Summations Only

I have read the entire thread and will be moderating.This thread never got off the ground back in January, but member Kleinman has begun using it to present his case that "the theory of evolution is not true." He should have proposed his topic over at Proposed New Topics instead of coopting an existing thread, but I didn't catch this until just now, so I'll let it go.Kleinman: I appreciate that you want to present your case in a methodical fashion, but this is dragging on far too long. Please clearly present your case and its supporting evidence, including all the math. If it's helpful please be aware this board supports LaTeX.Please, no replies to this message.

From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

In other words, at EvC Forum the evidence and argument must be entered into the discussion in your own newly original words (cut-n-pastes from your own past words don't qualify), not just linked to.Additionally, only abstracts are available. Full articles are behind a paywall. If you send PDF's of the papers to me at admin@evcforum.net I will make them available here at the board.Please, no replies to this message.

I can see you're having trouble with quotes. What should be this:

quote:

---

And there is a straightforward explanation why that happens. Malaria can achieve populations of a trillion or more in an infected individual. When you have populations that large, the probabilities will become realistic that you will get members of that population with double beneficial mutations.

​

Is there some reason why the evolution of resistance in this case can't involve two or more sequential mutations?

---

Becomes this in your messages with the indentation groupings backwards, and obviously requiring unnecessary editing:

quote:

---

And there is a straightforward explanation why that happens. Malaria can achieve populations of a trillion or more in an infected individual. When you have populations that large, the probabilities will become realistic that you will get members of that population with double beneficial mutations.

​

quote:

---

Is there some reason why the evolution of resistance in this case can't involve two or more sequential mutations?

---

---

Next time you reply to a message, look for the "Normal" and "Peek Mode" radio buttons at the top of the message you're replying to. Click on the "Peek Mode" button. Now you can see the message with all its original markup. Cut-n-paste the part you want, putting a [qs] in front and a [/qs] at the end. Your can of course use [quote] and [/quote] if you wish, but most members use the convention of [qs] for quoting from messages and [quote] for quoting from elsewhere. The quoted portion would then look like this: Easy peasy, just like the original text, only quoted.

Rather than handing out reading or watching assignments, it is preferred that arguments be entered into the debate in one's own words and that links be used only as references.

This thread, Kleinman's thread (I think it is safe to call it Kleinman's now), did not pass through the normal thread proposal process, but I think his claims are clear:

• The theory of evolution is not true. This is demonstrated by combination therapy for AIDS, and he can prove it mathematically (Message 5 and forward).
  ​
  My analysis of discussion on this subtopic so far: The ratio of Kleinman actually showing math to his claims of having done math is minute. I only recall one Kleinman post with math and it was addition.
  ​
  Taq alleged that Kleinman's model is false because he's fallen into the sharpshooter fallacy trap (msg=144 and Message 145) . Kleinman's response in Message 172 was a handwave.
  ​
  Bottom line: It would be helpful if Kleinman could show his model correct, then show the math.
  ​
• Random mutation and natural selection could not produce birds from dinosaurs (Message 55 and forward; Kleinman prefers reptiles to birds rather than dinosaurs to birds, but reptiles are more distantly related). Dr Adequate has been pressuring Kleinman to defend this claim, and I'm unable to weave Kleinman's responses into a coherent defense, and others may be having the same problem.
  ​
  Bottom line: It would be helpful if Kleinman could explain why this claim is true, then show the math.

Normally I wouldn't request people to show the math, but the foundation for Kleinman's claims is that he's done the math that proves his claims, so therefore he should show the math.I find the rmns acronym rendered in lowercase a bit unreadable and suggest substituting any of RM/NS, RM-NS, RMNS.Please, no replies to this message, just take these requests into account during discussion.

Hi Kleinman,As Dr Adequate said, what you say is self-evidently true, plus you already provided that equation back in Message 186. Since we're past 200 messages now I think it isn't unfair to call upon you to move ahead more expeditiously. Continuing your focus on the the bacterial example is fine. Dr Adequate is eager to move ahead to your dinosaur-to-bird claim, but one thing at a time is probably a good idea.To help move things along allow me to anticipate a couple questions people might have:

• What does Weinreich et. al. have to do with your simple equation?
  ​
• What leads you to draw different conclusions from Weinreich et. al. than do the authors?

Hi Kleinman,Weinrich et. al. believe their research indicates that selection constrains evolution to narrower pathways than previously supposed, and that that makes evolution more predictable and repeatable than we might have expected. What is it about their data that leads you to instead conclude that evolution is impossible?I'd like to suggest, strongly, that it isn't necessary to explain simple math and probability in painful detail. You've gone on for almost as long as the Constitution. Time to get to the crux.

Please complete your exposition in your next post.

I know Kleinman has been patronizing, but please, let's keep this civil.

See Figure 2 of Weinrich et. al.. The specific mutations are known, he's just stating the number of possible orderings to arrive at the final TEM state, which is 5!. Well, if that's it then we'll just have to see if anyone wants to engage with you further about whether RM/NS renders evolution irrational.Until then, please move on to addressing the dinosaur-to-bird issue. Sorry to be curt, but you've pretty much exhausted everyone's patience.

I wanted Kleinman to cover two topics, how the mathematics of RM/NS makes evolution impossible, and how the evolution from dinosaurs to birds is impossible. As near as I can tell his answers didn't change when he moved from the first topic to the second. There was no additional math or details, and the arguments remained the same.Would there be any objections if I dropped this thread into summation mode? I won't do that if anyone thinks there is still some productive discussion remaining.

As I expected, the debate has become very repetitive. One frequently seen pattern is for people to argue that the example of fatal selection pressures on bacteria and viruses cannot be generalized to other levels of selection, and for you to reply that your papers show otherwise. But your papers are not accessible to the people here, so you must stop citing them. Even if they were accessible you must still present your evidence and arguments in the thread, using links only as references. Arguing, in effect, "This link shows I'm right" or "This link shows you're wrong," is strongly discouraged here at EvC Forum.This is the only equation you've presented: What you must do is substitute actual values into this equation demonstrating evolution impossible. If I don't see this presentation very soon I will drop this thread into summation mode.Edited by Admin, : Typo.Edited by Admin, : Fix equation to eliminate the smilie.

I think you must have set some sort of record for repeating mathematical claims while doing so little actual math. It would make Percy very happy if you could make a mathematical presentation that supports your claims. Your very general and self evident equation doesn't do this in a way apparent to anyone.

Hi Kleinman,You're repeating the same self-evident math you presented in Message 214, and you've provided no values. To repeat what I just said, you must substitute actual values into your equation demonstrating evolution impossible, and if you don't then I will drop this thread into summation mode.

You've cited these inaccessible papers too many times. Until they're made publicly available, each time you cite them henceforth I will suspend you for 24 hours.About doing "the first fundamental steps of the calculation," you haven't made any calculations based upon the single equation you presented.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.