|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You said, "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." Perhaps Tiktaalik could have evolved into an octopod or a centipod or even a millipod. I've seen replicators like that in the real world. Are you now telling us that it is an impossible adaptation?
So you think that Tiktaalik could have just as easily been a tripod or a pentapod?Taq writes: "Mr. Kleinman, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."--from the movie "Billy Madison"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led it to be a tetrapod?
Perhaps Tiktaalik could have evolved into an octopod or a centipod or even a millipod. I've seen replicators like that in the real world. Are you now telling us that it is an impossible adaptation?Taq writes: Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led to those adaptations?Taq writes:
The brain actually doesn't have any pain receptors
Use your brain. I promise, it won't hurt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I will take that as a tacit admission that you have no idea what went on with Tiktaalik genetically. But we do know what goes on with the Kishony experiment. Why do you deny the evidence showing that eukaryotic DNA evolution works the same way as bacterial DNA evolution? Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led it to be a tetrapod?Taq writes: I will take that as a tacit admission that the Kishony experiment does not apply.Eukaryotic Adaptation to Years-Long Starvation Resembles that of Bacteria - PMC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What was the number of replications necessary that you came up with if there are two possible beneficial mutations? Wasn't that 1.5e9? Do you want to make it 10 possible beneficial mutations? And how about the next evolutionary step? Do you have 10 or maybe even 100 possible beneficial mutations? Just how many genes and mutations do you need to make a replicator without legs evolve legs?
I will take that as a tacit admission that you have no idea what went on with Tiktaalik genetically.Taq writes: Until you can show that there was only a single mutation at a single base that led to tetrapods then you can't apply the Kishony experiment.Kleinman writes:
I've never said that you were cloned. You are a bit of a drone.
Why do you deny the evidence showing that eukaryotic DNA evolution works the same way as bacterial DNA evolution?Taq writes: You are the one denying the existence of sexual reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
This post and question are directed at Straggler but any members of your clique can try to answer it.
My question has to do with Tiktaalik. If I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
We'll take that as an "I don't know" from Mr. 1 to indeterminant. That is a bullshit question and you know it.No one has the sequences that you so dishonestly ask for in order to answer that asinine question. Besides, there were most certainly a couple handfuls of tiktaalik species over many thousands of years each with incremental changes that led to land tetrapods. But you're so deeply buried in your inapplicable math you don't even know how ignorant you are of the evolution you try to destroy. This is exactly the kind of intellectually dishonest BS we expect from crackpots. So you think all the geneticists and biologists with the knowledge of all the genetics we have today can't identify the genes which code for limb growth? I guess this reference isn't in your reading list:https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gene-code-limbs.html There are many other references to this subject, but you should continue with sources appropriate to your intellect, comic books. You should limit your posts to the "Faith and Belief" forum. You really aren't prepared for any type of scientific discussion. Any in AZPaul3's clique with scientific training and experience want to try and answer the question: Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I'm not the one claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional form to tetrapods. I'm the one explaining to you the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.
Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why should I do your job? I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution. The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar. Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens or join AZPaul3 on the Faith and Belief forum where your pseudo-scientific beliefs belong.
I'm not the one claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional form to tetrapods. I'm the one explaining to you the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.Tanypteryx writes: Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?Kleinman writes: I'm not the one claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional form to tetrapods. I'm the one explaining to you the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.Tanypteryx writes: Ah, so you can't explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
If I were to assign this job to someone, it certainly wouldn't be you. And Edward Tatum has already won the Nobel Prize for this in 1958. He talked about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. The only thing I've done is put mathematics to his idea. And any student that has taken high school level probability theory can do this math. I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this.
Why should I do your job?Tanypteryx writes: Well, I don't think you are qualified to hand out job assignments. I understand your scheme though, you're planning to steal our solution and claim the Nobel Prize for yourself, well I'm onto you.Kleinman writes:
Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't.
I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.Tanypteryx writes: You continue to overlook your error.Kleinman writes:
Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.
The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.Tanypteryx writes: I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.Kleinman writes:
It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.
Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumensTanypteryx writes: I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.Kleinman writes:
Like I say, the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance and vulgarity. To boot, you want me to do your job.
or join AZPaul3 on the Faith and Belief forum where your pseudo-scientific beliefs belong.Tanypteryx writes: Hold on Mathboy, your pseudoscientific training is showing. I have shared no beliefs with you here, so your attempts at character assassination, clearly demonstrate the weakness of your knowledge.Tanypteryx writes:
I suppose the error in my hypothesis is my claim that fish don't evolve into mammals and reptiles don't evolve into birds. The correct hypothesis is that evolution takes place in tiny steps and those tiny steps add up to big steps. Well, that hypothesis is half right. Evolution does occur in tiny steps but these steps don't add up because DNA evolution is a stochastic process. These steps are linked to each other by the multiplication rule of probabilities because they are joint random events, not the addition rule of probabilities. And I've shown you how to do the math correctly. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. But if you want to understand DNA evolution correctly, you had better take it. And so should anyone involved in treating infectious diseases and using targeted therapies for treating cancers if you want to play that game of chance.
The thing I've noticed over the years with guys like you, is that universally you alienate the only people on the planet that could appreciate your work and apply it in their own work, if it is valid. I suspect their will be few citations of your work until you correct the error in you hypothesis.Tanypteryx writes:
I don't know what you think a scientist should sound like. Perhaps you should try talking with and listening to people outside your mutual admiration society.
I know you like to pretend you are a scientist, but you sure don't sound like one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What an incredible prediction. You found the fossil of a fish in river sediments.
Looking for fossils that fit your theory is not how you explain evolution.Straggler writes: No. No. No. The key fundamental point you are missing is that Tiktaalik was not just found and inserted into the evolutionary model. Tiktaalik was only discovered because evolutionary theory combined with geology predicted exactly where Tiktaalik should be found.Kleinman writes:
I've never said that it is too improbable find a fossil of fish. But perhaps you will answer this question: That's not correct. My mathematical model is in conflict with your interpretations of reality.Straggler writes: No. For someone so mathematically clever you are bewilderingly foolish when it comes to understanding the nature of scientific prediction and discovery. Your mathematical model says that a transitional between fish and tetrapods is too improbable to existIf I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages? Straggler writes:
If the best prediction you have to offer is that you found the fossil of a fish in river sediments, I'm not impressed. Maybe the members of your clique see something profound with that kind of prediction, I'm not impressed. So, tell us what coding and regulatory genes are needed to make a non-limbed replicator produce limbs, and the selection pressure(s) needed to select for this type of evolutionary transformation.
A fossil that was discovered as a direct result of the power of prediction, the gold standard of any scientific theory, says that you are wrong. How do you deal with that head to head, theory vs theory fact? You can't. So you simply deny. Or claim ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why should that surprise me? There are lots of very talented people in the world. Some of them have been my teachers and co-workers.
I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this.Tanypteryx writes: Interesting, I didn't know I had a clique. I work with other scientists in my field and we like to party together too. Mexican food and Negra Modelo beer. You would be very surprised by their achievements, but you wouldn't understand them.Kleinman writes:
Whatever
I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.Tanypteryx writes: You continue to overlook your error.Kleinman writes: Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't.Tanypteryx writes: Well of course I won't, that's your job. I don't give a shit (GAS) about the Kishony experiment. And YOU continue to overlook YOUR error. You are another poster child for the Dunning—Kruger effect, well done!Kleinman writes:
Unless that evidence is the Kishony experiment. Maybe the Lenski experiment more fits your taste? Either experiment should since they both use e coli.
The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.Tanypteryx writes: I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.Kleinman writes: Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.Tanypteryx writes: Damn it, I was shooting for subtle vulgarity! In science we tend not to try and prove things, but rather try to make tentative conclusions based on the evidence.Kleinman writes:
I already have, pay attention. It's in your hypothesis. Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events. Did anyone ever tell you are boring? Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumensTanypteryx writes: I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.Kleinman writes: It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.Tanypteryx writes: OK go for it, we're waiting. And while you are at it, you might quote my specific blunders, please. Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society. And you are boring.
Did anyone ever tell you are boring?Tanypteryx writes: Nope. How many times have people told you you're wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
yawn
And we have a new champion!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That site is long gone, but I learned something very important about evolution from a poster who called himself Myriad in my discussions on that site. Is was an important clue for me on doing the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly. That's why these people in the fish evolve into mammals clique need to start listening to people outside their clique if they want to understand DNA evolution correctly.
That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society.ringo writes: Speaking of which, I see that you're a longtime member of the Evolution Fairy Tale forum. Me too!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It's a fact, Jack. DNA evolutionary changes are random events and if you understand introductory probability theory, joint random events don't add, you have to multiply their probabilities.
Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events.PaulK writes: I’ll note that Kleinman made a similar argument earlier.Kleinman writes:
If you are one of those who argue that microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change, you don't understand introductory probability theory. Or at least you don't understand how to apply these principles to DNA evolution.
And the most common erroneous argument made on this subject is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. Microevolutionary changes are not linked by the addition rule. Mutations are random events so the joint probability of these events are linked by the multiplication rule. You won't understand this because you don't understand the theorems and axioms of probability theoryPaulK writes: Kleinman’s idea that I didn’t understand basic probability theory was another of his blunders - failing to recognise the correct answer.PaulK writes:
Go over to the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?" thread as I walk you through the simple probability mathematics of DNA evolution. And the people in the fish evolve into mammals clique make many small errors in their understanding of DNA evolution but they make a huge blunder when they derive their Markov Chain DNA evolution models. I'll show you exactly where they make their mathematical error. I'm not going to show you how to correct that error. That's for my next paper. But perhaps you can correct that error yourself once I show you where it is and you can prove to us how much you really understand probability theory and how it applies to DNA evolution.
Yet, when I proved that I did understand basic probability theory rather than going on to elaborate he failed to reply. As written, however Kleinman’s claim is vague - as usual for him - although the argument appears to be far from the slam dunk he needs to back up his claim of a blunder.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024