|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's not at all what I'm saying. Every mutation and variant represents a transition. But a transition to what? What the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate how these transitions work and how many replications are necessary to accumulate a specific set of mutations to increase fitness in a particular environment. Certainly, other mutations are occurring in their populations and those variants on different evolutionary trajectories. Those variants on those trajectories are not improving fitness to the given environment, that is they are drifting. So Tiktaalik is a transitional form but transitioning to what? Most likely, it is transitioning to another Tiktaalik but it might be transitioning to a mutant variant of a Tikaalik. But if you think it is transitioning to another species, for a mutation rate of e-9, it's going to take 3e9 replications of each variant on that evolutionary trajectory for each evolutionary step to that different species. It is no different than the way the Kishony and Lenski populations accumulate their particular mutations.
So - To cut a long story short - Your theory dictates that transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik can’t exist. But they do.Straggler writes:
I'm telling you how many replications are required for each transitional (mutational) step on that evolutionary trajectory. And this math correlates with the empirical evidence and is derived based on first principles. The math is not that difficult. Start with the definition of mutation rate and then do the probability calculation of at least one occurrence of a particular mutation. That's exactly how DNA evolution works and that's why it correctly predicts the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
How does your theory account for the predictive power of evolution with regard to transitionals whilst simultaneously proclaiming transitionals to be impossible?Straggler writes:
I'm telling you with mathematical precision how likely a transitional step is to occur. Do you understand why it takes a billion replications for each transitional step in the Kishony experiment? Do you think that in a couple of replications Tiktaalik is going to transition into a tetrapod? Tell us how many replications of Tiktaalik will be needed to transform it into a tetrapod. Make sure you show your math. Prove to us you are not one of those who say, "given enough time, anything can happen".
The It’s too unlikely argument has been comprehensively demolished multiple times. Not least by the physical evidence showing evolution to have occurred. Yours is just a mathematically long winded way of making that same mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: you can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search. The closest node to mammals is Amniota:
Fish are much more distant. Mammals evolved from reptile-like ancestors, also known as Synampsids: Synapsida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you agree, fish evolve into mammals. And it only takes 4 evolutionary transitions. Did recombination do it?
you can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search.Taq writes: The closest node to mammals is Amniota:
Fish are much more distant. Mammals evolved from reptile-like ancestors, also known as Synampsids: Synapsida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Kleinman writes: Lying about your opponent's position is not persuasive.
I'm not lying about this. You can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search.
Well gosh, you found something on the web, great evidence! Peer reviewed, documented, and everything. Everyone can see that your "evidence" DOES NOT show mammals evolving from fish.
Kleinman writes: Of course, you are now going to explain how this evolutionary process works. And please show your math. Of course not. You just demonstrated that you will continue telling porkeys about how evolution works. I think I will just point out your mistakes. Now that I have pointed out one of your errors in what biologists think about the phylogeny of vertebrates, what is your hypothesis where mammals and birds came from?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
But if you think it is transitioning to another species, for a mutation rate of e-9, it's going to take 3e9 replications of each variant on that evolutionary trajectory for each evolutionary step to that different species. It is no different than the way the Kishony and Lenski populations accumulate their particular mutations. It's self-contradictory statements like that which make us wonder if you understand what you are talking about. That is why we have to ask you what you understand about the "multiplicative rule" and how it is to be applied. Yet you do everything you can to avoid answering our questions. As if you are unable to answer them. As if you truly do not know what you are talking about. OK, little man, let's put that same question this third way (since the first two simple questions went completely over your little head:
Given this problem: P1 = pA AND pB AND pC AND ... AND pn We calculate P1 by multiplying together the probabilites pA through pn. However, given this problem: P2 = pA OR pB OR pC OR ... OR pnHow do we apply the multiplicative rule to solve for P2? That question is key to your repeated claims. For a superior mathematical genius such as you claim to be (or rather crow incessantly about being), that should be a very easy question to answer. But if you are nothing but an imposter and a poser, then you will of course dodge the question yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined:
|
dwise1 writes:
You better tell Taq that he is making an error because he thinks that fish evolve into mammals and they are only 4 nodes apart.
Now that I have pointed out one of your errors in what biologists think about the phylogeny of vertebrates, what is your hypothesis where mammals and birds came from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
I've shown you how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution and even got the results peer-reviewed, published and these papers are in the National Library of Medicine. I've published the mathematics of random recombination, the mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiment and I've explained why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. Can't any of you halflings do anything for yourselves?
But if you think it is transitioning to another species, for a mutation rate of e-9, it's going to take 3e9 replications of each variant on that evolutionary trajectory for each evolutionary step to that different species. It is no different than the way the Kishony and Lenski populations accumulate their particular mutations.dwise1 writes: It's self-contradictory statements like that which make us wonder if you understand what you are talking about. That is why we have to ask you what you understand about the "multiplicative rule" and how it is to be applied. Yet you do everything you can to avoid answering our questions. As if you are unable to answer them. As if you truly do not know what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
But if you are nothing but an imposter and a poser, then you will of course dodge the question yet again. You nailed it :-)Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Kleinman writes: So you agree, fish evolve into mammals. The step just before mammals was synapsids which were reptile-like. Usually when someone says A evolved into B they are asking about the immediate steps. Do mammals have fish ancestors? Yes. Mammals also have reptile-like ancestors, amphibian-like ancestors, jawless vertebrate ancestors, and single celled eukaryotic ancestors. Why are you picking fish out of that list?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Too bad you can't nail the physics and mathematics of evolution. But if you want, you can explain to us how fish evolve into mammal and reptiles evolve into birds. We need some amusement in this discussion.
But if you are nothing but an imposter and a poser, then you will of course dodge the question yet again.vimesey writes: You nailed it :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
If you want to see immediate steps, take a look at the Kishony experiment. Do you want to see those clades again? Here they are: So you agree, fish evolve into mammals.Taq writes: The step just before mammals was synapsids which were reptile-like. Usually when someone says A evolved into B they are asking about the immediate steps. Do mammals have fish ancestors? Yes. Mammals also have reptile-like ancestors, amphibian-like ancestors, jawless vertebrate ancestors, and single celled eukaryotic ancestors. Why are you picking fish out of that list?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 Check out after 1:44 in the video, those are real evolutionary clades showing the immediate steps. And why am I picking out fish? Haven't you ever heard a good fish story? You heard about the one-armed fisherman? Someone asked how big the fish was that he caught. He stuck out his arm and said it was that long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Message 143
We do need amusement, but lets respect each other enough to keep our verbal jabs playful rather than caustic.
Forum Guidelines The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I've shown you how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution and even got the results peer-reviewed, published and these papers are in the National Library of Medicine. Yes, you have and all of your colleagues have ignored you. Why? Such a fantastic revelation as you think you provide that could revolutionize entire fields of study remains unrecognized, discarded, by the thousands of really smart people whose life's work is to study and master this stuff. Why? There is an answer to these questions. We've seen this kind of phenomenon here before. In other forums we have seen this same phenomenon in the field of physics. The one lone genius who holds the key to overthrowing general relativity or evolution. I imagine such haunts every field. You're a crack pot, Kleinmen, to be ignored hoping you'll go away. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Kleinman’s verbal jabs are a tactic. Along with the evasion and the misdirection. At some level he knows his arguments are no good - that’s why he’s so reluctant to spell them out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The mathematical jabs are even more effective. They keep hitting home. Of course, if you think that evolution works differently than the way I've published, feel free to post your mathematical explanation. Explain to us how the Kishony and Lenski experiment works. You won't because you can't. Kleinman’s verbal jabs are a tactic. Along with the evasion and the misdirection. At some level he knows his arguments are no good - that’s why he’s so reluctant to spell them out. And you should stop indoctrinating naive school children with your mathematically irrational nonsense. You are failing to prepare them to deal with the problems of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. That is quite harmful.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024