|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it.
Still here? Still declaring everyone here too stupid to appreciate your standing on the shoulders of giant scientific breakthrough.Straggler writes:
Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory. I don't expect the institutions operated by the fish-to-mammals aficionados will accept these mathematical and empirical facts of life. They disrupt their delusions.
And now proclaiming that various academic institutions accept your claim that you have falsified common descent. I mean do they know that’s what they have signed up to?Straggler writes:
Wrong headline (and why should we be surprised?). The headline will read "The Mathematics of Evolution Correctly Explained". That headline will not be seen in any fish-to-mammals aficionado journals or Mad magazine.
We await the Evolution Falsified headlines with bated breath. I’m sure the National Library of Medicine will be the first to sign up to that particular conclusion......Straggler writes:
I'm showing you how common descent works. Each evolutionary step on an evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness in common descent takes a billion replications. And I understand how difficult it is for you fish-to-mammals aficionados to grasp this math so I'll keep it as simple as possible. It is because of mutation rates of e-9 and if you throw in the multiplication rule, you have the mathematics of common descent. See how easy it is to see when you are standing on the shoulders of giant? Your problem is you are standing on the shoulders of the delusional.
Or maybe your much (self) vaunted papers don’t falsify common descent in the way you think they do. Maybe you should explicitly point out that particular extrapolated conclusion to the National Library of Medicine and let us know how they react. I’d love to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Neither have you. When the students don't learn it's often the teacher's fault. Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
kjsimons writes:
If the mathematical model correlates with all real, measurable, and repeatable empirical examples of evolution, then it does describe reality. All you need to disprove the model that I've presented is to present a single real, measurable, and repeatable empirical example of evolution that contradicts this model. You won't present that example. In fact, you won't even give us the correct mathematical explanation of the Kishony or Lenski evolutionary experiments. None of you fish-to-mammals aficionados have. Can't any of you fish-to-mammals do the mathematics of the simplest examples of evolution? I guess they didn't teach you this mathematics in your dumbbell math courses.
A mathematical model does not trump reality. For many years it was claimed that bumble bee couldn't fly as the models didn't support it. Recently, newly created models uncovered how they could fly. Your models don't reflect reality and therefore can be dismissed as can the the previous models that said bumble bee couldn't fly. They map is not the territory, reality trumps mathematical models.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
And you know this because of all zero papers you have published on this subject and your complete ignorance of introductory probability theory? Only you fish-to-mammals aficionados would lack any skepticism when someone says you are related to a banana. Your brain must have frozen in your frozen wasteland. Where are all the fish-to-mammals aficionados with any skill in mathematics? It appears that mathematics does fit with your delusions.
Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it.ringo writes: Neither have you. When the students don't learn it's often the teacher's fault.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It appears that mathematics does fit with your delusions. Correction: Your mathematics does not fit the reality of the world around us.
I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish.In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. -- your Message 1518 Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? -- my Message 1520 You never answered my question. Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? How did life on this planet go from single eukaryotes to bananas to fish to monkeys to man? If today's birds didn't evolve from reptiles, from the avian class of the dinosaur clade Theropoda specifically, then where did they come from? How did they get here?Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory. I see. So which academic institutions do accept your conclusions regarding common descent?
Common descent You wriggle and writhe pretending that your wild extrapolations have some sort of academic credence but they clearly do not. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Really? Do you still think that the number of replications needed for each step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments is somewhere between 1 and indeterminant and not a billion? At least Taq got that one right.
It appears that mathematics does fit with your delusions.AZPaul3 writes: Correction: Your mathematics does not fit the reality of the world around us.Kleinman writes:
I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish.In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor.AZPaul3 writes: -- your Message 1518AZPaul3 writes:
Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms?AZPaul3 writes: -- my Message 1520AZPaul3 writes:
That's not my job. My job is to explain the physics and mathematics of evolution to the mathematically incompetent fish-to-mammals aficionados. That's more than enough of a job. "1 to indeterminant", what a ding-a-ling.
You never answered my question. Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? How did life on this planet go from single eukaryotes to bananas to fish to monkeys to man? If today's birds didn't evolve from reptiles, from the avian class of the dinosaur clade Theropoda specifically, then where did they come from? How did they get here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Your link didn't work, you left a blank space before the link address. I corrected that in the above link. Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory.Straggler writes: I see. So which academic institutions do accept your conclusions regarding common descent?
Common descent And you can start with the National Library of Medicine, but I suppose you don't think that is an academic institution. And from your link:
Wikipedia writes:
You fish-to-mammals aficionados can't even do that math correctly. You cherry-pick the genes. With that type of approach in DNA phylogenetics, you can show that your parents were bananas.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant.Straggler writes:
You fish-to-mammals aficionados have no perspective on wild extrapolations. You can't even explain common descent in the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
You wriggle and writhe pretending that your wild extrapolations have some sort of academic credence but they clearly do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
quote:That may have been in the great purge that happened many years ago. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Do you still think that the number of replications needed for each step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments is somewhere between 1 and indeterminant and not a billion? Yep. We don't have to wait for the 1 billionth replication before we see a mutation. Your e9 generations per SNP is not a constant of biology no matter what your errant math is telling you.
You never answered my question. Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? How did life on this planet go from single eukaryotes to bananas to fish to monkeys to man? If today's birds didn't evolve from reptiles, from the avian class of the dinosaur clade Theropoda specifically, then where did they come from? How did they get here? That's not my job. You're afraid! You're afraid, aren't you! You're afraid the rest of the crack pot is going to come crashing out? Is this a religious thing? An alien panspermia cosmic zoo thing? Are you afraid we will laugh at your creation story? We're already laughing at your mutation mathematics so things can't really get much worse for you. What are you afraid of, Kleinman? Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
My goodness, you fish-to-mammals aficionados are so slow on this math. Do you really think that any mutation gives improved fitness? The reason why it takes a billion replications when the mutation rate is e-9 for each beneficial mutation is that's the number of replications necessary for the beneficial mutation to happen at least once on average. We should get a high school student to tutor you.
Do you still think that the number of replications needed for each step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments is somewhere between 1 and indeterminant and not a billion?AZPaul3 writes: Yep. We don't have to wait for the 1 billionth replication before we see a mutation. Your e9 generations per SNP is not a constant of biology no matter what your errant math is telling you.AZPaul3 writes:
Don't be silly. I have enough work on my hands teaching the mathematically incompetent the mathematics of DNA evolution.
You never answered my question.Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms? How did life on this planet go from single eukaryotes to bananas to fish to monkeys to man? If today's birds didn't evolve from reptiles, from the avian class of the dinosaur clade Theropoda specifically, then where did they come from? How did they get here?Kleinman writes: That's not my job.AZPaul3 writes: You're afraid the rest of the crack pot is going to come crashing out? Is this a religious thing? An alien panspermia cosmic zoo thing? Are you afraid we will laugh at your creation story? We're already laughing at your mutation mathematics so things can't really get much worse for you. What are you afraid of, Kleinman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And you can start with the National Library of Medicine, but I suppose you don't think that is an academic institution That will do. So now show me where the National Library of medicine accepts your conclusions regarding common descent as opposed to being fish-to-mammals aficionados. I’m pretty sure the National Library of Medicine accepts evolution of species from common ancestry despite your stats. But feel free to show me where they declare otherwise. The only academic institution you cite as supporting your ideas doesn’t actually accept your ridiculous extrapolations at all does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Larni writes:
I remember Dr Adequate, he was muddling around trying to do some mathematics of fixation. That forum is gone and I'm still here trying to teach the fish-to-mammal aficionados about the multiplication rule of probabilities and DNA evolution.
I noticed that Dr Adequate was on that forum 13 years ago. And was somehow banned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That's not my job. The evolution you have mathematically modelled is a blinkered small minded form of evolution that tells us nothing about the origin of species. It’s of pactical interest to medics and immunologists but of little worth beyond that. It’s hardly a replacement for the grand overarching underpinning of all biology that started with Darwin and which has extended to phylogenetics today. You say you have successfully provided thr mathematics to evolution. But if it’s not any sort of evolution that matters outside the narrow confines of one or two specific special case experiments, if it has no bearing on the origin lf species, then you aren’t the Newton you think you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have enough work on my hands teaching the mathematically incompetent the mathematics of DNA evolution. Run away as fast as you can, Mr. Billion Generations per Mutation. So afraid to answer a simple question? Come on, Kleinman. Your math proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is impossible. So what takes its place? Where did this all come from? You certainly have way more than enough time to write a few short paragraphs on what replaces evolution now that your billion-generations-per-mutation-Markov-Chain math has so thoroughly destroyed the great cornerstone of modern biology and genetics. Don't be afraid, Kleinman. The world awaits your great insight. Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024