|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
dwise1 writes: Deception is the primary mission of piece-of-shit creationists like yourself. I like that, do you mind if I use it, with proper credit, of course. 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: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
You have my permission.
Though you know, I have encountered a few honest creationists. But they don't remain creationists for long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So, evolution is only possible within the mammal "kind".
Don't be bashful, just say that mammals evolve into mammals. Kleinman writes:
It would also be classic creationism. Your slip is showing. But don't start with dogs evolve into cats. That would be mathematically irrational."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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. Says the clueless creationist who keeps demonstrating his own gross disability to do any math, let alone "the mathematics of evolution" which he (ie, YOU, whatever your real name is, you fraud). And then there's your inability to recognize that names do have a function as identifiers. Is there anything at all that you are not clueless about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Do you believe the earth is young? Do you believe the Flood happened? ringo writes:
That's what the mathematical and empirical evidence shows. So, evolution is only possible within the mammal "kind"."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
That's ok, at least I know how to do the mathematics of evolution. 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?
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. 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 writes:
That's ok, at least I know how to do the mathematics of evolution. 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. Except you just demonstrated that you do NOT know how to do the mathematics of evolution. You just demonstrated that your "model" for evolution is pure crap since it is based on wildly false premises. That means that any math that you do based on such a pure crap model is itself pure crap. The vital part of doing "the mathematics of evolution" is to construct a valid model. Your "model" is completely FUBAR (fouled up beyond all recognition). Please stop lying. I know that lies and deception are all that creationists have to work with, but please stop!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
I’ve found another thread, re-hashing this line, this time from 2007 (and it would appear participated in by our own esteemed Dr A):
Annoying creationists - Page 173 - International Skeptics Forum The patterns and the conclusions people were coming to about our creationist contributor then seem very much what we are seeing here. To quote Kleinman from earlier in the thread:
And by their blunders on correctly explaining the mathematics of DNA evolution, they are harming people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. 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.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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 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 366 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman 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. I've never done a scientific study of either subject."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: You either have not followed or understood my discussion with Taq on the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" topic. If you have 2 possible beneficial mutations, the number of replications required is still over a billion replications. If there are 10,000 possible beneficial mutations, what is the probability then? What about 2 million possible beneficial mutations?
But what happens after that first beneficial mutation occurs? Are there many beneficial mutations for the next and ensuing evolutionary steps for that selection pressure? You still don't understand sexual reproduction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024