Annoying creationists

[joobz]

Folks, we are back at our horserace to find out who will be the last evolutionist who understands the mathematics of mutation and selection. And we find that Adebz has surged ahead by a tale.

Hey, so where's your analysis of Dr. Adaquate's simulations? Or do you generally just ignore all evidence that clearly shows how rediculous you are?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Folks, we are back at our horserace to find out who will be the last evolutionist who understands the mathematics of mutation and selection. And we find that Adebz has surged ahead by a tale.

If you can't think of any new lies, I don't see why I should bother with a new smackdown.

Rather than speculate on who will be the last person to be fooled by the stupid innumerate gibberish of lies which you have the mendacity to call "the mathematics of mutation and selection", you should instead turn your attention to the question of whether anyone will ever thus be deceived.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, so where's your analysis of Dr. Adaquate's simulations? Or do you generally just ignore all evidence that clearly shows how rediculous you are?

Well, to be fair, he did scream a lot of hysterical halfwitted nonsense about it, which is as near as kleinman comes to noticing that his fantasy world is under threat.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Folks, we are back at our horserace to find out who will be the last evolutionist who understands the mathematics of mutation and selection. And we find that Adebz has surged ahead by a tale.

Hey, so where's your analysis of Dr. Adaquate's simulations? Or do you generally just ignore all evidence that clearly shows how rediculous you are?

And here comes joobz riding on Adebz’s example of gif and awe. Folks, this is a thrilling horserace, who is going to win it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

And here comes joobz riding on Adebz’s example of gif and awe. Folks, this is a thrilling horserace, who is going to win it?

So, more magic words and gibberish --- but no math.

 

[kleinman]

Hey, so where's your analysis of Dr. Adaquate's simulations? Or do you generally just ignore all evidence that clearly shows how rediculous you are?

Well, to be fair, he did scream a lot of hysterical halfwitted nonsense about it, which is as near as kleinman comes to noticing that his fantasy world is under threat.

And here comes Adebz back into the lead and he is riding his horse backwards! He does leave us hysterical, hysterically laughing.

 

[joobz]

And here comes Adebz back into the lead and he is riding his horse backwards! He does leave us hysterical, hysterically laughing.

Kleinman, You've reached your Master's Magic number in post count. And after the six hundred and sixty six posts you've made, you have done nothing but establish your incompetance and foolishness.

Where was the magic proof you had for us? Where's the math? Would you prefer to discuss Noah's arc? That thread is still open for your wisdom.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I wish kleinman would submit a paper for peer review, my colleagues would enjoy the laugh.

---

HOW I PROVED EVOLUTION MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN MY SPARE TIME, OF WHICH I HAVE TOO MUCH

by Dr Alan Kleinman, mental age 8¾

Cheese! Cheese herrings cheese! Gif and awe, joobaquate, adebz, alchemy. Cheese, fecal matter, diapers, cheese!

Cheese joobequate cruft cheese cheese, horses, herrings, cheese.

Amathematician, cheese, alchemy, cheese whine cheese herrings cheese.

Cheese cheese CHEESE!

Olly-olly-olly home free.

CHEESE!

The author would like to thank his macros for writing most of this for him.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And here comes Adebz back into the lead and he is riding his horse backwards! He does leave us hysterical, hysterically laughing.

Gibberish. No math. Frickin' predictable, aren't you?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I wish kleinman would submit a paper for peer review, my colleagues would enjoy the laugh.

Peer review by a group of brainwashed, cultist, mathematically challenged evolutionists that is hysterical.

Here is an example of the use of multiple selection pressures to control the evolution of resistance in diamondback moth and beef armyworm. This article is located at http://trec.ifas.ufl.edu/research_ento_nemato_veg_projs.shtml .

It is very essential to address resistance problem in diamondback moth. In most instances, development of resistance is directly related to the intense selective pressure due to excessive use of a specific insecticide. This selection pressure will be reduced by rotating insecticides of various classes in the management program of diamondback moth.

and

Frequent use of any insecticides for controlling beet armyworm will be reduced by rotating multiple insecticides in the proposed management program. Bt based insecticides will be applied to control early development stages of beet armyworm. Conventional chemical insecticides will be applied to control late stage larvae after every two applications of Bt based insecticides. This practice will significantly delay development of resistance in beet armyworms against any insecticides.

Here is an article about fungicides. This article is located at http://ipm.ncsu.edu/apple/chptr4.html .

To avoid development of resistance to the DMI fungicides, apply these fungicides only in combination with a broad spectrum, protectant fungicide such as captan or the EBDC fungicides (metiram or mancozeb).

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, you've got nothing?

 

[joobz]

Peer review by a group of brainwashed, cultist, mathematically challenged evolutionists that is hysterical.

WAHHH, peer review is hard!! Waaaa, It's all political.. Waaa, I'm expected to actually present something. Waaa.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If he submitted this crap to the freakin' Discovery Institute, do you suppose they'd touch it?

We can but hope.

 

[Taffer]

[qimg]http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3974/genegraphhx4.jpg[/qimg]
Adebz is trying to do his mathematics by gif and awe. At least this brainwashed, prejudiced and biased evolutionist is trying. What he is trying to do is be the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection. He thinks that a graph that does not include genome size, mutation rate, population, description of selection pressures, real examples of what he is trying to demonstrate, and a derivation of the model with assumptions used is somehow going to convince anyone reading this thread that multiple selection pressures accelerates evolution.

Do you know why that is, kleinman? It is simply because that graph is based upon the same equations that the formula I gave a few pages ago was. By the way, the formula I gave is proven, mathematically. You claim there is no maths. You are, therefore, completely ignorant of the entire field of population and evolutionary genetics. We have already solved these equations. Many, many, years ago. Dr. Adequate's graph does not include things like genome size because it is not relevant at all. The change in allele frequency in a population depends on only two things: frequency of that allele in the generation before, and the selection coefficient of that particular allele. You don't need to describe any selection pressures, because you have a selection coefficient. You only need the selection coefficient, becuase it is the sum of all selection pressures acting upon the allele.

Wait, it does convince Taffer.

It convinced me two years ago, when I studied these basic principles of population genetics, kleinman. It convinced me because it is correct. You do not convince me because you are not correct.

So we still have a horse race, its Adebz and Taffer neck and neck to be the last evolutionists on this thread to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection.

Taffer tries to make a point using semantics.

Emergence is not evolution, kleinman. No matter how much you wave your arms, it isn't going to make it so.

 

[Taffer]

Here is another link which discusses the attempted extinction of mosquito larve and can be found at [http://faculty.ucr.edu/~walton/bacteria.htm. Note that this author does not use the word emergence in describing the evolution of resistance to these selection pressures.

Two Bacillus are currently used for mosquito control in California; however, because Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti) is comparatively less effective against mosquitoes inhabiting the organically enriched waters of treatment wetlands, Bacillus sphaericus currently offers a viable alternative for microbial control of mosquitoes in organically-enriched treatment wetlands (Walton et al. 1998). Unlike Bti which contains multiple toxins that limit the potential for the rapid evolution of resistance in mosquitoes, the two toxin precursors in B. sphaericus act as a single toxin following ingestion and partial digestion by mosquito larvae. Bti has been used for nearly 30 years in large-scale mosquito and black fly control programs and resistance had not been detected in mosquito populations in nature that have been subjected to selection from Bti toxins. Nevertheless, mosquitoes, such as the southern house mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus, can evolve resistance to the full complement of Bti toxins when under strong selection pressure in the laboratory. Resistance to Bti was recently detected in a closely related species Culex pipiens in Syracuse, New York (see: Paul et al. 2005. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 21: 305-309). In contrast to the findings for Bti, resistance to B. sphaericus has been observed in several places (Brazil, China, France, India and Thailand). Mosquitoes can evolve resistance to B. sphaericus very rapidly (>10,000-fold in 7-8 generations), especially when the mosquitoes commonly found in often polluted urban environments, such as catch basins and wastewater contaminated by human sewage, are routinely exposed to B. sphaericus toxins.

(All emphasis added.)

Learn to read your own citations. First, this is not from a peer review journal.

Secondly, turn your attention to the section highlighted in red. If you notice the bolded section, you will see it says "the potential for" evolution is reduced. Not actual evolution itself. It does not say evolution slowed, but that there is less chance to evolve. What does this mean? It means that variation has been reduced, and the population size is smaller. This is most definately not the same as evolution slowing. He is saying here, without using these words, that "the emergence of resistance is slowed". Emergence is not evolution.

Thirdly, note the two sections highlighted in red. You will find the bolded sections especially interesting. This paper does not agree with you, as it states that increased selection pressure and many selection pressure (I think we can all agree that a "very polluted urban environment" contains lots of selection pressures) lead to rapid evolution.

Nice try.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Do you know why that is, kleinman? It is simply because that graph is based upon the same equations that the formula I gave a few pages ago was.

To be precise, it's because the computer simulation I used to produce the graph is a model of evolution, and so are the equations. I used a simulated population, just like ev.

I must have missed it when you posted the equations, by the way. I didn't realise quite how often this particular bit of kleinman's nonsense has been debunked.

 

[Taffer]

Sure I did, that’s why I can post quotes like this from the link:

Unlike Bti which contains multiple toxins that limit the potential for the rapid evolution of resistance in mosquitoes, the two toxin precursors in B. sphaericus act as a single toxin following ingestion and partial digestion by mosquito larvae.

See above. "Potential" for rapid evolution is not putting a limit on evolution itself. It is limiting the emergence of resitance. Emergence is not evolution.

And

In contrast to the findings for Bti, resistance to B. sphaericus has been observed in several places (Brazil, China, France, India and Thailand). Mosquitoes can evolve resistance to B. sphaericus very rapidly (>10,000-fold in 7-8 generations), especially when the mosquitoes commonly found in often polluted urban environments, such as catch basins and wastewater contaminated by human sewage, are routinely exposed to B. sphaericus toxins.

As stated above, polluted environments have many sources of selection pressure.

Single selection pressure gives rapid evolution of resistance.

Unlike Bti which contains multiple toxins that limit the potential for the rapid evolution of resistance in mosquitoes, the two toxin precursors in B. sphaericus act as a single toxin following ingestion and partial digestion by mosquito larvae.

Read your own source. It says nowhere that "single selection pressure gives rapid evolution of resistance".

And

Bti has been used for nearly 30 years in large-scale mosquito and black fly control programs and resistance had not been detected in mosquito populations in nature that have been subjected to selection from Bti toxins. Nevertheless, mosquitoes, such as the southern house mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus, can evolve resistance to the full complement of Bti toxins when under strong selection pressure in the laboratory. Resistance to Bti was recently detected in a closely related species Culex pipiens in Syracuse, New York (see: Paul et al. 2005. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 21: 305-309).

Here it says that the use of a single toxin has not shown the evolution of resistance, except when it is really strong. Read your own sources, idiot.

Multiple selection pressures slow evolution of resistance. In this case, it goes from 7 to 8 generations for the single selection pressure to 30 years for multiple selection pressures.

The 30 years quoted was a) for a single "selection pressure", not multiple, and b) the "30 years" would have been a weak selection pressure. Or do you now also claim that strong selection slows evolution too?

Now if you read your URLs that you post, you would be able to quote from them (if they had anything worthwhile to quote to support your position).

Given that I have never seen a single quote from you that supports your position, I find this laughable. Especially because, most often, the quoted paper says the exact opposite of your position.

And Adebz surges into the lead. Who will win this race to be the last evolutionist to understand the mathematics of mutation and selection?

 

[Taffer]

To be precise, it's because the computer simulation I used to produce the graph is a model of evolution, and so are the equations. I used a simulated population, just like ev.

Very true.

I must have missed it when you posted the equations, by the way. I didn't realise quite how often this particular bit of kleinman's nonsense has been debunked.

A few pages back, or so. Kleinman wanted a mathematical model for "multiple selection". Since that concept is redundant (insofar as the model is concerned), I used the model for heterozygote advantage. I then pointed out that increasing selection pressure (one way of which is to increase the number of selection pressures) speeds up evolution, from the very equation.

If I recall, his response was "that models recombination and selection, not mutation and selection".

 

[Taffer]

I hear and read this type of terminology when evolutionists talk about selection pressures. Do you want to enumerate and elaborate on the variables that determine the intensity of selection pressures?

Now we are getting somewhere. The degree of selection can be calculated in a number of different ways. Generally, it is measured as a relative selection coefficient of the less fit allele being compared. The more fit allele has a fitness of 1, and the less fit allele has a fitness of 1-s (s being the selection coefficient). One way to calculate the selection coefficient is to compare the number of offspring, on average, produced by those with one allele compared to those with another allele.

Give us some examples of this. Do you propose that a selection pressure doesn’t have to be present long enough for at least some individuals in the population to have adapted to that pressure, for example antibiotic resistance?

Organisms have to be alive for the correct variation to arrise in a population. Smaller populations have less variation (not entirely true, but true enough for our purposes).

Rapid adaptation occurs by recombination and natural selection, not mutation and natural selection.[/quote]

Nonsense. Both recombination and mutation create variation in a population. Selection acts on that variation, and it makes no difference how that variation arose.

Recombination and natural selection is what Darwin was observing when he reported on the differences in finch beaks.

You do not know what recombination is. You are utterly wrong.

Recombination and natural selection works with selection of alleles, small populations and small numbers of generations.

You are wrong.

This is where Stephen Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium has application.

Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with recombination, and everything to do with selection acting upon variation in a population.

However, the mathematics of mutation and selection shows it is a far slower mechanism of adaptation that requires much larger populations and much more generations to accomplish its task.

Nonsense. Variation is variation, no matter where it came from.

Recombination without errors does not increase information in the gene pool; recombination with natural selection can reduce the information in the gene pool.

Nonsense. First, define "information". Second, explain how recombination which splits a gene in half does not add information.

Add any feature you want to ev, whether it is recombination, any or all forms of mutations and show us how your theory works mathematically. Show us how these mechanisms overcome the problem for your theory that multiple selection pressures slow evolution.

We already have a model. I have given one equation for it. Dr. Adequate has given a graph using its equations. When will you get it through your thick skull that you are wrong, and that we do have mathematical models for evolution? Ev. is only one small part, and you are not even using it correctly. See Dr. Adequate's debunking of your armwaving "mathematics".[

Add this feature to ev and show us mathematically how the theory of evolution works.

Please refer to both my and Dr. Adequate's posts.

I haven’t asserted that they are unimportant; I assert that they won’t overcome the fact that multiple selection pressures slow evolution. This is what is discussed in Delphi’s Wikipedia reference to the fitness landscape and the numerous real examples of multiple selection pressures that I have posting on this thread. These real examples are not limited to random point mutations. Joobz pointed out that HIV does recombination. Certainly rodents use recombination. Any mechanism of mutation or recombination is available to these creatures discussed in the links presented here.

Multiple selection pressures does not slow evolution. You have yet to provide a single citation which agrees with you. Stop your armwaving blathering and either provide your own mathematics, or admit you are wrong. We have provided mathematics which proves "multiple selection pressures" (read: stronger selection) increases the rate of evolution.

[

In fact, here are more examples of how multiple selection pressures slow evolution. These are not examples derived from a mathematical model; they demonstrate what is shown in the ev mathematical model.

This ought to be fun.

Here is an article that discusses the treatment of Hepatitis C [/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1472602 . Again, these authors report that multiple selection pressures slow the evolution of resistant strains of this virus as reported in this quote:

The effective treatment of HCV infection will likely require multiple antiviral drugs with different resistance profiles to delay the emergence of resistance, as has been shown in human immunodeficiency virus (35). In the present study, treatment with either a thumb or a palm inhibitor alone rendered large numbers of resistant replicon colonies in vitro, a potential indication of the likely rapid emergence of HCV-resistant variants upon initiation of monotherapy. Importantly, by combining two inhibitors binding to the thumb and to the palm sites of the HCV polymerase we observed a greater-than-additive inhibitory effect of replicon RNA replication.

Emergence is not evolution, kleinman.

I include the following quote from this paper just for Taffer who thinks that “emergence” somehow does not refer to “evolution”.

Mutants Ile482Leu, Met423Ile, and Met423Val were observed at different sequential passages, illustrating the plasticity and evolution of the quasispecies population in the presence of inhibitor's selective pressure (Table 2).

Well done! You have provided a citation which actually talks about evolution! Too bad it doesn't agree with you.

Here is another paper that discusses combination selection pressures for the treatment of malaria. It is located at

http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/72/2/163 .

Emergence is not evolution, kleinman.

Again, I include the following quote for Taffer so that he know that the emergence of resistance is by evolution.

Well done! They talk about evolution in this paper as well as emergence! Too bad it doesn't say anything about what you're blathering on about.

Kleinman, face it. You do not understand what you're waving your arms about. Emergence and evolution are different things. Emergence is when a trait appears. Evolution is the change in allele ratios over time. Get this into your head.

 

[Taffer]

Peer review by a group of brainwashed, cultist, mathematically challenged evolutionists that is hysterical.

You should go to the CT forum.

Here is an example of the use of multiple selection pressures to control the evolution of resistance in diamondback moth and beef armyworm. This article is located at [/SIZE][/FONT]http://trec.ifas.ufl.edu/research_ento_nemato_veg_projs.shtml

It is very essential to address resistance problem in diamondback moth. In most instances, development of resistance is directly related to the intense selective pressure due to excessive use of a specific insecticide. This selection pressure will be reduced by rotating insecticides of various classes in the management program of diamondback moth.

Oh look, kleinman, it doesn't say what you think it does! Surprise surprise. It says that evolution occurs rapidly in the presence of strong selection pressure. Oh, but you don't think that, do you? Also note, it talks about rotation of insecticides. In other words, completely stopping one and using another, utterly different, drug. So it only ever has 1 selection pressure at a time. Funny how that slows down evolution!

Learn to read your sources.

and

Frequent use of any insecticides for controlling beet armyworm will be reduced by rotating multiple insecticides in the proposed management program. Bt based insecticides will be applied to control early development stages of beet armyworm. Conventional chemical insecticides will be applied to control late stage larvae after every two applications of Bt based insecticides. This practice will significantly delay development of resistance in beet armyworms against any insecticides.

Only one selection pressure at a time, kleinman. You just refuted your own argument with your own citation. Not that that's surprising.

Learn to read your sources.

Here is an article about fungicides. This article is located at [/SIZE][/FONT]http://ipm.ncsu.edu/apple/chptr4.html .

To avoid development of resistance to the DMI fungicides, apply these fungicides only in combination with a broad spectrum, protectant fungicide such as captan or the EBDC fungicides (metiram or mancozeb).

Emergence is not evolution, kleinman. How many times must we explain that to you?