Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 523 of 2073 (741567)
11-13-2014 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:41 AM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
Because objective-endeavor shows a scientific attitude.
Objectively, then, if my beliefs indicate that we should expect to find fossil victims of catastrophes I should not be required to argue that a fossil is not a victim of a catastrophe to support my beliefs. Because objectively it would not. Its existence is evidence for my views. the absence of any such fossils would be evidence against my views.
In reality, if the geological and fossil records did not exist, the case for YEC would be storer, not weaker. Eliminating significant evidence for an old Earth and for evolution would hardly cause you a problem. It would be a problem for those who wished to argue for an old Earth and for evolution. You could even, as I said to Faith, argue for a miraculous clean up of the mess left by the Flood - and the absence of evidence to the contrary would make that more plausible, not less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 524 of 2073 (741569)
11-13-2014 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:49 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Not so long ago I put down my expectation of what we should see if the Flood really occurred. I'll try to find it this evening.
But try this thought, Mike. If the geological and fossil records contain features strongly inconsistent with being produced by a single flood, lasting only a year, how can they be said to be evidence for such a flood ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 536 of 2073 (741626)
11-13-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:49 AM


Flood evidence and some thoughts for Mike
Here's some stuff I came up with earlier:
Personally I'd expect to see the following if almost all rocks were deposited by a world-wide flood.
1) Evaporites and lava flows which cooled under air would only be seen at the top or the bottom of the column. Neither could form underwater. Undisturbed surface features, coral reefs and developed paleosols would only be found at the bottom. Likewise angular unconformities.
2) There would be an upward-fining layer, perhaps a several yards thick containing a large majority of fossils, all sorted hydrodnamically. There would be no unconformities of any sort within this layer.
3) If the majority of geological features were formed by a flood all mountains should be clearly pre-flood structures, excepting volcanoes.
4) Geological evidence of continental drift would be absent. There's no time for significant drift. Any strata matched between continents would simply continue across the seabed, except where they have been pushed apart by rifts, and that for only a few kilometers at most.
In a more realistic old-Earth scenario I'd expect the Flood layer to be a relatively small part of the geological record.
And here are some thoughts on evidence:
To get a murder conviction you have to show that there was a murder. But suppose that the prosecution stopped there. If the defendant's lawyer claimed "there is no evidence that my client is guilty of this crime" would you say that he didn't understand evidence ? Or would you think his comment reasonable, given that the prosecution presented no evidence that the defendant was the one who did it ?
Can you call a cemetery "a record of mass death" just because a lot of bodies are buried there ? Wouldn't you need more evidence to conclude that ? And what if the evidence showed that the bodies accumulated relatively slowly over a long period of time ? Wouldn't it be wrong to say that the cemetery was a "record of mass death" ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 545 of 2073 (741655)
11-13-2014 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Rahvin
11-13-2014 3:02 PM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
She's logically consistent in positions that follow from considering the Bible to be the final authority on all matters on which it takes a position.
That doesn't address the inconsistency I raised at all. And I'd argue that her interpretative methods go against the principle of considering the Bible the final authority, also.
quote:
That's not remotely what I said. I don't see Faith as "prideful." I simply see her as willing and able to doubt literally anything and everything before doubting her preferred interpretation of the Bible. I think she considers her own reasoning and logic to be just as "fallen" as yours or mine - she trusts only her understanding of the Bible.
That is obviously untrue. She complains bitterly and insultingly about the fact that we find her arguments unconvincing.
quote:
"Lying" is nto and never has been defined as making a statement that one knows or should know is false. A "lie" is a statement made when the person knows the statement to be false.
I think that you will find that there are people who disagree.
quote:
You're basically accusing Faith of the same sort of thing that some Creationists accuse Atheists of - that she secretly knows and agrees that what she's saying is false, despite her protestations, just as Atheists secretly know and agree that God exists.
That's so wrong. The point is to avoid judging what she actually believes. Because there is no way to know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 3:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 603 of 2073 (742441)
11-20-2014 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Colbard
11-20-2014 2:53 AM


Re: Independence in Education
quote:
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.
It is apparent that you believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that there was a global flood in that period - and I don't think that it's a coincidence that such beliefs agree with a literalistic reading of Genesis. You have said: "Genuine Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of faith..."
Your objections to evolution are not even the main reason you are considered to be religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Colbard, posted 11-20-2014 2:53 AM Colbard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1190 of 2073 (842199)
10-27-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by RAZD
10-27-2018 4:33 PM


Re: The atheist biologist issue ...
Miller is also the coauthor of a Biology text (Miller and Levine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2018 4:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1326 of 2073 (875456)
04-26-2020 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1324 by candle2
04-26-2020 3:24 PM


Re: Evolution over Religion
quote:
I don't suggest teaching religion in school, not do I support
teaching evolution, especially as a science.
Schools shouldn’t censor science just because it contradicts some religious belief. That would lead to all sorts of problems.
quote:
It is not a science. It is impossible to replicate what evolutionists
claim.
You don’t know much about, science, do you?
Evolution is certainly science. And it is certainly possible to replicate the experimental work, and to repeat many relevant observations.
Fossils don’t generally disappear, to use just one example.
Astronomy has it harder. Supernovas don’t happen to order and the event itself is soon over - to use just one example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1324 by candle2, posted 04-26-2020 3:24 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1329 of 2073 (875470)
04-27-2020 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1328 by candle2
04-27-2020 6:48 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
quote:
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon;
Just as evolutionary theory says!
(Humans are apes so obviously humans give birth to apes).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1328 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 6:48 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1330 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 8:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1332 of 2073 (875473)
04-27-2020 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1330 by candle2
04-27-2020 8:14 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
So you claim you aren’t human, and that you’re better than human.
Interesting. So what are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1330 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 8:14 AM candle2 has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1333 of 2073 (875474)
04-27-2020 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1331 by candle2
04-27-2020 8:24 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
quote:
I love science. Look at all the ways that science
improved our standard of living
And yet here you are attacking science teaching.
quote:
God commands His followers to "prove" all things.
Where prove means test - and you’re supposed to hold on to the good, not the bad.
quote:
The way I see the situation is this:
The Bible and science vs. evolutionists and misguided
human reasoning
More accurately it’s frauds and their dupes versus the science of evolution,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1331 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 8:24 AM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1519 of 2073 (877829)
06-22-2020 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1518 by Kleinman
06-22-2020 11:43 AM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
quote:
I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish.
No, you can’t. Models are only as good as their assumptions, and I think you’d be hard pressed to show that your assumptions are correct - with empirical certainty.
quote:
In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences.
Really? I think you’ve made a basic error.
quote:
That is what science can tell you.
Funny how so many scientists disagree with you then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1518 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 11:43 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1521 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 12:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1522 of 2073 (877837)
06-22-2020 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1521 by Kleinman
06-22-2020 12:18 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
quote:
Yes, I can, and I've shown how to apply the mathematics to the Kishony and Lenski experiments as well as giving the correct explanation for why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. In addition, this math will predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments if they use more than a single selection pressure. And I did it by deriving the governing mathematics from first principles. If you think I've made an incorrect assumption, point it out. Here's the links to the DNA evolution papers again and show us where I made an incorrect assumption
Oh, that’s simple. We aren’t talking about any of those, we’re talking about the evolution of - for example - birds from dinosaurs. You cannot conclude that the conditions in the experiments match those closely enough to come to the conclusions you do.
And by the way, being correct when you agree with evolutionary theory doesn’t mean that you are correct when you disagree. That’s another false assumption.
quote:
You are thinking wrong. But if you think you are correct, point out my basic error and/or give us a real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution that doesn't obey the math that I've presented. You won't.
You’ve ignored the basic fact that DNA evolution is driven by neutral drift, not selection. Neutral drift does not obey your equations.
quote:
I can't help it if biologists can't do the mathematics of evolution correctly. Perhaps if they took the mathematics that engineers are required to master instead of their dumbbell math courses, they could figure out this problem. You should take a course in introductory probability theory and even you might learn how DNA evolution works.
I have taken classes in probability theory, and I think you misunderstand the application in at least one important way. And you haven’t shown that biologists make any important mistakes either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1521 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 12:18 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1523 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1524 of 2073 (877841)
06-22-2020 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1523 by Kleinman
06-22-2020 1:33 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
quote:
The point you are missing is that it takes about a billion replications for each beneficial mutation on an evolutionary trajectory
The point you are missing is that much of the DNA differences are neutral. Also, I suspect that you miss the fact that evolutionary trajectories are defined with hindsight, so the assumption that a specific beneficial mutation is required is questionable indeed.
I will also point out that pneumatic bones - like feathers - evolved in dinosaurs before there were any birds. So I think you underestimate the number of transitional quite considerably.
quote:
That's a two-way street. The difference is that I know where the incorrect assumptions are and you don't.
That is what you claim. However showing that you are correct when you agree with evolutionary science does nothing to support such an assertion. Yet that is what you try to do.
quote:
What makes you think that DNA evolution works differently with selection and drift? In fact, the Markov models of DNA evolution work the same for both
Maybe they do, but that isn’t what you are talking about. Neutral drift, for instance, does not have to wait for a beneficial mutation so any calculation if that factor is utterly irrelevant.
Note also that you hold that these models don’t work anyway.
quote:
Here are the links to the papers on DNA evolution again. Show us where I misunderstand the application in at least one important way.
Which of these papers provides the probability argument that humans and chimps cannot share a common ancestor ?
quote:
The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Please explain this alleged blunder - because I believe that the error is yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1523 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 1:33 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1525 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1526 of 2073 (877845)
06-22-2020 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1525 by Kleinman
06-22-2020 2:36 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
quote:
It doesn't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, DNA evolution works the same for all situations.
Does that mean that you think that neutral drift does have to wait for a beneficial mutation? Because in that respect it certainly does matter.
Drift, since it is not selection at all, can also work in parallel, unlike the strong negative selection you favour. So there’s another relevant difference.
quote:
Let's assume you are correct. Are you now going to claim that flight muscles, the differences in circulatory, respiratory, excretory, endocrine, metabolism, anatomy,... all evolved in dinosaurs (reptiles) before they became birds?
I am not going to make claims where I lack information, but it is certainly likely that some of them did in part, perhaps in whole. Feathers certainly did, so did pneumatised bones. And of course, the fossil record is not very good at preserving many of these features so working out when they occurred is necessarily a difficult task.
quote:
It is you who grossly underestimate the number of transitionals quite considerably.
The basis of my claim is that you underestimated the time available, since traits started to appear earlier than you imagined. The basis of your claim is unclear.
quote:
Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. And the reason that is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities whether the mutation is neutral, detrimental, or beneficial.
It takes a billion replications to get a neutral mutation? Really? I thought you’d typically get more than one in a single replication (at least in humans.
quote:
The error in the Markov model of DNA evolution is the subject of my next paper and I already know how correct that error and apply Markov chain mathematics to the Kishony (and every other example of DNA evolution)
In other words all your current publications are irrelevant,
quote:
Now I've published plenty of math already and you keep saying I'm misunderstanding something. Here's the links to the papers and explain to us where my error is.
You’ve published plenty of stuff that doesn’t address the issue where I think you are wrong. I’m not fooled by this tactic, Kleinman.
quote:
DNA evolution works the same whether genetic changes are occurring by drift or when selection is acting. The reason for this is that mutations whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental are random events. The math is the same for all mutations, the joint probability of these mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.
And what makes you think that probability is relevant?
quote:
Both models apply. The first model applies to evolution to a single selection pressure and the second model applies to evolution to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
And since most of the change is drift, and isn’t a response to selection pressures at all you aren’t going to account for it with just those models.
quote:
If you want to assume there are no selective differences between humans and chimps and that all DNA transformation is due to drift, show us how to do the accounting for all the genetic differences between humans and chimps and why the human to human and chimp to chimp differences are so small
I am certainly not denying that there are selective differences, but obviously they are not even most of the differences. I am not personally going to try to account for the differences. I don’t claim the expertise and really there is no need. If your calculations missed out a major factor Accounting for even a large part of the differences then they’re wrong, and that’s enough.
quote:
It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class.
I note that you fail to explain the alleged blunder. Instead of citing things I already know please explain how you conclude that biologists ignore this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1525 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 2:36 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1529 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 4:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1531 of 2073 (877857)
06-22-2020 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1529 by Kleinman
06-22-2020 4:24 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
quote:
What I mean is that mutations cause diversity in a population. What selection does is reduce diversity by lowering the number and relative frequency of the less fit variants.
So the mathematics being the same is nothing to do with your assertions that neutral drift needs to wait for a beneficial mutation or that it takes a billion replications to get a neutral mutation. It’s funny how often your correct statements have little to do with the actual arguments.
quote:
We have plenty of information about the differences between reptiles and birds. They have different respiratory systems, different circulatory systems,... Do you know that birds have a loop of Henle and reptiles don't?
Which has nothing to do with the question of when the differences would have started to evolve.
quote:
Let's assume you have 10 million years to account for the drift of humans and chimps from the common ancestor. Tell us why humans are genetically similar, chimps are genetically similar, and yet there are humans and chimps differ by 10s of millions of mutations. Aren't humans and chimps diverging from their common human and chimp ancestors?
Obviously the dievergence between separated populations will grow by drift while those connected by gene flow will remain more similar. Also, there is at least one significant bottleneck in relatively recent human ancestry - which is why humans have a relatively low genetic diversity.
quote:
The point is that each mutation, whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental gives rise to a different evolutionary trajectory. What that means if you try to compare the genomes of two lineages, the accumulation of any particular mutations on a lineage will take a billion replications.
Will it? If it does it is certainly not because it would take a billion replications to get a particular mutation. Anyone who claims that fails to understand probability theory.
quote:
Not at all. What it means is that you don't understand how to use the at least one rule in probability theory and have no idea of how to do a Markov Chain computation. When you learn how to do the math correctly, you will get totally consistent results and be able to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments and other examples of evolution
But we aren’t disputing your claims about that. We are talking about your assertions regarding common ancestry. And there you are making plenty of mistakes.
quote:
There's the math, show us where there is a wrong assumption or math error. You won't because you don't understand introductory probability theory.
Of course that’s just your usual diversionary tactic. I never claimed that there were errors in those papers - and from what I have seen they are in agreement with evolutionary theory anyway. So no, I won’t be diverted from attacking the errors I can identify.
So, can you please stop trying to use this trick? It’s getting boring.
quote:
So you think that the correct mathematics of DNA evolution doesn't apply here?
No, I just think that the correct mathematics would do stuff like account for the number of changes introduced by drift.
quote:
What magic do you think applies to evolution to make reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?
I’m waiting for you to show that magic would be needed. So far you’ve only managed to illustrate the limits of your understanding. Neutral drift doesn’t have to wait for a beneficial mutation, or does it take a billion replications to get a neutral mutation. Somebody must have fooled you very badly to make you think that,
quote:
Sure it accounts for drift. Here's how it works. Let's say for example, in the Kishony experiment that he uses ciprofloxacin as the selection pressure. In the drug-free region, he gets a colony of 3e9. In that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for that drug and that variant is able to grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. But also in that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. In that environment, that mutation is neutral. But if that variant with the trimethoprim mutation can replicate 3e9 times, one of its descendants will get a second mutation for increased fitness to trimethoprim. One of those variants will even have a beneficial mutation for ciprofloxacin. That is one of the many points on this subject that you don't understand.
And how many other neutral differences will accumulate? That’s the real issue. But you somehow miss that. I guess you just don’t understand.
quote:
The reason you don't try is that you don't know how to do the math. You can't even do the math for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That's why you can't show if I've made any errors in my assumptions or math. You make lots of claims but can't do the math. You should go back and study introductory probability theory and learn how to do the mathematics of stochastic processes such as DNA evolution.
And the reason you resort to this condescending diversion is that you can’t answer my point. I’m sure it works sometimes but it doesn’t work on me.
quote:
Just post a link to a paper that explains how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work (other than my papers). You would think that biologists have already explained these experiments but these papers don't exist. And learn how to do the mathematics of Markov Chain processes because that another way of understanding how DNA evolution works.
In other words you can’t explain this alleged blunder. Fine by me. I’m happy to win a point be default.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1529 by Kleinman, posted 06-22-2020 4:24 PM Kleinman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1541 by dwise1, posted 06-22-2020 10:41 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024