fairytale you write.

[snip the rest of Prof Weird’s mathematically irrational beliefs]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 12:11:51 PM4/20/12

to

I guess that ardent evolutionist Thomas Schneider at the National
Cancer Institute never studied any of those genetics texts which use
the mathematics of “stochastic processes which accurately describe
such situations” because he believes that the multiplication rule does
not apply to biological evolution.

Now the empirical evidence is clear that mutations must occur in a
sequence which gives improving fitness each step, otherwise
amplification of that beneficial mutation will not occur and the
probability the next beneficial mutation in that temporal sequence
will be too low to reasonably occur at the proper site stifling the
evolutionary process. Of course you can try to argue that
recombination can do the job but I suspect you now have some idea of
that mathematics as well. Did you learn that mathematics from a
century old genetics text?

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 3:41:06 PM4/20/12

to

If I was an evolutionist, I would speculate on what was the right
answer and tell every naïve school child that it was scientific fact.
What we know for sure is that reptiles turning into birds by mutation
and selection is a mathematically irrational belief. And in the
meantime, you have failed to teach these naïve school children the

basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection
phenomenon.

>
>
>
>
>

> >>>>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
> >>>>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
> >>>>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
> >>>>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >>>>>> what?
> >>>>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> >>>>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> >>>>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> >>>>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> >>>>> folklore.
> >>>> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
> >>>> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
> >>> Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
> >>> and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
> >>> your new folklore.
> >> No, I want to hear yours.
>
> > you are not capable of giving a valid
> > scientific opinion where birds came from.
>
> But I'm not trying to give my opinion. I'm trying to find out your
> opinion. Was that not clear?

There’s no need for my opinion on this issue. We are discussing the

basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection

phenomenon. A phenomenon which you don’t understand despite the fact
you have a PhD in evolutionary biology.

>
> [by the way, from now on I'm just going to snip your canned rant
> whenever I see it, to save space]

Now isn’t that a kind thing for you to do for Google. Who knows how
many terabytes of space are wasted by the fact that the evolutionist
failure to properly describe the mutation and selection phenomenon has
caused multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,

multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer

treatments. Perhaps someday we can save some space in science courses
by removing evolutionist folklore which you euphemistically call
opinion.

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 5:01:15 PM4/20/12

to

Since you aren't an evolutionist, what would you actually do?

>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>>>>>>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
>>>>>>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
>>>>>>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
>>>>>>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
>>>>>>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>> folklore.
>>>>>> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
>>>>>> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
>>>>> Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
>>>>> and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
>>>>> your new folklore.
>>>> No, I want to hear yours.
>>> you are not capable of giving a valid
>>> scientific opinion where birds came from.
>> But I'm not trying to give my opinion. I'm trying to find out your
>> opinion. Was that not clear?
>
> There’s no need for my opinion on this issue.

There may or may not be a need, but apparently there's no possibility.
You are determined not to answer.

Prof Weird

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 4:37:58 PM4/20/12

to

On Apr 20, 2:45 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:15 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:57 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 9:27 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 11:04 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip, you do live up to your nom de plume]
>
> > > > And fixation can occur faster in a non-deteriorating environment (ie,
> > > > one where there is not a massive die off of all non-mutants.)
>
> > > So when reptiles turned into birds by cold stress, it was a non-
> > > deteriorating environment.
>
> > > [snip the rest of this nom de plume’s mathematically irrational
> > > weirdness]
>
> > Your expected evasions are thus noted.
>
> > 'Cold stress' does NOT mean 'have the mutation or DIE !!!1!!!1!!!!' as
> > you pathologically need to believe.
>

Krackpot Kleinman evades by willful misrepresentation :

> I see, when reptiles get cold, they breed faster, grow feathers and
> wings and fly off happily into the sunset. What a nice evolutionist
> fairytale you write.

I'm not the one that wrote that, you gibbering cockalorum.

You'd have to have your head stuck 3.26 feet up your own rectum to
even suggest that was close to what I said.

IF the cold reduced everyone's fitness to 95% of what it was before,
but a few individuals are reduced to only 98%, those individuals have
an ADVANTAGE.

Sane and rational people would expect that mutation to eventually
become the most common allele. It could become fixed in the
population after hundreds of generations.

WITHOUT THE MASSIVE DIE-OFF YOUR FEEBLE-BLADDERED 'MODEL' REQUIRES.

If a mutation enabled them to better digest a common food (giving them
a 2% advantage), sane and rational folk would know that mutation has a
chance of becoming fixed.

WITHOUT A MASSIVE DIE-OFF OF ANY SORT, since the rest of the
population is under no stress it wasn't under before.

Then another mutation can begin the route to fixation.

> [snip the rest of Prof Weird’s mathematically irrational beliefs]

THE MATH YOU KEEP CLIPPING OUT IS THE MATH USING * YOUR * ASSUMPTIONS,
F*CKWIT !

* YOU * were the one bellowing that it takes 'hundreds of generations
to fix even one mutation !!!"

* YOU * were the one that 'contacted' Edward Max to find out how many
mutations would be needed to turn a reptile's scale into feathers
( you claim the number is 8 or 9 mutations).

So I did the cruelest thing anyone could do to a posturing blowhard -
I TOOK YOU AT YOUR WORD !

So : ( 300 generations/fixed mutation) x (9 fixed mutations) = 2700
generations.

(2700 generations) x (2 years/generation) = 5400 years. By using *
YOUR * math and * YOUR * numbers, converting a reptile's scale to a
bird's feather would take almost no time at all.

So why should anyone think that is 'far too long !!!!', given the FACT
that we have fossils showing the transition took a few tens of
millions of years ?

Again, you weak-kneed, feeble-bladdered fissilingual sophomaniac : if
evolution is the wrong answer, WHAT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER ?

Surely someone of your feigned 'intellect' should be able to answer so
simple a question. In less than 4000+ posts of dodging, whinging,
whining, and posturing ... !

But since you are incapable of understanding even a simple Moran
process, your constant egomaniacal evasions are to be expected !

I'll make it even simpler for you : 100 balls in a pit (50 red, 50
blue).

Pick a ball at random and duplicate it (this is the color of ball
added to the pool). Select another ball at random and remove it,
replacing it with the previously duplicated ball.

What would happen if this procedure is repeated long enough ?

1. The number of red and blue balls will remain about the same
forever.
2. Eventually, all the balls with be red or blue.
3. YOU DARE ASK A QUESTION OF A MATH GOD LIKE ME ?!?!?!

4. YOU DID NOT INVOKE THE SACRED MULTIPLICATION RULE; THEREFORE, ME
AM A MATH GOD !!

The correct answer (since you are incapable of figuring it out on your
own) is #2. Eventually, all the balls in the pit will be red or blue.

It will take quite some time (a few thousand select, duplicate and
replace steps), but you will eventually end up with either 100 red
balls, or 100 blue balls in the pit.

If you end up with 100 red balls, it wasn't because there was
selection FOR red, or AGAINST blue. It was pure luck.

It is thusly demonstrated that the frequency of a neutral trait can
increase WITHOUT SELECTION OR MASSIVE DIE-OFFS. In complete and utter
defiance of your bellicose declarations.

(you may now flare your nostrils, clench your buttocks, and
misrepresent everything I said in your usual insipid attempts to look
important)

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 20, 2012, 6:05:44 PM4/20/12

to

This is a blatant like that you have made up. We all know that you are
an idiot, a liar, and probably psychotic. You don't need to keep
proving it.

>
> [snip the rest of Prof Weird’s mathematically irrational beliefs]

Translation - someone posted real mathematics. I don't understand it
and I am determined not to learn anything, so I'll just throw out
insults.

hersheyh

unread,

Apr 21, 2012, 12:26:47 PM4/21/12

to

If you have any mathematically based evidence that birds did not evolve
from a group of theropod dinosaurs, it would help your argument
for you to actually present that mathematically based evidence.
In the *real* world of evidence, people do mathematically analyze,
by path analysis, a statistical technique, the patterns of relationships
for different organisms. They can do that independently for
anatomical evidence (things like the presence of bones and feathers
which can be selected from fossils), for protein and/or DNA sequence
evidence from currently living organisms.

The probability that birds are anatomically related to "reptiles" and
particularly theropod dinosaurs, is quite good. In fact, it is the
most likely path of relationship. If birds were independently
created there is no valid reason for there to be such a good probability
match. In contrast, the probability that birds are linked with or
most similar to any other group of organisms or to a random
set of organisms is close to zero.

Similarly, the path analysis of sequence data from proteins of
living birds and reptiles shows the strongest correlation of birds
with living crocodilians with slightly less correlation of sequence
data with other reptiles. Again, in contrast, the probability that
birds are linked with or most similar to any other group of
organisms or to random set of organisms or show no linkage to
any other group of organism is close to zero.

If you, then, multiply the independent probabilities for any explanation
except that birds are derived from a reptilian (specifically crocodilian
among living reptiles and theropod dinosaurs among extinct reptiles)
along with the order of the fossils in the geological strata, the probability
of any other relationship, including the idea that birds were independently
created without reference to any other group of organisms, is
mathematically close to zero.

That is, the evidence that birds evolved from a reptilian lineage as opposed
to from some other lineage or independently (unrelated to other lineages) is
mathematically quite strong. We have converging mathematical as well
as qualitative evidence demonstrating this. To tell kids anything else would
be lying to them.

David Murdock

unread,

Apr 21, 2012, 3:30:52 PM4/21/12

to

Given that you think something about bird origins have a place in a
science class, what is it?

---DPM

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 21, 2012, 10:40:51 PM4/21/12

to

You're too much of a coward to answer the simplest question. And
you're incompetent to boot.

Chris

hersheyh

unread,

Apr 22, 2012, 4:23:10 PM4/22/12

to

Given that we are now starting a new part, it is worthwhile to repeat the actual mathematics that Kleinman claims to be responding to.

The following is my analysis of the probability mathematics that Kleinman has so utterly botched. He is, of course, quite free to critique the following analysis. First, I will start with the definition of terms both in the language of probability (‘event’, ‘trial’, ‘probability of the event’, ‘binomial mass probability’) and the language of biology (‘examined population’, ‘mutant state’, ‘not-mutant-state’, ‘population frequency’).

Mutation – a change in genetic or inherent state from an original state to a new and different state.

n -- is the population size of ‘trials’ being examined for the binomial event; in mutation analysis the examined population size is a stand-in for the number of individual generations of time being examined for the binomial event. If one examines subpopulations over several generations, one is still really only interested in the total number of individuals examined. If N is the mean number of individuals examined per generation and g is the number of generations examined, then the total number of individuals/trials examined, n, is N*g. But in most cases discussed here only one generation is examined for the presence of the event/mutation-of-interest.

p – is the probability or frequency of the relevant binomial event in a population. That is, it is the frequency of the binomial event per trial regardless of whether the mutant is new or old. In mutation analysis, the binomial distinction of interest is always mutation(s)-of-interest or not-mutation(s)-of-interest.

If one is interested in mutations that can be selected for or against, one is interested in “functional mutation”; that is one is interested in a mutation that has a distinctive detectable (by the environment as well as by the observer) phenotypic effect. A phenotypic difference alone is not an indicator that there is going to be selection, so phenotypic difference that is relevant is that observed in some specified environment. Such mutations typically are described by their functional qualities, which also indicate the environments in which they are selectable. For example, penicillin-resistant, able-to-use-citrate, lac+. Any trait that has a significant beneficial effect or a detrimental effect relative to the alternatives in a specified environment is a change using the “functional” definition of mutation.

Typically, one uses the selective conditions to identify such mutants regardless of whether they are due to mutations at a single nt site, due to a specific base change, or even due to change in a specified gene (although one often subsequently categorizes them by the affected gene and type of mutation).

If one is uninterested in selection for phenotype and wants to look instead at “structural mutation”, then one chooses a binomial state on that basis. Either the ‘not-mutant state’ is the original gene sequence and the ‘mutant state’ includes all variants from that state or only one of those sequence changes is considered the ‘mutant state’ and any sequence other than that one is the ‘not-mutant’ state.

If one is interested in the binomial discrimination of ‘new-double-mutants’ and ‘not-new-double-mutants’, then p is the product of the individual probabilities of the individual mutant states. As there are a number of alternative ways of generating new-double-mutants, one must consider all the various mutually exclusive ways of generating new double-mutant states by adding them together to get the net probability of new-double-mutants.

m – the rate or frequency of “new” mutation to the defined binomial ‘mutant state’ from the ‘not-mutant state’ in a population, measured as the frequency of (new events or mutants) per (trial or individual examined) in a population.

The difference between p and m is that m is the lowest frequency of the mutant state and only occurs in a population that initially lacks the mutant state, either because the mutant state is selected against or the population started out with no individuals with the mutant state. p can, in theory, be any value between m and 1 and can change between these two both/either by virtue of selection for the mutant state or by neutral drift of one of the states toward fixation by chance alone.
Unlike the dear Dr. Dr., I will make a clear distinction between the probability of an ‘event’ per trial, p, and the probability of having at least one (one or more) ‘events’ in a population of n trials (the binomial mass probability), which I will call P to distinguish it from the probability of the ‘event’.
The argument that the dear Dr. Dr. makes, and the equation he tries to ‘derive’, although badly, although he appears to be ignorant of the fact, is not a solution of the binomial probability of an event per trial (the probability of new mutation, aka the mutation rate). It is, instead, an attempt to solve the binomial mass probability equation for one or more of new double-mutants in a population of size n.
The best analogy, with one major caveat, to what the dear Dr. Dr. is actually trying to solve is the binomial mass probability of rolling two dice (red and blue) at one time and determining the probability of rolling a sum of 4. The major caveat is that for rolling dice, each trial or roll produces results that are independent of any previous roll of the die. That is not the case for mutation. The probability of any observed individual having a mutation is NOT independent of what its parent had; it is, in fact, highly dependent on what its parent had. If the parent was not-mutant at a particular locus, the probability of its progeny having a mutant state is quite low. OTOH, if the parent was mutant at that locus, the probability of its progeny having the mutant state would be quite high.
If the mass probability for one or more dice rolls that produce a sum of 4 were to be correctly analyzed, one needs to determine the number of different mutually exclusive ways one can generate that sum with two dice and determine the probability per trial (roll) of generating that particular result, that is, p. Then use those values to determine the total probability of rolling a 4 with two dice. For a sum of 4, there are 3 different ways to generate that sum:
1) Roll a 1 on the red die (r1) and a 3 on the blue (b3)
2) Roll a 3 on the red die (r3) and a 1 on the blue (b1)
3) Roll a 2 on the red die (r2) and a 2 on the blue (b2)
In each case, we consider the ‘event’ to be the stated type of face (e.g., r1 or r2) and all other possibilities to be the ‘not-event’, making this analyzable as a binomial analysis.
The mass probability for generating a 4 by mechanism 1) is 1-[1-(pr1*pb3)]^n, where pr1 and pb3 are the respective probability per trial of rolling a r1 and b3 and n is the number of trials (a trial is a single roll of both dice). pr1*pb3 = the joint probability of rolling both a r1 and b3. This is where the joint probability of events is determined and used in the analysis. Obviously with dice, pr1 = pb3 = 1/6. Thus the probability of the double-event, pr1 and pb3, is 1/36, the product of the two individual probabilities.
Similarly, the mass probability of rolling two dice and getting r3 and b1 is also 1/36 as is the probability of rolling two dice and getting r2 and b2. Thus the binomial mass probability of rolling two dice and getting a sum of 4 in n rolls of the two dice, P(a+b = 4) is:
1-[1-(pr1*pb3)]^n + 1-[1-(pr3*pb1)]^n + 1-[1-(pr2*pb2)]^n
In this example, of course all three joint probabilities of a double-event producing a 4 are identical. However, that is not the case for an analysis of the different mutually exclusive ways of generating a new double-mutant. There are four different ways to generate a new double-mutant:
1) New mutation to the mutant-of-interest-state (A’ at an A locus which was A in the parent) in a cell whose parent already had a B’ mutation, rather than the B not-mutant.
2) New mutation to the mutant-of-interest-state (B’ at a B locus which was B in the parent) in a cell whose parent already had an A’ mutation, rather than the A not-mutant.
3) Simultaneous mutation to the mutant-of-interest-state (B’ at a B locus and A’ at the A locus) in a cell whose parent was not-mutant at both sites.
4) Recombination between an A’;B parent cell and an A;B’ parent cell producing an A’;B’ progeny from these pre-existing variants.
I am intentionally assuming that the parent generation had no A’:B’ individuals (as does Kleinman). If it did, the selective advantage/disadvantage of the double-mutant state would be more important than new mutation.
The mass probability one or more new double-mutants in a population of trials of size n from mechanism 1) is 1-[1-(pB’*mA)]^n]. pB’ is the frequency of the current generation that has B’ by descent from older mutants in the parent generation. This is the frequency of the allele that is above the level produced each generation by new mutation. It doesn’t matter whether the reason for the higher level is because that allele has been selected for in past generations or has reached this level by chance alone (neutral drift). It also doesn’t matter whether the selection, when there has been selection, occurred in the immediate past generation or several generations past. mA is the frequency of new mutation to A’ from cells that were in the not-mutant A state in the parent generation. pB’*mA is the joint probability of a double-mutant via this mechanism.
Anyone who wants to derive the binomial mass probability for one or more events-of-interest in n trials can do so by going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
and solving the first equation there for k = 0 (the mass probability that one will not see any events in a population of size n) and subtracting that result from 1.
Similarly, the mass probability of one or more new double-mutants in a population of trials of size n from mechanism 2) is 1-[1-(mB*pA’)]^n].
The mass probability for one or more new double-mutants in a population of size n from mechanism 3) is 1-[1-(mB*mA)]^n].
The probability of generating a double-mutant by recombination, mechanism 4), depends on the frequency of recombination as well as the frequency of the two single-mutants in the parent population. So it will be some frequency of recombination, fr, times the probabilities or frequencies, pA’ and pB’, of the two single mutant alleles in the parent population. Thus fr*pA’*pB’. The exact value of fr depends on the mechanism of recombination.
The sum of these possible mechanisms represents all the mutually exclusive ways one can get new double-mutants. The only other qualification in these equations is that pA’ + pB’ must be less than or equal to 1. This is just a mathematical way of saying that we have assumed that the population has no double-mutants in the parent population. Again, if the parent population has double-mutants, selection will play a more important role than new mutation to double-mutants.
Final equation: Prob of new double-mutant, P(A’B’) in n trials =
1-[1-(pB’*mA)]^n] + 1-[1-(mB*pA’)]^n] + 1-[1-(mB*mA)]^n] + fr*pA’*pB’

assuming that pA’ + pB’ < 1.

NOTE: Not all of these terms will be significant in every real case. If there is little or no recombination, that term may drop out or be insignificant. That is often the case in experimental bacterial and some viral analyses. If pA’ is close to mA, then terms with pA’ (which is the observed probability of A minus new mutation) will drop out. Similarly, so will terms with pB’ when that is close to mB.

In a subsequent post I will go through the errors I remember in Kleinman’s analysis (there may be some that I miss because he has been inconsistent in his errors and what he claims his equation represents).

Kleinman apparently no longer responds to my mathematical analyses or to any of my posts. That is certainly because he can’t without making it obvious that he is an ignoramus. He must think it is better to bluster and repeat nonsense mantras that are lies. That doesn’t mean I will not continue to post my analysis of what Kleinman claims he “derived” nor, as will be presented shortly, will I stop pointing out all the flaws in his ‘equations’ and his faulty understanding of even his own equations.

Hemidactylus

unread,

Apr 22, 2012, 4:35:22 PM4/22/12

to

On 04/19/2012 08:05 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> John Harshman, PhD evolutionary biologist is continuing this

> discussion by trying to avoid the mathematics and empirical evidence
> which gives the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> selection phenomenon. Rather than trying to understand this basic
> science and mathematics, he wants to know what to say to children in a
> science class about where birds came from.
>> What if the kid said "I didn't ask what didn't happen; I asked what did
>> happen. How did birds arise?"

>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.

>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
>> what?
> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> folklore.
>
> What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
> selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,
> multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and
> less than durable cancer treatments.

Ummm, we have a math guru (Nyikos) and bio guru ("howard hershey") who
have found themselves on the same side against you. That fact is
significant in ways you could never know (you have squared a circle),
but it shows how wrong you must be that you have succeeded in making two
opposing forces less oppositional.

You are lucky you are not being lambasted by the absent old school,
because Myers, Moran, and Hines are folks who you would not want to mess
with and who Nyikos would probably hold his nose and agree with in your
special case. I think that could actually happen.

Have you been heckled by the best? You have not gotten the proper
Statler and Waldorf treatment. Consider yourself lucky. And that Fozzie
Bear himself would possibly join in on your torment by the infamous t.o.
balcony goons is telling in itself.

--
*Hemidactylus*

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 22, 2012, 4:46:21 PM4/22/12

to

On Apr 22, 4:23 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip excellent summary of the right way to do things, and why Dr. Dr.
Poltroon is wrong on so many counts...

>
> Kleinman apparently no longer responds to my mathematical analyses or to any of my posts. That is certainly because he can’t >without making it obvious that he is an ignoramus. He must think it is better to bluster and repeat nonsense mantras that are lies. > That doesn’t mean I will not continue to post my analysis of what Kleinman claims he “derived” nor, as will be presented shortly, will I >stop pointing out all the flaws in his ‘equations’ and his faulty understanding of even his own equations.

(Sorry if the > thingies are out of whack; Gurgle Gropes is acting out
again...the above was written by Howard Hershey)

As an addendum, I would point out that Dr. Dr. Poltroon has apparently
never really learned about how natural selection operates. He seems to
think that all selective pressures are lethal. He's obviously never
done any kind of lab work (let along field work!) where selection was
operating.

In fact, I don't think I recall Dr. Dr. Poltroon ever mentioning the
concept (let alone the computation of) relative fitness, despite the
fact it should be a computation even he could grasp.

OK, weighted fitness is beyond him, but relative fitness- any third
grader could understand it.

Chris

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 9:45:00 AM4/23/12

to

If I were teaching a course on the basic science and mathematics of
the mutation and selection phenomenon, random recombination, random
mating or any other form of genetic transformation, I would give the
mathematical facts and empirical evidence of what these phenomenon can
do. That would not include the evolutionist folklore that reptiles
turn into birds by any of these phenomenon. Each of these phenomenons
is dominated by the multiplication rule of probabilities which
preclude them from any reasonable probability of doing such a
speculative transformation even with the assistance of selection. Even
if one had the time to attempt a breeding program to transform a
population of reptiles into birds, the breeder would still have to
deal with the multiplication rule when attempting to do such a
transformation. There is no mathematically rational approach to doing
huge genetic transformations with the known physical phenomenon
available. Evolutionism has stifled this mathematical fact of life and
the correct understanding of these fundamental physical phenomenons.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> On the other hand, you evolutionists would claim
> >>>>>>>>> that birds arose from reptiles. That kind of pseudo-scientific
> >>>>>>>>> religious folklore has no place in a science class.
> >>>>>>>> Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> >>>>>>>> what?
> >>>>>>> John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> >>>>>>> mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> >>>>>>> birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> >>>>>>> many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> >>>>>>> folklore.
> >>>>>> Not the question. Nobody asked how birds didn't arise. The question is
> >>>>>> how birds did arise. Do you have nothing at all to say about that?
> >>>>> Well John, we know that they didn’t arise from reptiles by mutation
> >>>>> and selection, that’s a mathematical and empirical fact. So let’s hear
> >>>>> your new folklore.
> >>>> No, I want to hear yours.
> >>> you are not capable of giving a valid
> >>> scientific opinion where birds came from.
> >> But I'm not trying to give my opinion. I'm trying to find out your
> >> opinion. Was that not clear?
>
> > There’s no need for my opinion on this issue.
>
> There may or may not be a need, but apparently there's no possibility.
> You are determined not to answer.

I’m determined not to get into a speculative discussion with
evolutionists. It’s hard enough to get the mathematical and empirical
facts across to the indoctrinated and biased evolutionist mind without
obscuring the discussion with speculations. It’s time for the field of
biology to become a field of scientific study again instead of a field
of speculative evolutionist folklore. A good starting point is the

basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection

phenomenon. Teach naïve school children how two mutations can
accumulate in a subpopulation by mutation and selection before you try
to indoctrinate them with the notion that reptiles turn into birds by
that process.

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:22:41 AM4/23/12

to

If you think speculation should be central to the teaching of science,
then you evolutionists have been successful. If you want to understand

the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection

phenomenon, starting from the speculation that reptiles can transform
into birds by that phenomenon, you evolutionists have been utter
failures as scientists in teaching that basic science and mathematics.
And what substantiates that claim is that you evolutionists have

caused multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,
multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer

treatments by your failure to properly understand and teach the basic
science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon.

hersheyh

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:25:44 AM4/23/12

to

So when are you going to actually present this "basic science and mathematics
of mutation" (you have never presented the basic science and mathematics
of selection)? What you have presented so far is pseudomath and ignorance.
Moreover you refuse to answer mathematical criticisms of your "genius".

> That would not include the evolutionist folklore that reptiles
> turn into birds by any of these phenomenon.

Like fossil evidence? Sequence evidence? Morphological evidence? All
of which support the branching pattern of evolution that puts modern
birds as evolved from now-extinct birds and closely related feathered
theropod dinosaurs.

> Each of these phenomenons
> is dominated by the multiplication rule of probabilities which
> preclude them from any reasonable probability of doing such a
> speculative transformation even with the assistance of selection.

Again, path analysis tells us that there is a strongly significant
correlation between birds and reptiles that does not exist for other
possible relationship connections nor for complete independence
of the avian lineage. Multiply the probabilities for the three or more independent
ways such a pathway can be calculated and it becomes clear that
evolution of birds from 'reptiles' is almost a certainty, so much more
statistically significant is the branching pattern that has birds arising from
reptiles.

But you seem to be applying your pseudomath to this problem rather than
looking at the actual data that can support (or disprove) the proposed
evolutionary pathway of birds.

You even ignore the *fact* that the ancestor to modern birds were already
covered with feathers (but not flight feathers).

> Even
> if one had the time to attempt a breeding program to transform a
> population of reptiles into birds, the breeder would still have to
> deal with the multiplication rule when attempting to do such a
> transformation.

One would have to deal with the correct analysis rather than your
phony analysis. And birds, unlike bacteria, do undergo recombination
every single generation. Thus one cannot assume that evolution
in reptile-avian lineages must occur by serial mutation.

But, then, you also cannot seem to figure out the rate of neutral
change in genomes, having never presented any math on that at
all nor any criticism of the actual math that has been presented to
you.

> There is no mathematically rational approach to doing
> huge genetic transformations with the known physical phenomenon
> available. Evolutionism has stifled this mathematical fact of life and
> the correct understanding of these fundamental physical phenomenons.
>

With selection we are not interested in "huge genetic transformations."
We are interested in "modifications of pre-existing structures producing
significant detectable phenotypic change." After all, the number of
structural sequence changes that make for the functional and structural
differences between humans and chimps is a very small fraction of the
total 1-2% mutational step differences that are seen. That is, a very
small fraction of the 40 million mutational step differences are
functionally relevant and necessary for the phenotypic differences between
humans and chimp. Probably less than 1-200 loci have changed significantly
by more than one or two nt differences. And the human-chimp phenotypic
differences are *larger* and occurred *faster* than most evolutionary changes.

Yes. It is indeed hard to get mathematical and empirical facts of
population genetics across to creationist dimwits like you. You
are the one spewing speculative nonsense.

> It’s time for the field of
> biology to become a field of scientific study again instead of a field
> of speculative evolutionist folklore. A good starting point is the
> basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection
> phenomenon.

You have presented no mathematics of selection phenomena. Only
the math of new mutation and specifically new double-mutation in
cases where there is new rapidly-introduced population-wide lethal
selection, no single mutation has any benefit, and any resistance
mutation can only occur by mutation at a single nt to one and only one
base.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:29:13 AM4/23/12

to

On Apr 22, 1:46 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 22, 4:23 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snip excellent summary of the right way to do things, and why Dr. Dr.
> Poltroon is wrong on so many counts...

[snip more mathematically irrational evolutionist claims]

So Chris, is the Sesame Street dropout your new mathematical hero?

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:25:56 AM4/23/12

to

Hersheyh is your “bio guru”??? He certainly isn’t a math guru; he is a
Sesame Street dropout. And without the correct mathematical skills and
training, you can’t properly describe the mutation and selection
phenomenon, random recombination or random mating and your “bio guru”
has neither the training nor experience to do this mathematics. Now
Peter Nyikos has mathematical training but not much experience in
probability theory. He’s slowly coming up to speed on this topic
though.

>
> You are lucky you are not being lambasted by the absent old school,
> because Myers, Moran, and Hines are folks who you would not want to mess
> with and who Nyikos would probably hold his nose and agree with in your
> special case. I think that could actually happen.

The case I presented is not a “special” case. This is the mathematics
of any two mutations accumulating in a subpopulation. You will not
find a real, measurable and repeatable example of mutation and
selection which behaves differently. But at least Peter is starting to
understand the implication of this mathematics to the theory of
evolution. Peter still needs to learn that probabilities can and often
are time dependent.

>
> Have you been heckled by the best? You have not gotten the proper
> Statler and Waldorf treatment. Consider yourself lucky. And that Fozzie
> Bear himself would possibly join in on your torment by the infamous t.o.
> balcony goons is telling in itself.

If you think the whining and complaining of a collection of
mathematically incompetent evolutionist bunglers is the way
evolutionists are going to properly do the basic science and
mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon, you are sadly
mistaken. The only thing we have gotten from this evolutionist
cacophony is multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:23:35 AM4/23/12

to

On Apr 21, 7:40 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>

You evolutionists have me shaking in my mathematically incompetent
boots when you try to get me into a speculation debate. Of course you
evolutionists are shaking in your mathematically incompetent dunce
caps especially when you understand that your failure to properly
describe the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
selection phenomenon has caused multidrug resistant microbes,

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:42:47 AM4/23/12

to

hersheyh wrote:

> Again, path analysis tells us that there is a strongly significant
> correlation between birds and reptiles that does not exist for other
> possible relationship connections nor for complete independence
> of the avian lineage. Multiply the probabilities for the three or more independent
> ways such a pathway can be calculated and it becomes clear that
> evolution of birds from 'reptiles' is almost a certainty, so much more
> statistically significant is the branching pattern that has birds arising from
> reptiles.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It may be that path analysis --
which I've never done and don't know that much about -- is in some way
mathematically similar to one or more of the common phylogenetic
algorithms, but that seems unlikely to me. Instead what we have are
optimality criteria, and we test a bunch of trees using those criteria,
picking the one(s) that has (have) the best optimality score(s). The
most common such criterion these days is likelihood: the probability of
the observed data given a tree and a model of evolution.

There are ways to decide if the chosen tree is significantly better than
any other tree, or at least to decide on a confidence set of trees. And
when you do that, you are right that birds turn out to be reptiles with
a very low probability of error.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 11:48:36 AM4/23/12

to

On Apr 23, 8:19 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Unfortunately Steven, your past experience does not include any
significant training in the basic science and mathematics of the
mutation and selection phenomenon. Of course that goes for all
adherents to the belief in evolutionism. That’s why evolutionists have
given us multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:18:02 PM4/23/12

to

In article
<c4be63fe-f728-4960...@po5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:

[snip]
> That零 why evolutionists have

> given us multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,
> multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer
> treatments.

I've not really been following this discussion, but I saw the above
statement and I had to jump in. Could you explain how "evolutionists"
have given us the multidrug resistant bacteria, etc? I'm sorry, but I
don't see a mechanism for this being caused by evolutionists.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:15:51 PM4/23/12

to

I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds
did not come from reptiles by mutation and selection. That
mathematically irrational belief is nothing more than evolutionist
folklore.

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:15:08 PM4/23/12

to

On Apr 23, 8:57 am, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:18 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 1:37 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 2:45 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > [Snip, it seems Prof Weird’s mother failed to sufficiently use soap on
> > this mathematically incompetent evolutionist’s mouth]
>
> > Pg Dn
>
> Translation : "WAAAAAAAHH !!

No Prof Weird, the correct translation is that you mathematically
incompetent evolutionist bunglers have given us multidrug resistant

microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant

insects and less than durable cancer treatments by your failure to

properly understand and describe the basic science and mathematics of
the mutation and selection phenomenon. Prof Weird, if you were a chess
player, you would realize that your mathematically irrational theory
of evolution is forked.

[snip and Pg Dn through the rest of Prof Weird’s mathematically
irrational and foul mouthed evolutionist claims]

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:32:08 PM4/23/12

to

Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

David, you will never get a straight answer to that question by asking
Dr. Dr. Kleinman.

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:33:55 PM4/23/12

to

And I would love to hear your story of how birds arose, but it appears
we will never get there. So I'll forget that question. Let's go with
another: Why do you refuse to tell us your idea of how birds arose?

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:34:42 PM4/23/12

to

He didn't ask where birds didn't come from. He asked where they did come
from. Why won't you tell?

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 1:52:06 PM4/23/12

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 3:34:36 PM4/23/12

David Canzi

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 5:53:51 PM4/23/12

to

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

>For now, we’ll work on
>teaching you the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
>selection phenomenon.

When do you plan to start?

--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 6:15:04 PM4/23/12

to

On Apr 23, 1:39 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:34 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:34 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 11:29 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 1:46 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 4:23 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > snip excellent summary of the right way to do things, and why Dr. Dr.
> > > > > Poltroon is wrong on so many counts...
>
> > > > [snip more mathematically irrational evolutionist claims]
>
> > > > So Chris, is the Sesame Street dropout your new mathematical hero?
>
> > > So, when discussing the mathematics of selection, relative fitness is
> > > irrational, according to you.
>
> > > Riiiiiiight.
>
> > Chris, if relative fitness could overcome the multiplication rule of
> > probabilities, you might have a point. But you don’t have a point.
> > You are wrooooong. And so is your new hero and Sesame Street dropout
> > hersheyh.
>
> Wow. You don't even know what relative fitness is, do you?
>
> This gets better and better.

It certainly isn’t getting any better for your mathematically
irrational theory of evolution. Chris, you are so good at stepping
into it. So you think that relative fitness somehow changes the
probability that the beneficial mutation will occur at a particular
site. How does the fitness of one subpopulation with respects to a
different subpopulation change the probability that a particular

mutation will occur at a particular site?

>

> Tell me, just for kicks, since you're so into the mathematics of
> selection, how one calculates weighted fitness in a simple situation:
> a sexually breeding population, and we're concerned with a single gene
> with two alleles.

Chris, I’ve already done the calculations which show that your theory
of evolution is mathematically irrational. And these calculations show
that it is the multiplication rule of probabilities which makes your
theory of evolution mathematically irrational. And your failure to
understand the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
selection phenomenon has caused multidrug resistant microbes,

multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and

less than durable cancer treatments. If you think it is weighted
fitness which will somehow make the transformation of a reptile
population into a bird population a mathematically rational
probability, it’s up to you to do the calculation. Do you get my drift?

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 6:25:51 PM4/23/12

to

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 6:36:54 PM4/23/12

to

You mean evolutionary biologist (is there any other kind?) and
geneticist Edward Tatum?

> If you want to suppress the
> evolution if drug resistance by cancer cells (or for any other
> mutating and selecting population for that matter), use combination
> selection pressures.

Which is sometimes useful and sometimes not. And has certainly
NOT been ignored by biologists, geneticists, and evolutionary
biologists. In fact Darwin himself talked about the problem of
'no step-wise pathway' to an observed result as one of the
problems that could lead to problems. Fortunately, despite
your brain-dead cat-wailling, most evolution does not involve
the sudden impositition of two lethal changes across an entire
population where neither single change has any selective
advantage.

> What you are doing to these populations is
> imposing the multiplication rule of probabilities (forcing the
> population to win multiple lotteries simultaneously without the
> benefit of amplification).

Except you keep pretending that all evolutionary changes must
be simultaneous, when nearly all are not.

> For specific examples that would apply to
> cancer treatments; consider breast cancers and prostate cancers which
> are sensitive to estrogen blocking agents and testosterone blocking
> agents respectively.

Each involving an artificial change in the environment by humans with
the express purpose of killing the cells.

> These treatments work well for several years
> until the cancer cell lines lose there sensitivity to these agents. To
> make these treatments more durable, use a second agent that targets a
> different gene which will interfere with the amplification of any
> mutation beneficial for one or the other agent.

As long as doing so actually has more of a benefit than deficit. In many
cases, this is done when and where the second agent does not work in
a similar way and is not overly toxic.

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 4:42:26 PM4/23/12

to

Save space where? On Google? Usenet? This thread?

OK, I will start it right now.

Chris

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 9:07:06 PM4/23/12

to

First you lie about having answered John's question, and now you lie
by putting words in my mouth.

You really have no shame, do you? Consider that your words in this
forum actually are available for anyone in the world with internet
access to read, and that they are archived forever.

You have generated for yourself a legacy of shameful behavior and
lies.

Chris

Alan Kleinman MD PhD

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 9:50:31 PM4/23/12

to

On Apr 23, 6:07 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>

John wants to change the discussion to one of religion (which is
appropriate for evolutionists because evolutionism is a faith based
system of belief however it is a mathematically irrational faith based
system) and I am interested in the basic science and mathematics of
the mutation and selection phenomenon. This is not a subject of
interest to evolutionists as multidrug resistant microbes,

multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and

less than durable cancer treatments testifies to. John, you or anyone
else can start a thread on that subject and those interested can
discuss this evolutionist religious topic.

Now with respects to weighted fitness, so now you don’t think that
weighted fitness can transform reptiles into birds? So exactly what
genetic transformation mechanism transformed reptiles into birds? And
would you substantiate your mathematically irrational claims with
mathematical and empirical evidence of how the mechanism works.

>
> You really have no shame, do you? Consider that your words in this
> forum actually are available for anyone in the world with internet
> access to read, and that they are archived forever.

You think this will last longer than the pyramids?

>
> You have generated for yourself a legacy of shameful behavior and
> lies.

Chris, don’t you feel any shame for your contribution to multidrug

resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide

resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. You’ve done
this by failing to understand the basic science and mathematics of the
mutation and selection phenomenon. You would rather speculate about
reptiles turning into birds without understanding how a subpopulation
can accumulate two mutations. Your mathematical and scientific failure
is not only shameful; it is harmful to millions of people.

chris thompson

unread,

> > > > > > > > > >Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If so,
> > > > > > > > > >what?
>
> > > > > > > > > John, the mathematical and empirical evidence of the basic science and
> > > > > > > > > mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon clearly say that
> > > > > > > > > birds did not arise from reptiles by mutation and selection and for
> > > > > > > > > many decades, evolutionists have promulgated this pseudo-scientific
> > > > > > > > > folklore.
>
> > > > > > > > > What this evolutionist confused speculation about how mutation and
> > > > > > > > > selection works has caused multidrug resistant microbes,

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

> > > > > > > > Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If
> > > > > > > > so, what?
>
> > > > > > > What should not be said in science class is evolutionist folklore that
> > > > > > > birds came from reptiles by mutation and selection. The failure of
> > > > > > > evolutionism to properly describe the basic science and mathematics of
> > > > > > > the mutation and selection phenomenon has cause multidrug resistant

> > > > > > > microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant

> > > > > > > insects and less than durable cancer treatments. That’s what happens
> > > > > > > when you teach evolutionist folklore in science class.
>
> > > > > > Does anything about bird origins have a place in a science class? If
> > > > > > so, what?
>
> > > > > Yes, there is a place for discussion about bird origins in a science
> > > > > class. You can discuss what is physically possible with known
> > > > > phenomenon such as mutation and selection, random recombination and
> > > > > random mating. If students understand the basic science and
> > > > > mathematics of these phenomenons, it is readily apparent that reptiles
> > > > > can not be transformed into birds by any of these physical processes.
> > > > > Instead, evolutionist folklore teaches reptiles turn into birds by
> > > > > mutation and selection without giving students any foundation in the
> > > > > basic science and mathematics of this phenomenon which is claimed to
> > > > > do this transformation. The consequence of this failed pseudo-
> > > > > scientific teaching is that we have multidrug resistant microbes,

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

> > > > > If you want to teach science to a student, you don’t start by
> > > > > indoctrinating them with a mathematically irrational claim and tell
> > > > > them it’s the truth.
>
> > > > Given that you think something about bird origins have a place in a
> > > > science class, what is it?
>
> > > If you think speculation should be central to the teaching of science,
> > > then you evolutionists have been successful. If you want to understand

> > > the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection

> > > phenomenon, starting from the speculation that reptiles can transform
> > > into birds by that phenomenon, you evolutionists have been utter
> > > failures as scientists in teaching that basic science and mathematics.
> > > And what substantiates that claim is that you evolutionists have
> > > caused multidrug resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds,

> > > multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer

> > > treatments by your failure to properly understand and teach the basic

> > > science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon.
>

> > Given that you think something about bird origins has a place in a
> > science class, what is it?
>
> David, you will never get the right answer to that question by
> misunderstanding the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and
> selection phenomenon, or the mathematics of random recombination and
> random mating as well.

Earlier, you indicated that something about bird origins would have a
proper place in a science class. What did you have in mind?

---DPM