|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 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 335 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 455 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
I'll show you exactly where they make their mathematical error. Oooh gosh, I have a better idea. Why don't you explain it to them? You know: write a paper, go to a meeting, something like that? This seems an odd place for someone with your penetrating insight to hang out, if you know what I mean. And I'm pretty sure you do, that's why you're here. Clown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Clearly nobody's interested in doing it the way YOU consider correct. They've been doing pretty well without your guidance. 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."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I have yet to see any reason to think so.
quote: And if you understand probability theory you’ll know that there is far more to it. The correct calculation is probably completely impractical, involving far too many unknowns.
quote: I would state, rather, that the application is far from obvious, and it is far from obvious that it would support your assertion.
quote: We’ll see. But I’m expecting you to blunder yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
So you like creationism? Or do you hate it? I can say I hate 'evolutionism'. So why would a majority of people in a jurisiction not be able to have taught the beliefs they choose and like?
Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: I suggest that this is nothing unique to your religion and belief set (you think of as science). I would also expect that some creatures in the migration out from Eden would rapidly evolve and adapt as needed. If a fish encountered areas that were swampy or had land and water, it might need to adapt to land in order to feed and survive. No big deal. That does not require your imaginary ages, or a godless origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote:Neither do politicians or con men selling bridges they don't own. Nothing to brag about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The paper is written, the only thing remaining is to finish the last calculation which is taking weeks. In case you didn't know, Markov Chain calculations require huge amounts of computations if you solve the chain directly. The advantage of that is that you don't have to make the incorrect assumptions that are made with the Jukes-Cantor and related models that are presently used. I'll show you exactly where they make their mathematical error.Capt Stormfield writes: Oooh gosh, I have a better idea. Why don't you explain it to them? You know: write a paper, go to a meeting, something like that? This seems an odd place for someone with your penetrating insight to hang out, if you know what I mean. And I'm pretty sure you do, that's why you're here. And why not discuss these calculations here? We have a brilliant mind like yours here to explain these things.
Capt Stormfield writes:
Maybe so but I'm a clown who knows how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly and you (and Felsenstein) don't.
Clown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
They better learn the way I do the math because it is the correct way. The fish evolve into mammals clique's method of doing the math fails to correctly explain how antimicrobial drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. I wouldn't call that doing pretty well, especially for those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
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.ringo writes: Clearly nobody's interested in doing it the way YOU consider correct. They've been doing pretty well without your guidance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Try reading the rest of the line that you snipped off. It's a fact, JackPaulK writes: I have yet to see any reason to think so."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." And if you understood introductory probability theory, you would see the reason to think so. Kleinman writes:
Not when it comes to understanding DNA evolution. The only variables necessary to compute the probability of a particular mutation occurring are the mutation rate and the number of replications of that variant. What other unknowns are swirling around in your imagination?
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.PaulK writes: And if you understand probability theory you’ll know that there is far more to it. The correct calculation is probably completely impractical, involving far too many unknowns.Kleinman writes:
Do you think that mutations are not random events? This is really a simple binomial probability problem, does the mutation occur or does the mutation not occur.
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.PaulK writes: I would state, rather, that the application is far from obvious, and it is far from obvious that it would support your assertion.PaulK writes:
Really? Blunder again? I've put down the math for you line by line. Where's the blunder? Are you going to argue that mutations are not random events? Because if you do, that's your first obvious blunder very early in this discussion.
We’ll see. But I’m expecting you to blunder yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Kleinman writes: They better learn the way I do the math because it is the correct way. So, I guess your papers must have hundreds of citations, right? The Poof Into Existence clique's method of doing the math fails to explain the evolution of life on this planet because they try to mistakenly use two microbiology experiments as models for the patterns of the evolution of all life.
Kleinman writes: I wouldn't call that doing pretty well, especially for those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Well, we assumed you had that all covered. Besides you have repeatedly said that we are far too inferior and uncouth to learn your magic math, so it's up to you. Quit screwing around and save the world!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:
If you are saying that the members of the fish evolve into mammal clique are slow learners when it comes to the mathematics of evolution, you finally got one right. And if you think that DNA evolution works differently in microbes than any other replicator, then you once again get it wrong. Your winning streaks are pathetically short.
They better learn the way I do the math because it is the correct way.Tanypteryx writes: So, I guess your papers must have hundreds of citations, right? The Poof Into Existence clique's method of doing the math fails to explain the evolution of life on this planet because they try to mistakenly use two microbiology experiments as models for the patterns of the evolution of all life.Kleinman writes:
If you have trouble learning the math, we can find a high school student to tutor you.
I wouldn't call that doing pretty well, especially for those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.Tanypteryx writes: Well, we assumed you had that all covered. Besides you have repeatedly said that we are far too inferior and uncouth to learn your magic math, so it's up to you.Tanypteryx writes:
That's quite a job considering the mess you and the rest of your fish evolve into mammals clique have made of it. Quit screwing around and save the world! Edited by Kleinman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
How many citations, Dr. Poof?
Since you can't understand the science the world is doomed.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: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Somebody has to be the first to do the math correctly. Be patient, the fish evolve into mammals clique are slow at learning this math. That's why your clique has failed to describe the mathematics of these simple Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You are so confused about this subject, you think DNA evolution works differently for microbes than any other replicator. It took a long time for the flat-earther to learn that the earth isn't flat. Some never learn. It wouldn't surprise me if you form the fish evolve into mammals society.
How many citations, Dr. Poof?Since you can't understand the science the world is doomed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024