
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
27th November 2007, 09:30 AM  #6761 
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946

Your ignorance is boundless. Google "selection pressure definition" and tell me how many hits contain anything like "impair the fitness of a population to reproduce"  I DARE YOU
If all selection pressures impair the fitness of a population to reproduce then why does ev use a constant population size? Can you answer that Kleinman? 
27th November 2007, 10:01 AM  #6762 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Well joobz, since you are too lazy to investigate ev yourself or what Dr Schneider has said about ev, I’ll do it again for you. Since all I have done is taken the ev model and studied what it shows when the input parameters are varied and what it shows is the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when you have combination selection pressures in the model. In addition, I have posted hundreds of citations which demonstrate the same behavior as Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model shows. So what has Dr Schneider said about his model? You can find the answers at the following URLs: What was Dr Schneider’s intention for the use of his model? http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider in his publication on ev
Then what does Dr Schneider say about ev as a simulation of how mutation and selection works in reality? http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/faqforev.html
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
and
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
and
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
Dr Schneider is correct about this. The citations which I have posted show that the different recognizers that occur in real examples of mutation and selection have the same behavior as his mathematical model which is combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process.
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
What Dr Schneider fails to recognize here is that real biological experiments of his simulation are done all the time including in his own organization, the National Cancer Institute. Real examples of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process are being done all the time and they all show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow this sorting/optimization process. This is in agreement with what his model shows.
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
Now joobz, you can ask Dr Schneider yourself if mutation rates will change the underlying mathematical fact that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. If you studied ev, you would find out that mutation rates do not change the fact that the number of optimization conditions dominates the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
Dr Schneider has not done the studies that he suggested for his model. If he had, he would find out that huge populations have a much more limited effect on the evolutionary process than he is claim here. Is Dr Schneider claiming that there was a population of 6 billion primate precursors for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees?
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
Why does it take huge numbers of generations to evolve his system? It is the combined selection pressures which makes it an extremely slow process to find a trajectory on the fitness landscape to his “perfect creature” local optimum. In fact, in many if not most cases, a “perfect creature” local optimum can not be achieved because the population gets stranded at other “nonperfect creature” local optima.
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his faq site for ev
I added the highlighting. Here Dr Schneider acknowledges that ev is simply a sorting/optimization algorithm. If he had done the studies that he suggested himself, he would have discovered that this sorting process is profoundly slowed because of his combination selection conditions. This is demonstrated over and over by real examples of mutation and selection. Now joobz, if this is not enough for you, here is what Dr Schneider has said on his ev blog cite located at: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blogev.html
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider from his blog site for ev
Again I added highlighting. Dr Schneider is again correct, his model shows what combination selection pressures do to the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process.
Originally Posted by Steven E. Jones
Originally Posted by Steven E. Jones
Once again, Dr Schneider makes a claim for large genomes. What is not similar is the astronomically huge number of generations required to evolve his simple system on all but the tiniest genomes because of the combined selection pressures. If Dr Schneider had done the studies he called for in his own publication on ev, he would realize that the dominant parameter in the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is the number of sorting conditions applied simultaneously.
Originally Posted by Steven E. Jones
Again, Dr Schneider is correct about this. His model does properly capture the behavior of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem. The crucial point the Dr Schneider has missed is that the number of selection conditions dominates the mathematical behavior of his model. This is also reflected in real examples of mutation and selection. Hundreds of real examples have been cited already on this thread.
Originally Posted by Steven E. Jones
Again, Dr Schneider speaks rightly. Ev does properly model the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. There are many examples of what his model shows, which is, multiple selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary sorting/optimization process. There are many other examples which I could quote from Dr Schneider’s web site where he defends the reality of his model. Joobz, if you have a problem with Dr Schneider’s model, you can contact him at toms@ncifcrf.gov .
Originally Posted by Kleinman
You want to use a convergence criterion that the author says in not a realistic criterion. Perhaps this is the reason you are having such a difficult time understanding how mutation and selection sorting/optimization actually works.
Originally Posted by Kleinman
No Sol, it is clear you have no idea how ev actually works. I don’t need to take money from an ignoramus. 
27th November 2007, 11:21 AM  #6763 
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a postfact world
Posts: 96,875

That's not even a sentence, which is exactly what I expect from a chatbot.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

27th November 2007, 11:24 AM  #6764 
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a postfact world
Posts: 96,875


27th November 2007, 12:15 PM  #6765 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Belz, let me give you an example of how to collect data for a parametric study of ev. Start Paul’s well written online version of ev. Use all the default parameters that Dr Schneider used for his single published case except set the number of sites (G, the genome length) to 16,384 and for the convergence criterion click the check box for perfect creature (zero mistakes) and run this case. You will find that it takes 6,894,433 generations to evolve all three selection conditions simultaneously. Now reset this example keeping all input parameters the same except set the weight factors for spurious sites in gene to 0 and spurious sites in the nonbinding site region to 0. It only takes a single generation to evolve a creature that has evolved all the binding sites. Now reset this case except set the weight factor for missed binding sites to 0 and spurious binding in the gene to 0 while spurious binding in the nonbinding site region to 1. This case takes 223 generations to eliminate spurious binding in the nonbinding site region. Now reset this case except set the weight factor for missed binding sites to 0 and spurious binding in the nonbinding site region to 0 while spurious binding in the gene to 1. This case also happens to take 223 generations to eliminate mistakes in the gene region. Belz, you can do the same thing for 32k and 64k genome lengths. I’ll let you run the three selection condition cases, but I’ll give you the results for the single selection condition cases. G/gens missed site/gens spurious binding within gene/gens spurious binding outside gene 16384/1/223/223 32768/1/115/403 65536/1/788/1026 Belz, not only do I know I am not lying. I neither need to nor want to lie to prove your mathematically and empirically irrational theory wrong. These results are obtained from the peer reviewed and published model written by the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. These results explain how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization problem works that is combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. In the simple case presented above, it takes more than six orders of magnitude more generations to evolve all three selection conditions simultaneously than evolving the single selection conditions alone. Belz, the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically and empirically impossible. The theory of evolution by mutation and selection is a mathematically and empirically irrational and illogical theory. 
27th November 2007, 12:35 PM  #6766 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

The AUTHOR of ev is Tom Schneider. Paul is Schneider's agent  unless Paul "is" Schneider.
And, all of a sudden, when it will absolutely crush your argument, the paper: Evolution of Biological Information, is no longer good enough as the authority for your argumen. Now, you want to use nonpeer reviewed criteria to support your position. You are such an unbelievable hypocrite, Alan! Regardless, why don't we ask Paul whether Rseq > Rfreq is the requisite test measurement of evolutionary change in ev. Yo...PAUL!!! 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 01:17 PM  #6767 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
And Paul is the author of evj.
Originally Posted by kjkent1
Really, that’s what Dr Schneider’s paper on ev says? You obviously didn’t read the paper very carefully. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794
Originally Posted by Dr Schneider in Ev: Evolution of Biological Information
Originally Posted by kjkent1
You are the one who is arguing that satisfying the selection conditions should not be the measure of convergence. Rs>Rf is a peculiar result from Dr Schneider’s selection conditions but has no correlation with reality. Now are you trying to squirm out of our wager by calling for a convergence condition that has no basis in reality? 
27th November 2007, 01:34 PM  #6768 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613


27th November 2007, 01:42 PM  #6769 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Sol, go home, your mother is calling you. 
27th November 2007, 02:43 PM  #6770 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

Originally Posted by Kleinman
Originally Posted by kleinman
“To test the hypothesis that Rsequence can evolve to match Rfrequency, the evolutionary process was simulated by a simple computer program, ev, for which I will describe one evolutionary run.” The above quote seems pretty conclusive to me. The ev program is designed “to test the hypothesis that Rseq can evolve to match Rfreq…” Why don’t you just admit that you’re wrong and we can move on, Alan. You’re very clearly demonstrating that you’re both deceitful and hypocritical  inadmirable traits for a selfprofessed Christian. In fact, what you're doing is precisely the reason why design/creation advocates, such as yourself, are routinely laughed out of the courtroom: judges can tell when someone is being intentionally misleading  and they don't put up with it. 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 02:51 PM  #6771 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

Sol, we're wasting are energy. kleinman knows he's wrong, but his low self image won't permit him to admit it. This little game with the $10K wager is proof of why kleinman doesn't publish in the scientific community. That would require him to back his propositions with testable proof, and to accept reasonable criticism of his theories.
kleinman can't do either, and this thread is testament to the fact. 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 03:07 PM  #6772 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613

Let's summarize the small part of this unwieldy thread that I've participated in.
Kleinman proposes a simple probabilistic model for evolution, and claims it demonstrates that multiple selection pressures slow the rate of fixations. He gives a nonsensical answer for the rate. I spend five minutes thinking about his model and find the correct answer  which is that the rate of fixation under N pressures scales as N/Log(N), an increasing function of N. Put another way, the time required for N fixations only grows as Log(N), so 1,000,000 fixations take only about 14 times as long as 1. I point this out to kleinman, who first denies it, and then admits he was wrong, saying
Originally Posted by kleinman
Therefore I offer him a bet on the subject, which, after some prodding he accepts (or rather he accepts his own version of it). He wants to bet using the program ev, which is more or less just a complicated version of the simple model I had analyzed. After it becomes clear that I'm entirely serious on betting real money, he pauses to think and realizes again that he's wrong (probably by experimenting with ev and finding it out for himself  something you'd have thought he would have done around 6,000 posts ago). So then he chickens out, flipflops yet again, and withdraws from the bet, hence proving himself both a hypocrite and a liar. So, folks, what's next for the amazing kleinman? How many more flipflops will he take? Will the thread continue, now that he's admitted twice that his core contention is wrong? Will the repeated humiliations finally take their toll and shame him into silence? Or will he be forced by foolish pride into accepting this bet, costing himself $10,000? Any predictions? 
27th November 2007, 03:15 PM  #6773 
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946

"mathematical and empirical evidence"
"hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" "mathematical and empirical evidence" "hundreds of examples" "mathematically and empirically impossible" 
27th November 2007, 03:16 PM  #6774 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613


27th November 2007, 03:37 PM  #6775 
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994


27th November 2007, 03:52 PM  #6776 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
That’s your problem, you have given only superficial study of how mutation and selection works mathematically and you are ready to throw your money away on this superficial analysis.
Originally Posted by kjkent1
Kjkent1 is no better at reading my mind than you are Sol at understanding how ev works. Do you really want me to take your money Sol? Then you are on, the wager is $10,000 that you can’t prove with ev that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. Your ignorance of ev and mutation and selection is going to cost you. Let me give you a few more citations of real examples which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Sol, you are too ignorant to understand how it works mathematically. http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/45/6/1607
Originally Posted by Effect of Drug Concentration on Emergence of Macrolide Resistance in Mycobacterium avium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11030464
Originally Posted by Combination chemotherapy for hepatitis B virus: the path forward?
You are an ignoramus Sol, so let’s see you produce the data from ev which shows that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. 
27th November 2007, 04:05 PM  #6777 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

Originally Posted by kleinman

__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 04:11 PM  #6778 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
It can’t be delphi ote because he has not given a single example of combination selection pressures accelerating evolution. Delphi, you have nothing to repeat. Delphi, you have sunk along with the theory of evolution. It is a Titanic sinking of a Titanic theory, sunk after striking against a mathematical iceberg. Hey delphi, thank you for your reference to the Wikipedia fitness landscape reference. It is worth repeating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape
Originally Posted by Fitness landscapes in evolutionary optimization
Originally Posted by Fitness landscapes in evolutionary optimization
Now Sol thinks he is going to get a more rapid optimization to 100 conditions than to 99. Little does Sol realize that obtaining an optimal solution for more than a “handful” of conditions become “almost impossible”. Thanks for this reference delphi!
Originally Posted by Kleinman
You had better stick with ambulance chasing if you want to make a living, you will go broke as a mind reader. 
27th November 2007, 04:16 PM  #6779 
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998

Talk about being a phony. I asked YOU to justify YOUR assumptions and here you present someone else's model assumptions.
I've noticed that you fail to explain what profoundly slow means. You keep using the relative term, slow. higher mutation rate will result in fewer generations than equivilent settings with lower mutation rate. Dr. A proved that increased population size reduces the number of generations needed for convergence. Or were you hoping I forgot that fact? you are again confusing computation time with the number of generations needed to converge. an infitine population will converge in 1 generation, but the ability for a computer to do the sort will take a very long time. BUt, of course you know this. You are simply hoping I forgot that we had already talked about this. And again, this has nothing to do with YOUR ASSUMPTIONS! I'll stop there, because none of those statements actually deal with the assumptions you need for your statements to be true. Please explain why a variable environment doesn't increase the rate of adaptation. Remember, we have presented papers that demonstrate that this is the case. Now, will you stop being a phony and actually justify YOUR ASSUMPTIONS! 
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"BeAChooser 

27th November 2007, 04:29 PM  #6780 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

I don't practice personal injury law. And, it doesn't require a mind reader to predict your responses.
You can't admit the possibility that you may be in error on any substantive issue. This is a wellknown characteristic of someone with extremely low self esteem. You've achieved all these marvelous academic credentials during your life, yet no one will take you seriously. That must be absolutely punishing and degrading. I can't imagine how humiliating it must be for you to know that no matter how hard you fight for positive recognition, the only recognition you receive is negative. I can certainly understand why you would need a God to comfort you. Without God, you would be totally lost. How truly sad for you. If you only understood that the reason why you receive negative recognition is because you cannot objectively assess yourself in the world. If you could, you wouldn't need to post here  you would be satisfied with your medical practice and your Christian works on behalf of society. But, here you are  suffering endlessly and not understanding why. I forgive you, as does your Lord. Hopefully, you will someday be able to forgive yourself. 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 04:31 PM  #6781 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by joobz
Joobz, I wasn’t talking about your model for abiogenesis, we haven’t forgotten this bizarre bit of speculation. Let’s remind the readers of your weird view of how chemistry works.
Originally Posted by joobz
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold? We are not talking about your bizarre bit of alchemy; we are talking about Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. That’s the model which proves the theory of evolution mathematically impossible. Of course joobz, you can speculate that “cooperative” selection pressures exist which accelerate evolution. 
27th November 2007, 04:37 PM  #6782 
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998


__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"BeAChooser 

27th November 2007, 04:38 PM  #6783 
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946


27th November 2007, 05:20 PM  #6784 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by joobz
Joobz, your speculation is frightening, all zero of your citations which show that combination selection pressures evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures leaves me trembling in fear and I am horrified by your spelling. Could you soothe us by telling us how letting sun light hitting lead will turn it into gold?
Originally Posted by Kleinman
I guess you didn’t read this citation so I’ll post it again for you. “Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins” Daniel M Weinreich, Nigel F Delaney, Mark A DePristo, Daniel L Hartl. Science. Washington: Apr 7, 2006. Vol. 312, Iss. 5770; pg. 111
Originally Posted by Abstract
Rocketdodger, this example is of only a single selection pressure directed at the Betalactamase allele. The trajectories for the evolution of resistance to this single selection pressure are limited. When you add more selection pressures and the fitness landscape becomes more irregular, the trajectories become even more limited. This is why combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolution of multiple selection pressures. This is one of the many lessons of mutation and selection you still don’t understand. 
27th November 2007, 05:28 PM  #6785 
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,133

Originally Posted by Kleinman
~~ Paul 
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim 

27th November 2007, 05:28 PM  #6786 
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946

Can you show us why obtaining an optimal solution, as opposed to any other suboptimal solution, has anything to do with fixation rate?
Or in language you can understand, Kleinman: What does reaching your destination have to do with the total distance you have traveled? 
27th November 2007, 05:34 PM  #6787 
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,133

Originally Posted by kjkent1
~~ Paul 
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim 

27th November 2007, 05:55 PM  #6788 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Rocketdodger, I’ll explain it to you as many times as you need. There are not a huge number of “suboptimal” solutions. That’s what the citation is all about. In order for a trajectory on a fitness landscape to be accessible to a population, each step on the fitness landscape has to give improved fitness to the population. This is why ev stops evolving in many cases. The population gets stuck at a local optimum where every step away from this local optimum reduces the fitness of the population. Fitness landscapes with many selection conditions have many peaks and valleys. The only local optima accessible to the population are those with trajectories that always give improving fitness. These are few and far between as described by the citation I just reposted.
Originally Posted by kjkent1
Thank you Paul for clarifying that for kjkent1. And kjkent1, why don’t you save yourself the postage and just send the check for $10,000 since we already know how ev and mutation and selection actually works. 
27th November 2007, 06:03 PM  #6789 
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998


__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"BeAChooser 

27th November 2007, 06:12 PM  #6790 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613

Great  we're back on! On again, off again  I'm getting dizzy...
So, here are the terms: we will run ev for a (large) number of trials. Each trial will consist of two runs: one with (say) 20 binding sites, and one with 10. Feel free to change those numbers if you don't like them. All other ev parameters will remain fixed between the two runs, and throughout the trials. Each run on each trial will be seeded with a new, true random seed (we can use stock prices in the newspaper that day or something). On each run, we will record the number of generations required to reach a perfect creature. Let's call that number G(20) for the runs with 20 binding sites, and G(10) for the runs with 10 sites. We will then compute the arithmetic mean of G(20), call it G(20), and the mean of G(10), G(10), across all the trials. You are betting $10,000 that G(20) > (20/10) * G(10) = 2 G(10). If you prefer to change the numbers 10 and 20 to N1 and N2, with N2>N1, your bet is that G(N2) > (N2/N1) * G(N1). I am betting the opposite  that G(20) < (20/10) * G(10) (or the equivalent for any N2 > N1). In the unlikely event of equality, I'll be generous  you win the bet. Do you agree to these preliminary terms? If so, we will continue and choose the other ev parameters, number of trials to average over, method for choosing the seeds, and finalize the bet. At that point I'm going to consult a lawyer to see how best to ensure you pay me the $10,000 after you lose. OK, kleinman? Have you got the balls? 
Last edited by sol invictus; 27th November 2007 at 06:28 PM. Reason: clarified arithmetic mean sentence 

27th November 2007, 06:21 PM  #6791 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Only a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection which show that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection which demonstrates what ev shows mathematically. Here joobz, have another citation. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=90683
Originally Posted by In Vitro Susceptibilities of WildType or DrugResistant Hepatitis B Virus to (−)βd2,6Diaminopurine Dioxolane and 2′Fluoro5MethylβlArabinofuranosyluracil
Joobz, you better tell these authors that ‘delay’ does not mean ‘prevent’. Now joobz, if I only had your skills at speculation then with enough free energy, anything is possible. 
27th November 2007, 06:25 PM  #6792 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

Originally Posted by kjkent1
INDEED IT IS. Let me repeat that, just in case you missed it: Paul, is Rseq > Rfreq the requiste test measurement of evolutionary change in ev? Paul's answer: INDEED IT IS. Now that we've got that out of the way, Alan  if you still want the wager based on the REQUISTE TEST MEASUREMENT of ev, then let's go, because I'm gonna own everything thing that you currently own, and unlike the others who are playing with you, if you bet, and you lose, I will be enforcing my winnings via a judgment from the California Superior Court. Just in case anyone's wondering, this particular wager is not based primarily on chance, thus it is not voided by the public policy in California against gambling, and therefore it is an enforceable contract. 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

27th November 2007, 06:42 PM  #6793 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Annoying Creationists
Originally Posted by Kleinman
Sol, you were dizzy before you ever started posting on this thread.
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Sol, the number of binding sites is not a selection pressure. If you read Dr Schneider’s papers on ev, the number of binding sites is the variable gamma. I have already done a series and studied the affect of varying gamma. Other than ev will not converge if gamma is too small, varying the number of binding sites has little affect on the generations for convergence. Increasing gamma has a small effect on reducing the generations for convergence but nothing like reducing the number of selection pressures to only a single pressure. Do you want me to post the data?
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Sol, you are a dingaling. You don’t know the difference between the number of selection pressures and the number of binding sites in ev. 
27th November 2007, 06:49 PM  #6794 
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,538

Originally Posted by Paul
Originally Posted by Paul
Only a lawyer can turn the word ‘passive’ into the word ‘requisite’. The active selection condition in ev is the number of mistakes. R values are irrelevant otherwise. 
27th November 2007, 06:55 PM  #6795 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613


27th November 2007, 08:50 PM  #6796 
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731

I didn't change any words. The fact is that when you set a mistake count in ev to zero, the ev algorithm no longer counts that type of mistake. This causes the program to report no mistakes even though those mistakes are observed in the genome.
This is easy to prove. When you set all three mistake counts to zero, the program immediately reports a "perfect creature" in the first generation, i.e., one completely free of mistakes, even though the sequence logo graphic displays totally random noise, because that's what ev starts with at instantiation: a randomly arranged genome. So, the report of a "perfect creature" by ev is incorrect  the creature isn't perfect. No information gain has occured, and the proof is that Rseq is nowhere near Rfreq. Rseq ~ Rfreq is the ONLY meaningful measurement in ev. It accurately reports the state of the genome in terms of its information content regardless of any mistake count setting. Now, if you want to create a new counter that actually measures the number of mistakes, regardless of any mistake count setting, then we can use that. But, the result will be functionally identical to that which is reported by Rseq. Are you ready to concede your error, or do you prefer to continue to twist in the wind? 
__________________
"A child of five would understand this  send someone to fetch a child of five!"  Groucho Marx 

28th November 2007, 05:54 AM  #6797 
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a postfact world
Posts: 96,875


28th November 2007, 05:56 AM  #6798 
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a postfact world
Posts: 96,875


28th November 2007, 06:47 AM  #6799 
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,133

Originally Posted by Kleinman
Originally Posted by me

__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim 

28th November 2007, 06:55 AM  #6800 
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,133

Originally Posted by Sol
~~ Paul 
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim 

Thread Tools  

