|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I see. You think that 0.6 is a low probability, when in reality it is quite high. I can’t see any other reason you could so misread my entirely correct statement. In the case where there are two possibilities , both of probability p the overall probability can more easily calculated as 2p -p^2 ( which you can show by simple algebra) Naturally when p is low the p^2 term will not significantly affect the probability. Even if p is as high as 0.1 the probability of getting both will be 0.19 which is not too far off. When p is as low as 10^-9, naturally the p^2 term is so low that it can be considered negligible. Though you will note that in deference to accuracy I stated that the probability will only nearly double. Which, of course is true. If you think otherwise do the calculation.
quote: I said nothing about a single selection pressure. But I will point out that while there may be only one response to an antibiotic there are multiple ways to avoid others like predation. Camouflage, mimicking a noxious creature, speed or manoeuvrability, natural weapons, behavioural changes... Not all will be open to every species but to imagine that only one is available in every case strains the imagination. And then again, how many ways are there of achieving these adaptions? There is no guarantee that they will neatly map to variations in protein structure.
quote: In other words you learned nothing. How sad.
quote: I think some inferences may be made, but they are few. However the fossils are there and they do tend to appear in the right times and places, and that really does require an explanation, along with all the other evidence explained by evolution. Complaining about evidence we can’t have does nothing to negate the importance of the evidence we do have.
quote: Your argument seems incoherent. Why do microevolutionary changes not add up to macroevolution ? I’m not decided on the issue but rambling about probability is hardly sufficient.
quote: Except that I didn’t. I said that the correct calculation gave a result that was \[b\]nearly[\b] double. Which is true. If you disagree, do the calculation for a probability of 10^-9 yourself. You’ll see that I am right.
quote: No. Extinction is not an inevitable consequence of hard selection, HIV can often survive that hard selection imposed by one drug, even though the selection is hard. Hard selection is characterised by a declining population, which may or may not reach extinction.
quote: On the contrary, the gross errors are on your part. Such as insisting that all DNA evolution must be adaptive or that neutral drift must wait for 10^9 replications to get a single mutation. If you lack even the basic understanding to get those points right you can’t hope to do the correct quantitative calculations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are telling me that according to your mathematical model Tiktaalik cannot be the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their evolutionary tetrapod descendants. The old "It's too unlikely" argument. With some mathematical modelling knobs added on.
But the fact that Tiktaalik was actually discovered as a result of predictions based on exactly the combination of geology and evolution from common ancestry that you deny is statistically possible suggests that your model doesn't conform to reality as observed and discovered. This is a serious problem for your theory whether you accept it or not. Your mathematical model is in conflict with observed reality in the form of predicted discovery. Tiktaalik being the case in point. What is your explanation for the prediction and subsequent discovery of Tiktaalik if the combination of geology and evolution that led to it's prediction and subsequent discovery is wrong?
I'm telling you with mathematical precision how likely a transitional step is to occur. And I'm telling you that reality doesn't care. The transitional you proclaim as too impossible to exist was predicted and discovered as a direct result of the theory you are seeking to compete against and overturn (i.e. common ancestry). You can mathematically model till the cows come home but if you can't even explain how some of the most famous evolutionary discoveries can be accounted for then why would anyone listen to you for anything other than entertainment?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Every replication of every living thing gives a potential transition. That's because mutations occur with replication. If it is a short genome bacteria, then in most cases you will get an exact clone of the parent and no transition is made. With longer genome replicators, you can expect that one or more mutations with each replication so they become transitional forms. But then you have to ask, transitions to what. Is it a transition to just a more divergent form of the parents? Is it a transition to a new species? You can't use the fossil record and gross anatomy to make that determination because gross anatomy tells you nothing about the genetics. Trying to use gross anatomy to describe evolution is like trying to use classical physics to describe quantum mechanics. You have to analyze and understand what is happening on the molecular scale if you want to understand evolution and what it takes for evolutionary transformation.
You are telling me that according to your mathematical model Tiktaalik cannot be the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their evolutionary tetrapod descendants. The old "It's too unlikely" argument. With some mathematical modelling knobs added on.Straggler writes:
Looking for fossils that fit your theory is not how you explain evolution. You study real, measurable, and repeatable examples of evolution such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. You measure how many replications it takes to make a transitional evolutionary step. When you do that, you now have some real evidence of how evolution works. Watch this video from the Kishony experiment where they actually draw the clades at the end of the video showing the lines of descent. At 1:44 they draw in the nodes and complete the clades. Each mutation represents a new node (transition). But the fact that Tiktaalik was actually discovered as a result of predictions based on exactly the combination of geology and evolution from common ancestry that you deny is statistically possible suggests that your model doesn't conform to reality as observed and discovered. This is a serious problem for your theory whether you accept it or not.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 What I've presented is the mathematics which describes those clades (evolutionary trajectories). That is how you do the mathematics of evolution correctly. And note that at each of the nodes is a colony with a huge number of members (billion). The reason for that is with a mutation rate of e-9, you need huge numbers of replications (billions) for the correct transitional form to occur to the environmental selection conditions. This principle applies not only to bacteria but to every replicator including Tiktaalik at each evolutionary transition. Straggler writes:
That's not correct. My mathematical model is in conflict with your interpretations of reality. My model fits perfectly with real, measurable, and repeatable examples of evolution. You can start with the Kishony and Lenski experiments but try to find any empirical example of evolution that contradicts the math I've presented. You won't, you can only present your interpretation of the fossil record which is in direct contradiction to real examples of evolution.
Your mathematical model is in conflict with observed reality in the form of predicted discovery. Tiktaalik being the case in point.Straggler writes:
There are lots of unusual life forms and I understand the desire to categorize things. But you can't use gross anatomy to explain evolution. Try sending your photograph into ancestry.com and ask them based on that photo, who you are related to.
What is your explanation for the prediction and subsequent discovery of Tiktaalik if the combination of geology and evolution that led to it's prediction and subsequent discovery is wrong?Kleinman writes:
Actually, I'm simply correctly quantifying Darwinian evolution. I'm doing that by starting with the definition of the mutation rate and deriving the probability of a particular evolutionary trajectory occurring. And surprise, surprise, it predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before he ran the experiment. It is you with your misinterpretation of the fossil record that I'm overturning. Do you really have that big of a problem with understanding how DNA evolution actually works? Don't you think it is worthwhile to correctly explain the evolution of drug-resistance and why cancer treatments fail?
I'm telling you with mathematical precision how likely a transitional step is to occur.
Straggler writes: And I'm telling you that reality doesn't care. The transitional you proclaim as too impossible to exist was predicted and discovered as a direct result of the theory you are seeking to compete against and overturn (i.e. common ancestry).Straggler writes:
There may be some people interested in correctly understanding how evolution works since our society must deal with drug-resistant microbes, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects, and failed cancer treatments. The rest of you can amuse yourselves by making up stories about fossils and have absolutely no idea how evolution works. Of course, those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments might not find that so amusing. You can mathematically model till the cows come home but if you can't even explain how some of the most famous evolutionary discoveries can be accounted for then why would anyone listen to you for anything other than entertainment? And it appears that you aren't going to compare my model of DNA evolution with Felsenstein's model and use it to predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment. It's smart that you don't. Felsenstein's model is incorrect.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Kleinman writes: dwise1 writes: 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? First off, David Wise didn't write that, I did.
Kleinman writes: You better tell Taq that he is making an error because he thinks that fish evolve into mammals I think you are misrepresenting his point, and if that is intentional you are a crackpot con man and if you don't understand his point, then you don't know Jack about evolution or the theory of Evolution.
and they are only 4 nodes apart That makes a fish species a very, very, very distant ancestor of mammals, rather than your very, very, very, deceptive misrepresentation that fish evolved into mammals. And I note that you still don't have the balls to propose an alternate explanation for the existence of mammals.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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I totally understand your desire to change the subject since you don't have the mathematical skills or experience to explain the evolutionary transitions of very, very close ancestors. When you learn that, you can tell us how fish evolve into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds. and they are only 4 nodes apartTanypteryx writes: That makes a fish species a very, very, very distant ancestor of mammals, rather than your very, very, very, deceptive misrepresentation that fish evolved into mammals. And I note that you still don't have the balls to propose an alternate explanation for the existence of mammals. Don't any of the posters on this forum understand introductory probability theory? Because that is what is needed to understand stochastic processes (like DNA evolution).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
quote:I see. You think that 0.6 is a low probability, when in reality it is quite high. I can’t see any other reason you could so misread my entirely correct statement. In the case where there are two possibilities , both of probability p the overall probability can more easily calculated as 2p -p^2 ( which you can show by simple algebra) Naturally when p is low the p^2 term will not significantly affect the probability. Even if p is as high as 0.1 the probability of getting both will be 0.19 which is not too far off. When p is as low as 10^-9, naturally the p^2 term is so low that it can be considered negligible. Though you will note that in deference to accuracy I stated that the probability will only nearly double. Which, of course is true. If you think otherwise do the calculation. Think though your approach a bit more rigorously. Remember the probability ranges from zero (impossibility) to 1 (absolute certainty), inclusive. Therefore, there cannot be any probability higher than 1.0 or lower than 0. However, your point is still true: increasing the number of independent trials increases the probability of at least one trial succeeding. However, that calculation is a tiny bit more involved than your simple multiplication. In fact, it is so simple and depends on just some basic understanding of probability that it boggles the mind that "Kleinman" has no clue how to set up that kind of a problem. Almost as if "Kleinman" isn't even this Alan Kleinman that he keeps quoting, albeit apparently with no understanding any of it. OK, in the case of a probability of 0.6 for a single independent trial, performing 2 independent trials gives us a probability of 0.84 that at least one will succeed. That is indeed more probable than just one trial since 0.84 > 0.6 (had to state that explicitly for Kleinman's benefit). 5 trials gives us a probability of 0.8704, which is even higher. 10 trials gives us a probability of 0.9939533824, which I understand can be considered virtually inevitable. Your point is entirely valid; it's just that your math wasn't quite there. Now, I could explain that to you, but that is exactly the kind of problem that I have repeated asked our "Kleinman" about and which he has been singularly incapable of answering. So if I were to explain it to you, then our "Kleinman" will just falsely claim that he knew that all along. Like the typical lying POS creationist that he is proving to be. I will post the results I got for the lottery version of this basic question that our "Kleinman", but again not how I got them (key parts edited out):
DWise1 writes: For that last point, consider this analogous problem. Since writers often describe getting a particular beneficial mutation with the metaphor of "winning the lottery", consider the probabilities of winning the lottery. We can easily calculate the probability of a single individual attempt winning the lottery and we would use what we were taught to be the multiplication rule. But what about the situation of at least one player out of millions of players winning? Just how would the multiplication rule apply there?
ABE:For the lottery problem, here are a couple realistic numbers to work with:
The probability of winning this real-life lottery is 1 in 41,417,353 (ie, p = 2.4144469106946549674480645829781e-8) Number of attempts to win: 39,144,818(based on the population of California, which is reasonable since most players will buy more than one ticket, plus some games are multi-state) Applying the multiplicative rule in the manner that we observe our "Kleinman" applying it (indirectly, since he never shows his work) we would prove mathematically through our immaculate calculations that it should be vanishingly impossible (from what I've been told by creationists, that would be a probability less than 10-120) for anybody to ever hit that jackpot. Yet it happens almost all the time. Here is what my own calculations show:
P(anybody winning that lottery) = 0.6114, about 3 in 5
So who's wrong there: Kleinman or reality? Kleinman keeps insisting that it's reality that is in error, because to him mathematics is magic that always takes precedence over reality. And finally, here's the question which is key to how to solve such problems, a key that our "Kleinman" shows no indication of being able to grasp and which must terrify him since he keeps running away from it (NOTE: I made fun of his name since he had done it to me, though that's assuming that he isn't just an imposter who is posing as the real Alan Kleinman): DWise1 writes: 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. And predictably he refused to answer such a simple and basic mathematical question.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I have, that's why I don't use the addition rule for complementary events. Only those who don't understand introductory probability theory do that. Think though your approach a bit more rigorously. Remember the probability ranges from zero (impossibility) to 1 (absolute certainty), inclusive. Therefore, there cannot be any probability higher than 1.0 or lower than 0. But if you think you do understand probability theory, explain to us what is wrong with Felsenstein's model of DNA evolution.
F81 model (Felsenstein 1981) If you think the model is correct, predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment using this model.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I have, that's why I don't use the addition rule for complementary events. Only those who don't understand introductory probability theory do that. But if you think you do understand probability theory, explain to us what is wrong with Felsenstein's model of DNA evolution. F81 model (Felsenstein 1981) If you think the model is correct, predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment using this model. No, WE DO NOT ARGUE BARE LINKS! It is in the rules. Rather YOU need to answer the simple questions that we have asked of YOU and why YOU keep running away from. Simple questions that anyone familiar with the math should be able to answer. Yet they terrify you. Why is that? Because you're nothing but a POS creationist? Because you are not the actual Alan Kleinman and are nothing but an imposter? That's what the evidence keeps indicating.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That's not a bare link, it points you to the exact paragraph and equation that Felsenstein uses to calculate DNA evolution. But your excuse is as good as any excuse that you don't know how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution. Get back to us when you learn how to do this math.
I have, that's why I don't use the addition rule for complementary events. Only those who don't understand introductory probability theory do that.But if you think you do understand probability theory, explain to us what is wrong with Felsenstein's model of DNA evolution. F81 model (Felsenstein 1981) If you think the model is correct, predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment using this model. dwise1 writes: No, WE DO NOT ARGUE BARE LINKS! It is in the rules.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
They didn't know that the number of replications needed for a beneficial mutation to occur was between 1 and an indeterminant amount. Such brilliance on your part. You should publish your findings. I don't need to publish. Everyone, but you apparently, already knows that a single SNP at the right place in the right gene which can occur at anytime in any lineage and ... presto chango ... a beneficial mutation has been made. Everyone, but you apparently, knows that in the human genome on this planet about 26 million mutations entered into the genome today ... today. Most of them are neutral. Most of the deleterious mutations never got born and don't count. That leaves a lot beneficial mutations entering the gene pool every day. Wait ... beneficial mutations every day? But Kleinman math says that's impossible! Well, someone is wrong somewhere. I wonder who. Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Ahhhhh, the old presto chango mathematical explanation of DNA evolution. Once again, your brilliance shows through.
They didn't know that the number of replications needed for a beneficial mutation to occur was between 1 and an indeterminant amount. Such brilliance on your part. You should publish your findings.AZPaul3 writes: I don't need to publish. Everyone, but you apparently, already knows that a single SNP at the right place in the right gene which can occur at anytime in any lineage and ... presto chango ... a beneficial mutation has been made.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
I totally understand your desire to change the subject since you don't have the mathematical skills You are the one who brought up the clearly erroneous "fish evolved into mammals" bullshit.
or experience to explain the evolutionary transitions of very, very close ancestors. Actually, in reality you have no knowledge about my skills or experience. You keep repeating the same silly mistakes in probability theory with regards to the evolution of all life on this planet over and over. You probably will not be able to tell us what they are though. Your math is incomplete and does not accurately model evolution.
It is not apparent to you and other members of your clique but it is apparent to the peer-reviewers and publishers of my papers and to the librarians at the National Library of Medicine. Wow! I have dragonfly specimens in the national collection at Smithsonian, whoopdeedoo! The real peer review is whether the scientific community applies you discovery or not. And whether they find it useful or valid. The number of citations would be a better indicator of that. Most of the participants here really like to argue, but even more, they value the acquisition of knowledge, but when a rude, arrogant, condescending jerk with a huge chip on his shoulder shows up to demand we recognize the incredible breakthrough that only he could possibly ever understand, it is pretty likely he will be met with skepticism. Add to that your repeated erroneous statements about what biologists actually say about how evolution takes place, even after being repeatedly corrected, leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are a deluded crackpot.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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Don't be bashful, just say that mammals evolve into mammals. Then you would finally get it right. But don't start with dogs evolve into cats. That would be mathematically irrational. It's good to see you are finally making some progress. With a few years of mathematical training, you might even be able to do the mathematics of evolution for the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
I totally understand your desire to change the subject since you don't have the mathematical skillsTanypteryx writes: You are the one who brought up the clearly erroneous "fish evolved into mammals" bullshit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Don't be bashful, just say that mammals evolve into mammals. Actually, I already know the phylogeny of mammals, but that's a bit too complicated for you.
Then you would finally get it right. So, even though I have not listed any phylogeny of mammals, you have judged me incorrect. Nice demonstration of scientific reasoning.
With a few years of mathematical training, you might even be able to do the mathematics of evolution for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Well, so far you still cannot, but there is no reason I would want to. It has absolutely no relevance in my fields of study, but more importantly it will fail utterly to model the evolution of the species I study because it has a gaping flaw that a Mack Truck could drive though, without scraping the top, and you are so smug you cannot see it.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: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
But don't start with dogs evolve into cats. That would be mathematically irrational. No, such an idea is complete idiocy AND IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MATH! Only bone-head stupid creationists would think that evolution is supposed to about dogs evolving into cats! And you have just admitted that that is what YOU think evolution is (or what you think that "evolutionists" think). You have absolutely no clue, do you? You are nothing but a cheap fraud! You think that your mathematics is magic, that it outranks reality. You are completely ignorant of the fact that mathematics tells us nothing about reality itself! Instead, mathematics only applies to the mathematical models that we construct in order to describe and work with reality. You could have the most elegant and perfect calculations, but if the model is crap then your results are also crap. And models only apply to the systems/events/phenomena that they were created to describe -- they do not apply to completely unrelated systems/events/phenomena and attempts to misapply them in such a manner is due either to complete and utter stupidity or to an attempt to deceive. Deception is the primary mission of piece-of-shit creationists like yourself. Just who the hell are you really? Why are you impersonating this Alan Kleinman (assuming that he has any competence in his fields) and why are you trying to pass off his writings as your own?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024