Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I don't think he understands that when math and observation clash it is the math that is wrong.

Project much?You claim to know how do to the mathematics of evolution, yet you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not -- not only that, but that you do not understand modeling and the meaningful application of mathematics in biology (ie, you insist that one specific model of one small part of the subject applies to the whole of the science). Furthermore, you actively and persistently try to cover up the facts. All I have been asking you to do is to tell us just that the fark you are talking about! Specifically, that you define your terminology.Classic creationist lying and deception is most often based on redefining terms, such that they will mouth the words while actually saying something entirely different (AKA "semantic shifting"). That is exactly what you are doing! And have been doing for the past 13 years!You only use the term "multiplicative rule" and everybody who has ever studied probability (which includes many of us here, which is why we question your BS) but then you misapply it.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?Since you creationists routinely redefine terminology in order to practice your deceptions, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for your definition of that term. And you avoid that like the plague! What are you covering up? Why do you feel so strongly that you must cover it up? What are you hiding?JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! DEFINE YOUR TERMS!Edited by dwise1, : removed editing remnant at end

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.

Wow! Good find! This turkey (an old American perjorative) has been pulling this crap for 13 years. And he still has not learned anything!BTW, instead of discussing technical issues on a forum with peers who have the technical training to offer substantive discussion, he keeps seeking out general-public forums where members would generally lack that level of technical training or the specific technical experience with the "subject matter".This is of course a typical creationist bullying tactic, especially when all his responses is "go review these highly technical papers and critique them completely and rigorously" -- which is ironic since we have no indication that he has ever read them, let alone understood them. That's also the typical creationist tactic of the "unanswerable question" in which you seek to place your "opponent" (which should not be a role in a discussion) at a disadvantage. Creationists got that tactic from the fundamentalist proselytizers. A local creationist I had an email correspondence with tried that on me repeatedly and he had no idea what to do when I would answer his questions and especially when I tried to discuss it with him -- he would either falsely claim I didn't answer his question (to which I would ask for discussion as to why he thought that, which he would never ever answer), throw yet another "unanswerable question" at me (to the same effect), or he would run away (in one case, he even canceled his email account).And we see that both here and 13 years ago (plus someone found "Kleinman" pulling the exact same crap on yet another forum) how "Kleinman" constantly tried to bully us, throw impossible questions/tasks at us, and refused to answer the simplest of our questions for him, including the one that all creationists are incapable of answering: "What do you mean by that?" and "Please clarify your answer."A couple messages from that 13-year-old forum:

quote:

---

joobs writes:

​

kleinman writes:

​

So when it comes to whose claims to accept, Dr Schneider, the peer reviewed and published author of ev who many times has claimed his model simulates reality, or you who admits that evolution isn’t your field, I’ll accept Dr Schneider’s claim on this topic over you any day.

​

And your acceptance of his model isn't in question. In fact, this is a bizarre non-sequitor. Also, you should point out my admittedly novice understanding of evolution. It only makes you look more foolish. Indeed, as a lay person, for me to find such glaringly stupid errors on your part only demonstrates how wrothless your entire argument is. Is that really what you want people to see?

​

So, Are you going to answer my question or will you give another nonsequitor evasion and continue to be a silly child?

---

quote:

---

rocketdodger writes:

​

kleinman writes:

​

I didn’t have to rocketwhomissesthetarget. Paul did it for me.

Err... no, he didn't... because he has been telling you that his additions aren't meant to show what you contend they show.

​

It is only your utterly unmatched foolishness that leads you to think you know, better than the very programmer who wrote the code, what the code represents.

​

kleinman writes:

​

Now I DOUBLE-DARE YOU to show n+1 selection pressures evolve more quickly than n selection pressures. Wait, make that a TRIPLE-DARE YOU.

​

I did, within the context of my own program. Adequate has done so within the context of his. We all have shown you in the context of the ev program. You will undoubtedly respond to these statements in a childish way, demanding the evidence and presenting obsolete quotes from Adequate and I, but everyone knows such a response is nothing more than a pathetic diversion from a sad creature who has run out of options.

​

It is interesting to note that although you consistently state that we are all wrong you have also consistently failed to show us why.

---

quote:

---

rocketdodger writes:

​

Dr Adequate writes:

​

So, has kleinman done anything new this week?

​

Nope. Just more out of context and misinforming repostings of the honest statements you and I have made regarding the limitations of our programs, followed by that ********** laughing dog gif.

​

As usual, we put forth valid questions and counter-arguments, and he responds by "throwing feces at the keyboard" as joobz would say.

---

So in 13 years, our little "Kleinman" has learned nothing at all and has not changed one whit.I noticed that Dr Adequate was on that forum 13 years ago. And was somehow banned.

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.

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.

It's becoming clear that you have an interest in hiding what you believe. It took some doing to ferret out the fact that your ideas about evolution are thoroughly creationist-based. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

That's why your beliefs are pseudo-science. And we definitely don't need that taught to naive school children.

If you're going to shoot yourself in the foot, at least take it out of your mouth first.No, science does not deal in proofs.

It certainly does not deal with fossil tea-leaf reading, phrenology, or astrology.

And proofs. It doesn't deal in proofs.Seriously, you didn't know that?

What does your fossil tea-leaf reading tell you about the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Or doesn't your science include experiments as well?

Mocking science like that just makes you look worse. Science tells me that one or two experiments don't overthrow a robust theory like evolution. Somebody may have misinterpreted the experiments - i.e. you. If those experiments were as earth-shattering as you seem to think, there would be talk of Nobel Prizes. It isn't "my" science. It's everybody's science.And what you're talking about is a silver bullet. There are few of them in science.Edited by ringo, : Spellelling.

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.

So you think that Tiktaalik could have just as easily been a tripod or a pentapod?