|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Nothing deceptive there is there Phat. I guess that's the best they can come up with since they can't do the mathematics of evolution.
Deception is the primary mission of piece-of-shit creationists like yourself.Tanypteryx writes: I like that, do you mind if I use it, with proper credit, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That's what the mathematical and empirical evidence shows. But you first need to learn how to do the mathematics of evolution.
Don't be bashful, just say that mammals evolve into mammals.Ringo writes: So, evolution is only possible within the mammal "kind".Kleinman writes:
That's ok, at least I know how to do the mathematics of evolution. Perhaps you want to try to use Felsenstein's model of DNA evolution to predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment?
But don't start with dogs evolve into cats. That would be mathematically irrational.Ringo writes: It would also be classic creationism. Your slip is showing.F81 model (Felsenstein 1981) Wikipedia writes:
I put that quote from the link so dwise1 won't claim I'm making him discuss a bare link. I could post the whole page and he wouldn't have any idea what they are doing. F81, the Felsenstein's 1981 model,[12] is an extension of the JC69 model in which base frequencies are allowed to vary from 0.25 I'll even make it easier, use the Jukes-Cantor (JC69 model) which is described earlier in the link. Don't be surprised if you can't do it. They are using an incorrect transition matrix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Ringo writes:
I've never done a scientific study of either subject. But I have done a scientific study of evolution. So you are not going to try to use Felsenstein's model to do the mathematics of DNA evolution? Try the Jukes-Cantor model, the math is easy. It just won't predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment and I've even told you where to find the error in their models. That's the correct evolution science that should be taught in schools. Then let the kids figure out if reptiles can evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals. But at least they will know how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
So, evolution is only possible within the mammal "kind".Kleinman writes: That's what the mathematical and empirical evidence shows.Ringo writes: Do you believe the earth is young? Do you believe the Flood happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I'm not lying, you are just too stubborn and arrogant to go through the math. I can take you through the math based on a real example and do it in the context of the Kishony experiment. But I don't think it is in your character to do that.
That's ok, at least I know how to do the mathematics of evolution.dwise1 writes: Except you keep demonstrating that you don't. You don't even know the multiplicative rule. How do we know that? Besides repeatedly misapplying it (as far as we can tell from your double-talk), you run away every time you're asked to describe what you mean by that term -- we know what we were taught in our math classes on probability, but you're talking about something quite different (as indicated by your misapplication) and on top of that you cannot even describe it! So then now you are openly lying?Kleinman writes:
If you want, I'll take you through the mathematics as I approached it using the "at least one rule" in my publications and I'll take you through step by step showing each assumption and each step in the math and how you correlate it to a real example, in this case the Kishony experiment. Once you understand that, I'll show you how to do the mathematics using Markov chains and do that step by step as well and I'll show you why the Jukes-Cantor and Felsenstein models are incorrect for modeling DNA evolution. The correction to those Markov Chain models you will have to wait for when my next paper gets published. I'll start that description tomorrow in the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?" thread. You can challenge every step, every assumption, see if you have the intellectual integrity to engage in that kind of debate. I don't think you have that integrity but surprise us all.
I put that quote from the link so dwise1 won't claim I'm making him discuss a bare link. I could post the whole page and he wouldn't have any idea what they are doing.dwise1 writes: Even then, you would still be arguing through bare links which is against forum rules! You need to explain it in your own words using links and quotes from links for support, NOT as a substitute! Damn you sleazy creationists! You just keep getting worse and worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Yep, and that debate started with discussions with Tom Snyder's (computational molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute) programmer of the EV computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection. Snyder used to have a huge web site, that's gone and I'm still here doing the correct explanation of his model. And why would the drug companies beat a path to my door? I'm using old inexpensive generic drugs to treat MRSA successfully. They aren't going to make billions of dollars off of that but it certainly reduces the medical bills that taxpayers have to pay. You see, I've learned something about evolution in this debate. The question is can you learn something.
And by their blunders on correctly explaining the mathematics of DNA evolution, they are harming people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.vimesey writes: A minimum of 13 years he’s apparently been banging this drum, and the multi billion dollar drug companies (who would make the corporate killing of all corporate killings with a more effective cancer treatment) have not been beating a path to his door. One wonders why that could be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I have no interest in telling you what I believe, just like I have no interest in hearing what you believe. If you have something that you can prove mathematically and empirically (that's what is called science), present your proof. You certainly haven't shown any understanding of the mathematics and empirical evidence of DNA evolution. All I have seen so far from your clique is fossil tea-leaf reading. I take that back, Taq pointed out that it takes 3e9 replications for a beneficial mutation to occur when the mutation rate is e-9. Not much else from you fossil tea-leaf readers.
I've never done a scientific study of either subject.Ringo writes: I asked what you believe. If you believe in classic creationist nonsense like created kinds, it seems reasonable to wonder what other classic creationism you're pushing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Go to the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" thread, I've started at Msg 150 and I'll show you exactly how the multiplication rule applies. And I'm using the Kishony experiment as the example.
Specifically, you said that you applied the "multiplicative rule" to the problem of how probable it is a particular mutation (with a given probability of e-9) for a population of bacteria which numbers more than e+9. Furthermore, you indicate that it would take E+9 replications for that to happen. How is the "multiplicative rule" supposed to apply to that problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So don't go over to the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" thread, Msg 150. Just stop being such a whiny crybaby saying I don't explain my links.
Go to the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" thread, I've started at Msg 150 and I'll show you exactly how the multiplication rule applies. And I'm using the Kishony experiment as the example.dwise1 writes: Frankly, I do not believe that you will. I believe that you will continue to evade answering my simple direct question. Why? Because you are a creationist and my decades of experience have demonstrated that, with extremely few exceptions, all creationists are dishonest liars intent on deception. And, no, you are most definitely not one of those extremely rare exceptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That's why your beliefs are pseudo-science. And we definitely don't need that taught to naive school children.
If you have something that you can prove mathematically and empirically (that's what is called science), present your proof.ringo writes: Science doesn't deal in proofs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo writes:
It certainly does not deal with fossil tea-leaf reading, phrenology, or astrology.
No, science does not deal in proofs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What does your fossil tea-leaf reading tell you about the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Or doesn't your science include experiments as well?
It certainly does not deal with fossil tea-leaf reading, phrenology, or astrology.ringo writes: And proofs. It doesn't deal in proofs.Seriously, you didn't know that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you think that Tiktaalik could have just as easily been a tripod or a pentapod?
What does your fossil tea-leaf reading tell you about the Kishony and Lenski experiments?Taq writes: If you think there is only one possible mutation in a whole genome for every single adaptation, and that there is only one possible and specific adaptation for every environmental challenge, then you need to get out into the real world.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024