Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
I continue to point this out because Dr Schneider and you have adopted sloppy terminology for your computer simulation. The sequences of bases that Dr Schneider’s sorting algorithm evolves have nothing whatsoever to do with binding sites. They are simply sequences of bases which satisfy the selection conditions.
Paul said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed that when someone creates a computer model of a natural process, they tend to talk about the components and aspects of the model using the same terminology used for the natural process. In no case that I know of do they think that the model is the actual thing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“Perfect creature” and “binding sites” is not reflective of what the ev sorting algorithm is modeling. All that ev is doing is sorting sequences based on sorting conditions and it shows how profoundly slow the process is when multiple sorting conditions are used simultaneously. This also is what happens in nature as the hundreds of citations posted shows.
Kleinman said:
I added the highlighting. Ev is not evolving binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’. Ev is only sorting sequences of bases which satisfy the sorting conditions, nothing more and nothing less.
Paul said:
But then, if we continue to use your odd sorting approach, that is all that is happening in nature, too. So why keep harping on it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What is odd about the sorting approach that I am using with your model? All I am doing is showing you what you model does when the sorting conditions are simplified. I will continue harping on this and posting more citations which substantiates this because this is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in denial.
Kleinman said:
You continue to make this idiotic statement that somehow ev is evolving function. Ev is simply a sorting algorithm, sorting sequences of bases which satisfy the sorting conditions, ...
Paul said:
... and ultimately evolving a gene with the function of binding to binding sites but no other positions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And I’ll continue to tell you that ev is not evolving any function or any binding sites. Ev is simply a sorting algorithm that demonstrates how slow the sorting process is when multiple sorting conditions are applied simultaneously.
Kleinman said:
Irrational and illogical assertions like Adequate’s and rocketdodger’s that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures is a perfect example. If infectious disease experts listened to this nonsense, they would not use combination therapy to treat HIV, HBV, HCV, Malaria, TB,
Paul said:
Their assertion contributes to the premature death of millions of people?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, because evolutionists believe this nonsense and will teach it to children. It will slow the understanding of how mutation and selection actually works.
Kleinman said:
Your irrational assertion that ev is somehow evolving function when all ev is doing is sorting sequences of bases and shows that this sorting process becomes profoundly slow when you have multiple simultaneous sorting conditions.
Paul said:
This assertion of mine contributes to the premature death of millions of people?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, because it obfuscates the understanding of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
Kleinman said:
Paul, there is no discontinuity in the convergence of ev when you use only a single selection condition. It is the increased complexity of multiple sorting conditions that profoundly slows the ability of ev to do the sort.
Paul said:
But why are there discontinuities when you have three pressures?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What discontinuity? Ev still converges when you have three pressures; it just doesn’t converge on your perfect creature. You have this mistaken belief that ev has only a single local optimum.
Kleinman said:
Paul why don’t you do a curve fit for the generations for convergence as a function of the number of selection pressures? Oh, that’s right; you have made the idiotic assertion that sorting based on only one of the three selection conditions gives a different function.
Paul said:
Do you think you end up with the same result regardless of the number of pressures?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Of course I don’t think that. I no more think that you will have the same result with ev when using 1 versus 3 selection conditions than I think you will have the same result when treating HIV with monotherapy versus 3 drug combination therapy. If you increase the number of selection conditions in ev to 4, you will slow the sorting process even more so, just as the evidence is now starting to appear that 4 drug therapy for HIV works better than 3 drug therapy. How surprising that the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process would work like this.
 
kleinman said:
Mr Scott, you say that about everyone including your parents. So now you are claim that Darwinian evolution does not apply to humans and some humans are not more fit than others? Your irrational and illogical speculation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works is worse than the evolutionist concepts of eugenics and master race.
Click to expand...

That's incredibly bizarre and off-target. Your delusions seem boundless. My athiest parents never lied to me about evolution. I never claimed Darwinian evolution did not apply to humans or that some humans were not more fit than others. I called you on your appeal to emotions (which was also a veiled ad hominem). Evolution is not wrong just because eugenics is abhorrent. If the social consequences of a scientific theory were relevant to the validity of the theory, then the atom bomb couldn't have worked because it would kill, maim, and terrify so many people. Are you attempting to build a straw man tall enough to reach heaven? Remember how your god punishes hubris?

You didn't answer my questions:

Did Noah carry a mating pair of Chinese people on the ark? Or did God smite a Tower builder at Babel with Mandarin? Your creation story is in the same book as the ridiculous Noah and Babel fairy tales. Do you assign them equal validity?
 
kleinman said:
So then you don’t believe some humans are more fit than others. How do humans evolve?
Click to expand...

Well, obviously some humans are more fit than others, as evidences for example by different susceptibility to mortal or sterilising diseases, differences in amount of young conceived and reared, and so on. However, these are generally differences which do not align themselves to perceived racial categories.

Also, implied in the term "eugenicist" is the will to actively sort out the individuals perceived to be less fit for the betterment of the species as a whole. Phylogenetics have nothing to do with this, nor does, indeed, the whole field of evolutionary science. If you want examples of wanton slaying of people not belonging to the ingroup, you need look no further than your own religion, sir.
 
Last edited:
kleinman said:
What is odd about the sorting approach that I am using with your model? All I am doing is showing you what you model does when the sorting conditions are simplified. I will continue harping on this and posting more citations which substantiates this because this is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in denial.

And I’ll continue to tell you that ev is not evolving any function or any binding sites. Ev is simply a sorting algorithm that demonstrates how slow the sorting process is when multiple sorting conditions are applied simultaneously.
Click to expand...
It is good that you continue demonstrating these things. You've hit upon a feature that proves the fact that evolution is possible. You've shown that constant severe multiple selection pressures results in arrested evolution and/or extinction. However, your theory also shows that variable pressures (in number and strength) provides Ideal conditions for the accelerated adaptation. This is substantiated by the numerous examples of resistence emergence that you have presented over and over again. Since nature only provides random highly variable pressures, we know that evolution is quite possible.

Unfortunately, your delusions prevent you from seeing this reality just yet. That's ok, I'll keep presenting information that demonstrates this fact.
 
Kleinman said:
What is odd about the sorting approach that I am using with your model? All I am doing is showing you what you model does when the sorting conditions are simplified. I will continue harping on this and posting more citations which substantiates this because this is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in denial.
Click to expand...
Is there any chance you could answer a question rather than just repeating your mantra?

Yes, because it obfuscates the understanding of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
Click to expand...
And so I'm contributing to the deaths of millions of people, yet all you do about it is waste your time on this forum. You have the opportunity to out someone as bad as Hitler, yet all you do is waste your time on this forum.

Who is it that is contributing to the deaths of millions of people, you ****ing moron?

What discontinuity? Ev still converges when you have three pressures; it just doesn’t converge on your perfect creature. You have this mistaken belief that ev has only a single local optimum.
Click to expand...
Converging on the same local optimum as a parameter is varied, and then suddenly converging on a different local optimum is a discontinuity. Your mantra has taken over your brain, Alan.

Of course I don’t think that. I no more think that you will have the same result with ev when using 1 versus 3 selection conditions ...
Click to expand...
And yet you will not let me say that we end up with two different functions.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Kleinman said:
Your irrational and illogical speculation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works is worse than the evolutionist concepts of eugenics and master race.
Click to expand...
You're over the top, Alan.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
You're over the top, Alan.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

It's an hour before Kleinman the Great arrives at his clinic and, instead of following up on his patients' MRIs or saving the world from monotherapy, debates us Devils of Darwinism on an "obscure Internet forum."

Let me get his first cracks out of the way so he can get down to business.

It is you deluded evolutionists who are over the top with your mathematically impossible theory of mutation and selection, shown impossible by Dr. Schneider's peer-reviewed program and the hundreds of real world examples I've posted.

(Try this: The universe is a sorting and optimization problem. A computer simulation to model every atomic particle would run profoundly slowly. Therefore, an invisible all-powerful being runs it.)

Am I catching on?

You evolutionists want to talk about anything but the mathematics of mutation and natural selection.

It's too easy. After a year of this, I too have spawned a kleinbot function in my brain. Actually, Kleinman has evolved, although profoundly slowly. Read the first few pages of this thread and you will see obsolete arguments. Notice how he doesn't use the words macro- or mico-evolution any more?
 
Last edited:
kleinman said:
“Perfect creature” and “binding sites” is not reflective of what the ev sorting algorithm is modeling. All that ev is doing is sorting sequences based on sorting conditions and it shows how profoundly slow the process is when multiple sorting conditions are used simultaneously. This also is what happens in nature as the hundreds of citations posted shows.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time in this thread, kleinman took the position that "ev is plausible model" of evolution, "Schneider got it right with ev," and that "I'll defend Schneider's work even if none of you evolutionists will."

Now, slowly but surely, ev has become nothing more than a sequence sorting program, which doesn't require any relevant biological premises. It doesn't matter that the whole purpose of the ev experiment is to show that binding sites can evolve and gain information. All that matters is that point mutation and selection is profoundly slow, and multiple relatively severe selection pressures slow evolution.

Wow, that last conclusion is really mind numbing! How could anyone seriously think that if they were to spread 3-4 different weed killers on their lawn, that there would be a lawn left at the end of the week!

True brilliance is the stuff of which kleinman is made.
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
Mr Scott, you say that about everyone including your parents. So now you are claim that Darwinian evolution does not apply to humans and some humans are not more fit than others? Your irrational and illogical speculation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works is worse than the evolutionist concepts of eugenics and master race.
Mr Scott said:
That's incredibly bizarre and off-target. Your delusions seem boundless. My athiest parents never lied to me about evolution. I never claimed Darwinian evolution did not apply to humans or that some humans were not more fit than others. I called you on your appeal to emotions (which was also a veiled ad hominem). Evolution is not wrong just because eugenics is abhorrent. If the social consequences of a scientific theory were relevant to the validity of the theory, then the atom bomb couldn't have worked because it would kill, maim, and terrify so many people. Are you attempting to build a straw man tall enough to reach heaven? Remember how your god punishes hubris?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So your parents were atheists and could prove that there is no God. They did lie to you.

Certainly eugenics is abhorrent but the concept of eugenics is a valid deduction from the theory of evolution. If it is survival of fittest then some humans are more fit than others. Of course you could deny that humans are not evolving but how do you reconcile that with the rest of your belief system. Your mathematically impossible theory of evolution is an abhorrent theory.
Kleinman said:
So then you don’t believe some humans are more fit than others. How do humans evolve?
Kotatsu said:
Well, obviously some humans are more fit than others, as evidences for example by different susceptibility to mortal or sterilising diseases, differences in amount of young conceived and reared, and so on. However, these are generally differences which do not align themselves to perceived racial categories.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok, so your argument there is survival of the fittest.
Kotatsu said:
Also, implied in the term "eugenicist" is the will to actively sort out the individuals perceived to be less fit for the betterment of the species as a whole. Phylogenetics have nothing to do with this, nor does, indeed, the whole field of evolutionary science. If you want examples of wanton slaying of people not belonging to the ingroup, you need look no further than your own religion, sir.
Click to expand...
Don’t species actively sort out the individuals less fit? Why shouldn’t humans?

Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists? It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
 
kleinman said:
Your mathematically impossible theory of evolution is an abhorrent theory.
Click to expand...
So you are against personalized medicine. You believe that everyone is equal and will, therefore, respond equally to any disease treatment. Unfortunately, you are completely unaware of the modern trends in medicine which will account for the known population variations and will one day, provide the idealized best care for each patient. Soon, gone will be the days where doctors guessed which medicine(out of several) a patient should have becuase the average population works well on that drug. It seems that you are in need of some continuing education courses to maintain your MD.

kleinman said:
Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists? It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
Click to expand...
Now this is just silly. You simply need to learn a bit more about the way variable multiple selection pressures work and that nature is a variable environment in order to understand that not only is the evolutionary theory possible, it is real.
 
kleinman said:
Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists? It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
Click to expand...
You mean that because Stalin killed millions in the name of communism, that it's okay that the Christian settlers of the new world slaughtered nearly the entire native american population?

Similar for Mao vs. Cortez and the Aztecs. Similar for Hitler (who by the way thought he was authorized by God to wipe out the Jews) vs. King Richard.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Antebellum South justified slavery by reference to Exodus 21.

Apparently, your theory is that as long as your God isn't the worst murderer on the block, that means he should be exonerated.

That's pretty ill, Alan. Stay away from philosophy discussions -- you're gonna hurt yourself.
 
kleinman said:
Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists? It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
Click to expand...


I'd like you to show how Hitler and the others were representative of darwinism in general. I'd also remind you that Hitler was a Christian, so he actually adds up with the Crusades and the Inquisition.

It's also interesting to see how your argument is slowly shifting towards appeals to emotion and personal attacks rather than evidence, since it's been shown for over a year now that you don't have any.
 
People. Klienman is a broken record. He does not believe in the Scientific Theory of Evolution, because he doesn't believe in it! Yes. Its circular. He ignores the fact that most medicines are developed using evolutionary practices. He ignores the problems in hospitals due to bacteria, and other illnesses developing resistances to anti-biotics.

He is TERRIFIED of Evolution, because he feels it will destroy his faith. He gets it so very wrong, and he continues to focus on small things, and yet, he has yet to prove, and show his math that it is 'mathematically abhorrent'.

Now he's using eugenetics to 'prove' that Evolution is immoral, and evil.

As for hospitals, I was not aware that each and every hospital in the world was solely religious based. I'm sure there are scores of medical researchers who would be horrified that Klienman finds them to be 'abhorrent' because they use evolutionary principles to do their work. They should all Just pray for everything to be cured! I'm sure Klienman uses no medicines at all, and just uses prayer, as medicine would be abhorrent...
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
What is odd about the sorting approach that I am using with your model? All I am doing is showing you what you model does when the sorting conditions are simplified. I will continue harping on this and posting more citations which substantiates this because this is how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works. You evolutionists are in denial.
Paul said:
Is there any chance you could answer a question rather than just repeating your mantra?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am answering the question which Dr Schneider asked in his own paper.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794
Evolution of biological information said:
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.
Click to expand...
Sorry you don’t like the answer because it doesn’t fit your world view.
Kleinman said:
Yes, because it obfuscates the understanding of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works.
Paul said:
And so I'm contributing to the deaths of millions of people, yet all you do about it is waste your time on this forum. You have the opportunity to out someone as bad as Hitler, yet all you do is waste your time on this forum.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Kleinman said:
Paul said:

Who is it that is contributing to the deaths of millions of people, you ****ing moron?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My, my Paul, a moderator violating the forum’s rules, you are setting a bad example. Yes Paul, you are obfuscating how Dr Schneider’s sorting algorithm works and Dr Schneider’s sorting algorithm works just like it does in the real world. Combination selection pressures profoundly slow the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. In order to find cures for diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection, it requires understanding how this process works. Paul, you are in denial of how this process works as shown by your own computer model. Hitler was an evolutionist; he advanced the concept of a super race which is a simple deduction of the concept of survival of the fittest.
Kleinman said:
What discontinuity? Ev still converges when you have three pressures; it just doesn’t converge on your perfect creature. You have this mistaken belief that ev has only a single local optimum.
Paul said:
Converging on the same local optimum as a parameter is varied, and then suddenly converging on a different local optimum is a discontinuity. Your mantra has taken over your brain, Alan.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have my mantras and you have your mantras. You are making claims about Rcapacity without producing the data. What if changing the binding site width changes the fitness landscape from one appearing more like mountain ranges to a different fitness landscape that looks like rolling plains. If you want the answer to this question you need to map out the fitness landscape. You may be able to get some idea of the shape of the fitness landscape by tracking the mistake counts for each of the selection conditions and avoid the massive computational effort of generating the fitness landscape. From my point of view though, it makes no difference. Ev is either profoundly slow to converge or it doesn’t converge at all.
Kleinman said:
Of course I don’t think that. I no more think that you will have the same result with ev when using 1 versus 3 selection conditions ...
Paul said:
And yet you will not let me say that we end up with two different functions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
All right Paul, I’m going to relent to you on this point. The mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed when evolving multiple functions simultaneously. It is much easier to evolve a single function based on a single selection pressure than to evolve three functions to three simultaneous selection pressures. This is exactly analogous to using monotherapy for the treatment of HIV verses 3 drug combination therapy for treating the disease.
Kleinman said:
Your irrational and illogical speculation of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works is worse than the evolutionist concepts of eugenics and master race.
Paul said:
You're over the top, Alan.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why? More people will die prematurely from the consequences of diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection than from those who espouse the concept of a master race.
Kleinman said:
Your mathematically impossible theory of evolution is an abhorrent theory.
joobz said:
So you are against personalized medicine. You believe that everyone is equal and will, therefore, respond equally to any disease treatment. Unfortunately, you are completely unaware of the modern trends in medicine which will account for the known population variations and will one day, provide the idealized best care for each patient. Soon, gone will be the days where doctors guessed which medicine(out of several) a patient should have becuase the average population works well on that drug. It seems that you are in need of some continuing education courses to maintain your MD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Joobz, what do you know about the practice of medicine? Tell us all about your training and experience.
Kleinman said:
Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists? It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
Belz… said:
I'd like you to show how Hitler and the others were representative of darwinism in general. I'd also remind you that Hitler was a Christian
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why Belz, didn’t you know that Hitler continually advanced the concept that the Germans were the master race, more highly evolved, more fit. Where do you find those concepts in Christianity? Now Hitler wasn’t the only mass murderer who embraced evolutionism. Stalin and Mao, both communists followed the teaching of Marx who adopted evolutionism.
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj71/darwin.htm
DARWIN said:
The impact of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was undoubtedly revolutionary. Marx's response to the appearance of The Origin of Species in 1859 is well known. In a letter to Ferdinand Lassalle he wrote:
Click to expand...
DARWIN said:

Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a natural-scientific basis for the class struggle in history... Despite all deficiencies, not only is the death-blow dealt for the first time here to 'teleology' in the natural sciences, but its rational basis is empirically explained.2
Click to expand...

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm
Evolution and Communism said:
Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).
Click to expand...
Evolution and Communism said:

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.
Click to expand...

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/morgan-lewis/ancient-society/foreword.htm
Ancient Society. Lewis H. Morgan 1877 said:
Commenting on this outstanding book in the light of which he had written ‘The Origin of Family, Private Property and State’ which again contains a summary of the important facts established by Morgan in “Ancient Society,” Engels says, “Morgan’s great merit lies in the fact that he discovered and re-constructed in its main lines the pre-historic basis of our written history; so long as no important additional material makes changes necessary, his classification will undoubtedly remain in force.” In a letter to Kautsky (February 16, 1884) he says, “There exists a definitive book on the origins of society, as definitive as Darwin’s work for Biology, and it is, naturally, again Marx who has discovered it: it is Morgan, Ancient Society, 1877. Marx spoke to me of it but I had other matters on my mind and he did not return to the subject. This surely pleased him for I can see by his very detailed extracts that he wanted to introduce it to the Germans himself. Within the limits set by his subject, Morgan spontaneously discovered Marx’s materialist conception of history, and his conclusions with regard to present-day society are absolutely communist postulates. The Roman and Greek gens is for the first time fully explained by those of savages, especially the American Indians, and this gives a solid base to primitive history.”
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory_and_the_political_left
Evolutionary theory and the political left said:
When Karl Marx read Darwin's work on evolution he immediately believed that it supported his worldview and theory of class struggle. Karl Marx sent Darwin an autographed copy of his Das Kapital; Darwin responded with a polite "thank you" letter, but never read the book[1]. Marx believed that Darwin's work both helped to explain the internal struggles of human society, and provided a material explanation for the processes of nature, something which his philosophy was heavily based on.
Click to expand...
So not only is the theory of evolution mathematically impossible, evolutionism is the religion of mass murderers. All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history. I’ll return next week to post more citations which show your theory to be mathematically impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation shows this and reality demonstrates what ev shows.
 
kleinman said:
All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history. I’ll return next week to post more citations which show your theory to be mathematically impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation shows this and reality demonstrates what ev shows.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. Frankly, I am done arguing with the hopelessly incompetent mass of defunct neurons a medical examiner might call your brain. I will check in from time to time to see what remarkable stupidity you have drooled into the numerous posts you make, but don't expect me to take anything you say seriously.
 
kleinman said:
Why Belz, didn’t you know that Hitler continually advanced the concept that the Germans were the master race, more highly evolved, more fit.
Click to expand...

And yet he was a Christian.

Where do you find those concepts in Christianity?
Click to expand...

In the thought that believers are "better" than nonbelievers.

Now Hitler wasn’t the only mass murderer who embraced evolutionism. Stalin and Mao, both communists followed the teaching of Marx who adopted evolutionism.
Click to expand...

I see you've invented your own definition of "evolutionism". If, by that, you mean any endeavour to improve upon anything, no matter by what means, then congratulations: you've just invented a useless word.

So not only is the theory of evolution mathematically impossible, evolutionism is the religion of mass murderers.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's a stundie.

All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history.
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotions, again.
 
I thought he'd made the "evolution is bad therefore wrong" argument already?
 
kleinman said:
Joobz, what do you know about the practice of medicine? Tell us all about your training and experience.
Click to expand...
I am very aware of the NIH's roadmap for health and know that personalized medicine is the morally advanced and appropriate method of care. This is why so much research is going into it.

However, you choose believe that everyone is physiologically equal and respond equally to all medicines. I'm not certain your understanding of health care is as solid as it should be. It seems your belief system (that evolution and genetic variation is not real) may get in the way of your care.

kleinman said:
So not only is the theory of evolution mathematically impossible, evolutionism is the religion of mass murderers. All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history. I’ll return next week to post more citations which show your theory to be mathematically impossible. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation shows this and reality demonstrates what ev shows.
Click to expand...
I see you have switched arguments from proving evolution is impossible to saying it is immoral. This tactic change indicates to me that you realize what your argument shows. That multiple variable selection pressures can accelerate the adaption response making evolution quite possible. Since nature is a variable environment, evolution is a possible and true.

Soon, you will also come to understand that your belief system, that made you unable to see the truth around you, is also confusing your sense of morality. Eventually you will see that your religious dogma prevents you from properly treating patients as individuals. Unfortuantely, your current practice is amoral and hopefully will change.

You will soon realize that genetically variable is not equivalent to value variable. But this is a concept that seems to extend beyond your grasp right now. So, we'll just work with what we got.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
He's toast.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Definitely. His change in attack is an obvious admission in him becoming aware of what his constant multiple selection pressure argument shows. That the natural environment provides the variability which allows for evolution to occur in a realistic timescale.
 
Last edited:
kleinman said:
Ok, so your argument there is survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

My argument is that annelids have a more useful and generally evolutionary fit bauplan than humans do, as evidenced by their far greater diversity, numbers, and ranges, and the fact that while the "worm" bauplan can be found in almost all phyla, then human bauplan can be found only in one, and that's one of the smaller and less significant ones to boot.

The rest of this part of the discussion is fluff you have added because you have no idea what I am talking about, are physically or mentally unable to educate yourself, and haven't decided upon a suitable "funny" nickkname based on my screen name despite having communicated with me for about a year. I am disappointed in you.

kleinman said:
Don’t species actively sort out the individuals less fit? Why shouldn’t humans?
Click to expand...

They do? Tell me, how many species (apart from humans) do you know that actively judge which individual members of the group are less fit, and then go forth to execute or otherwise neutralise them? By what mechanisms do they do this? Can you name even one?

And regardless of if you eventually find one, I would just like to make clear already now that existence of a trait in one given species does by no means imply that that trait is desirable, extant, or even possible in another given species.

kleinman said:
Wanton slaying of people saying they are doing it in the name of god don’t hold a candle to the work of evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Click to expand...

Hitler was a Christian, so any and all killings he is responsible for counts equally for both sides, at the very least. Unlike the benevolent Christians who conquered the Americas ad Australia, however, Hitler never managed to more or less clear a continent of its original inhabitants. Of course, he was only one person, while the Christian colonizers were many.

kleinman said:
Then how many abortionists are also evolutionists?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, and see no relevance in the question, unless you can show me that the majority of abortionists (by which I assume you mean those who actually either go through or perform an abortion, rather than just those who support it) do this out of a desire to better the species.

kleinman said:
It is your mathematically impossible theory which is abhorrent. Of course evolutionists redeem themselves by starting hospitals all over the world. Didn’t we just see the opening of the “Evolutionist Hospital of the Most Fit”?
Click to expand...

While Christians have been reported to refuse to give aid to tsunami victims unless they first convert to Christianity.

See? It's easy to point out acts of rotten eggs regardless of to what groups they belong. This, however, has no bearing at all on the veracity of evolution and the validity of the theory aiming to describe the mechanisms by which it occurs. So cease this idiotic appeal to various emotions, and instead present your data.
 
kleinman said:
Why? More people will die prematurely from the consequences of diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection than from those who espouse the concept of a master race.
Click to expand...

Then you should just get God to stop all that mutation and selection, so that the scales will be tipped the other way and you can blame more deaths on the secret cabal of evil evolutionists who are even now weeding out the lesser men (i.e., believers) in order to create a master race of evolutionist God-deniers, shouldn't you?

As people have asked before, why are you wasting your time here? We are obviously lost cases.
 
<<So not only is the theory of evolution mathematically impossible, evolutionism is the religion of mass murderers. All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history.>>

Oh, dear, dear, Mr K.

In fact, you'll find that driving on the right is a better predictor than theories taken out of context.

Might I suggest that your own temperament would be greatly improved if you were to start driving on the left asap.
 
Kotatsu said:
See? It's easy to point out acts of rotten eggs regardless of to what groups they belong. This, however, has no bearing at all on the veracity of evolution and the validity of the theory aiming to describe the mechanisms by which it occurs. So cease this idiotic appeal to various emotions, and instead present your data.
Click to expand...
Amen to that, brother!
 
Sorry, kleinman.
fail-5.jpg

People already thought of that kind of argument. You've also got a little bit of this mixed in there. Nice try, though.
 
Last edited:
It has been a while since I checked in on this sub-forum. I almost hoped that this thread might have miraculously dropped from the front page.... no such luck.

Anyway, I only just today ran across this, which directly applies to Kleinman's (original) argument (I know it has evolved since then, having been subject to multiple selection pressures). I did not know that Kleinman agreed so well with Behe. Live and learn...
 
Oooh, kleinman thought of a new lie!

Stalin and Mao, both communists followed the teaching of Marx who adopted evolutionism.
Click to expand...
And yet Stalin banned the theory of evolution and murdered its advocates. I don't know where Mao stood, though I'm certain that he was a committed twoplustwoequalsfourist. Is that why you hate math so much?

Now Hitler wasn’t the only mass murderer who embraced evolutionism.
Click to expand...
This is my favorite creationist lie. Not just because it's so stupid, not just because it stinks so much, but also because it gives me a legitimate excuse to point out that Hitler was a devout creationist.

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

All you evolutionists have a good weekend trying to disconnect your theory of evolution from the greatest mass murderers in history.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take all weekend to show up your silly lies. Coupla minutes?

Now I shall find something more entertaining to do.
 
Last edited:
Wow! I should have documented the fact that I long ago predicted this discussion would decay to "Well, evolutionists/atheists are just evil, so there!", despite the facts. I could have qualified for the MDC!

I agree, "he's toast".
 
Mercutio said:
It has been a while since I checked in on this sub-forum. I almost hoped that this thread might have miraculously dropped from the front page.... no such luck.

Anyway, I only just today ran across this, which directly applies to Kleinman's (original) argument (I know it has evolved since then, having been subject to multiple selection pressures). I did not know that Kleinman agreed so well with Behe. Live and learn...
Click to expand...

Everything makes sense now.

I have long wondered how someone as stupid as Kleinman could have come up with a <incorrect> theory on their own. Now I know -- it isn't his.

So Kleinman has just jumped on another creationist bandwagon and doesn't know anything about what he speaks of? This has kind of been evident from the get-go, but now it makes perfect sense to me. Of course he can't address our arguments directly, he is nothing more than a messenger boy.
 
Last edited:
What I'd like to know is what made kleinman go down the hitler road.
 
joobz said:
What I'd like to know is what made kleinman go down the hitler road.
Click to expand...
I'd say a combination of frustration, inability to think critically, blind devotion to a hopeless cause, ignorance of history, and desperation.
 
rocketdodger said:
Everything makes sense now.

I have long wondered how someone as stupid as Kleinman could have come up with a <incorrect> theory on their own. Now I know -- it isn't his.

So Kleinman has just jumped on another creationist bandwagon and doesn't know anything about what he speaks of? This has kind of been evident from the get-go, but now it makes perfect sense to me. Of course he can't address our arguments directly, he is nothing more than a messenger boy.
Click to expand...

Does anyone have a more complete reference to the Miller paper he mentions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom