|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: So you are both an atheist and agnostic. Yes. Most people are more interested in what we believe, not in what we can know. In fact, there are agnostic Christians who believe in God. That's why I usually refer to myself as an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: None of these papers explain how drug resistance evolves. What a fucking moron. This is why people see no need to respond to your posts on this subject. Even when shown exactly what you are asking for you deny what is right in front of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Did they identify 203,000 retroviruses in these genomes? Kleinman:What happens if a germ cell has more than one retrovirus active in the cell at a time? Kleinman:Is your claim that the LTRs remain but the protein-coding region has disappeared? Do the LTRs ever get a mutation when they are replicated? Kleinman:Are all LTRs associated with retroviruses? Kleinman:If you don't have the viral protein-coding genes in the genetic sequence, and the LTRs have evolved, how can you be sure this genetic sequence is from a retrovirus? Kleinman:How do you determine that this piece of genetic material is the remnant of a retrovirus rather than host DNA when the viral protein-coding DNA is gone? Can the host vertebrate genome have its own LTRs that are not from a virus? Kleinman:Can vertebrates have retrotransposons not associated with retroviruses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:It appears you are having difficulty posting a quote from any of your papers that you think describes the mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. The fact is that biologists have failed to describe the physics and mathematics of biological evolution and the evolution of drug resistance. I'm familiar with most of those papers you listed and none give the correct mathematics. None of these papers explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You are wrong Taq and you are angry because you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Message 800
quote: Happy Alert: These 5 listed papers are actual science showing genomic evolution of antibiotic resistance, something Kleinman claims doesn't exist. Unlike Kleinman's sloppy and errant works these papers are reviewed, accepted and represent the actual facts of the processes. Kleinman writes: None of these papers explain how drug resistance evolves. Taq responds: What a fucking moron. This is why people see no need to respond to your posts on this subject. Even when shown exactly what you are asking for you deny what is right in front of you. This discussion has left any science topic behind and is now nothing more than an intransigent Kleinman pushing a religious agenda.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:None of Taq's references explain how drug resistance occurs and why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation for a single selection pressure in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I realize it is difficult for you and biologists to understand the mathematics of evolution but here it is. For a single selection pressure: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance And here is the correct probability equation for a single adaptive step in a single selection pressure environment: P(X) = (1-(1-P(Beneficial)μ)^N where P(X) is the probability of the beneficial mutation occurring, P(Beneficial) is the probability that of all the mutations that may occur at that site that it is the beneficial mutation, μ is the mutation rate, and N it the number of replications that the particular variant does. I don't post this for you AZPaul because you refuse to learn about probability theory and the "at least one" rule. This is for any of those that know a little about probability theory. That is how you do the mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation, a stochastic process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
An intransigent Kleinman pushing a religious agenda.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:You are confuse AZPaul3, these papers explain how drug resistance evolves. For a single selection pressure: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance This math fits the experimental and empirical data of biological evolutionary descent with modification and adaptation. It explains why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You won't accept this mathematical and physical fact of life because it doesn't fit your belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Bogus.
An intransigent Kleinman pushing his religious agenda.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
It is worth summarizing this discussion on ERVs since Taq has been playing an ongoing April Fool joke on everyone.
The reader should recall that Taq is using the existence of ERVs in humans and chimpanzees as proof that the two species are related. In Message 772 we had the following exchange:
Kleinman:A few posts later, Message 787, I asked Taq the following: Kleinman:Taq has said something different from his initial claim. He now says, "They are easily recognizable as retroviral genomes and LTRs from retroviruses." He is now shifting his argument from ERVs to LTRs. Note that his figure shows that an exogenous retrovirus has a gag, pol, and env region where the genome is coding for proteins unique to the virus. For those not familiar with what an LTR is, you can read the following Wikipedia link where you can find a discussion on Repeated Sequence DNA: Repeated sequence (DNA) - Wikipedia(DNA) Interspersed repeats
and slightly further down in this link:
Interspersed repeats are identical or similar DNA sequences which are found in different locations throughout the genome. Interspersed repeats are distinguished from tandem repeats in that the repeated sequences are not directly adjacent to each other but instead may be scattered among different chromosomes or far apart on the same chromosome. Most interspersed repeats are transposable elements (TEs), mobile sequences which can be “cut and pasted” or “copied and pasted” into different places in the genome. TEs were originally called “jumping genes” for their ability to move, yet this term is somewhat misleading as not all TEs are discrete genes. Long-terminal repeat retrotransposons (LTRs) are a third major class of retrotransposons and are characterized by highly repetitive sequences as the ends of the repeat. Taq's argument has made a shift from talking about ERVs now to talking about LTRs. Then in Message 794, I asked Taq the following and he gave this response:
Kleinman:Here is a short discussion of Repeated sequence (DNA): Repeated sequence (DNA) - Wikipedia(DNA) Repeated sequences (also known as repetitive elements, repeating units or repeats) are short or long patterns of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) that occur in multiple copies throughout the genome. In many organisms, a significant fraction of the genomic DNA is repetitive, with over two-thirds of the sequence consisting of repetitive elements in humans. Some of these repeated sequences are necessary for maintaining important genome structures such as telomeres or centromeres.
And further done in that post, I asked the following:
Kleinman:Miraculously, 90% of the ERVs have lost their protein coding regions and only LTRs remain and the other 10% have only parts remaining, no intact viral genomes in that 203,000 ERVs that relate humans and chimpanzees. But Taq says that he is absolutely sure these LTRs are from retroviruses and he gives his proof in Message 802: Taq:The correct picture he should use for his argument looks like this: It is no surprise that Taq would rather argue about what he thinks atheism and agnosticism mean, or post a bunch of references that he claims explain how drug resistance evolves and then gets angry because I point out that he doesn't quote from any of them. What Taq calls evidence is his biased interpretation of his observations. He may think that humans and chimpanzees are related but he does this based on his incorrect understanding of the physics and mathematics of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3:The following two papers that give the mathematics for descent with modification (and adaptation) are what AZPaul3 is calling bogus. For a single selection pressure: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance He seems to think that the peer reviewers at Statistics in Medicine did an inadequate job peer reviewing these papers. The following video explains what is happening in scientific publishing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-K3obvnKYQ&ab_channel=Bu... Here is the website where they are monitoring retracted papers: Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Here is AZPaul3's big chance to get these "bogus" papers pulled. Is AZPaul3 all talk and no action?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: None of Taq's references explain how drug resistance occurs and why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation for a single selection pressure in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. All of them do. Read the papers you fucking moron.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: Did they identify 203,000 retroviruses in these genomes? They weren't only trying to detect the presence of ERV's, and they were widespread amongst vertebrates.
What happens if a germ cell has more than one retrovirus active in the cell at a time? Apparently, nothing. There are koalas with over 50 recently inserted ERVs and they are having offspring without a hitch.
Is your claim that the LTRs remain but the protein-coding region has disappeared? Do the LTRs ever get a mutation when they are replicated? Already answered multiple times.
Are all LTRs associated with retroviruses? LTRs are by definition from retroviral insertions.
If you don't have the viral protein-coding genes in the genetic sequence, and the LTRs have evolved, how can you be sure this genetic sequence is from a retrovirus? The same way you can identify a partial fingerprint.
How do you determine that this piece of genetic material is the remnant of a retrovirus rather than host DNA when the viral protein-coding DNA is gone? The same way we know a partial fingerprint is from a finger.
Can the host vertebrate genome have its own LTRs that are not from a virus? Can a murder weapon have its own fingerprints? All you are trying to do is used the Omphalos argument. Arguing that the human genome was created with genetic scars from retroviral insertion is nonsense. It's like saying the universe was created last Thursday, complete with a false history and false memories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: He is now shifting his argument from ERVs to LTRs. LTRs are ERVs, you fucking moron.
The correct picture he should use for his argument looks like this: You would deny that those are tires. Instead, they are round pieces of rubber that were created with the Earth 6,000 years ago. They never came from a tire factory, nor did they ever reside on a car.
Taq can look at this picture and tell us what vehicle these tires came off simply by the brand of tire. I can tell you they are tires. In the same way, LTRs are the tires of the ERV vehicle. Your argument seems to be that the Earth was created with those tires already in place.
It is no surprise that Taq would rather argue about what he thinks atheism and agnosticism mean, or post a bunch of references that he claims explain how drug resistance evolves and then gets angry because I point out that he doesn't quote from any of them. You fucking moron. You don't even understand the papers you claim to reference. You don't even understand that modeling asexual reproduction does not accurately model the evolution of sexual species. You can't even understand that the mutation rate is different in humans and in bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Kleinman writes: It appears you are having difficulty posting a quote from any of your papers that you think describes the mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance. You don't need mathematics to explain how antibiotic resistance evolves, you fucking moron.
The fact is that biologists have failed to describe the physics and mathematics of biological evolution and the evolution of drug resistance. Prove it. Show me every paper in existence on antibiotic resistance and show me that none of them have the requisite math.
I'm familiar with most of those papers you listed and none give the correct mathematics. You wouldn't recognize correct math if it was right in front of you, you fucking moron.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024