Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1659 of 2073 (878305)
06-28-2020 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1653 by Capt Stormfield
06-27-2020 9:10 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
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.
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.
And why not discuss these calculations here? We have a brilliant mind like yours here to explain these things.
Capt Stormfield writes:
Clown.
Maybe so but I'm a clown who knows how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly and you (and Felsenstein) don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1653 by Capt Stormfield, posted 06-27-2020 9:10 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1660 of 2073 (878307)
06-28-2020 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1654 by ringo
06-27-2020 9:15 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1654 by ringo, posted 06-27-2020 9:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1662 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2020 9:40 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 1673 by ringo, posted 06-29-2020 11:29 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1661 of 2073 (878310)
06-28-2020 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1655 by PaulK
06-28-2020 4:36 AM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
It's a fact, Jack
PaulK writes:
I have yet to see any reason to think so.
Try reading the rest of the line that you snipped off.
"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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
PaulK writes:
We’ll see. But I’m expecting you to blunder yet again.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1655 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2020 4:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1666 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2020 12:40 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1663 of 2073 (878316)
06-28-2020 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1662 by Tanypteryx
06-28-2020 9:40 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
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.
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.
Kleinman writes:
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.
If you have trouble learning the math, we can find a high school student to tutor you.
Tanypteryx writes:
Quit screwing around and save the world!
That's quite a job considering the mess you and the rest of your fish evolve into mammals clique have made of it.
Edited by Kleinman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1662 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2020 9:40 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1664 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2020 10:48 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1665 of 2073 (878322)
06-28-2020 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1664 by Tanypteryx
06-28-2020 10:48 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Tanypteryx writes:
How many citations, Dr. Poof?
Since you can't understand the science the world is doomed.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1664 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-28-2020 10:48 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1668 of 2073 (878336)
06-29-2020 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1666 by PaulK
06-29-2020 12:40 AM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
Try reading the rest of the line that you snipped off.
"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.
PaulK writes:
No, you wouldn’t. Not if you understood introductory probability theory. The fact that you are looking at events in hindsight does make a difference. You cannot just consider what did happen, you have to be prepared to consider other events that might have happened and did not.
That is not what I am doing. In fact, I published the governing equations for the Kishony experiment before Kishony ran his experiment. And when you say something like this makes me think that you do not understand introductory probability theory. What you can't do with probability theory is to predict the outcome from any random trial. What you can do with probability theory is to predict the frequency of outcomes if you do the random trial many times, that is if you formulate your probability problem correctly. So far, you haven't demonstrated that capability.
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?
PaulK writes:
Aside from the fact that finding the particular mutations in question and identifying the number of replications available are not trivial problems? You have to identify other beneficial mutations that could have occurred and did not. You have to identify which alternate sequences of the same mutations would work, And you have to take into account those populations - of all species - which did not get the beneficial mutations.
You are confusing two concepts. Those two concepts are the governing mathematical laws of a physical process and the physical properties of the real world. Here's an analogy that might help you understand where you are confused on this point. I can use Newton's 2nd law to predict the stresses in a beam carrying a load but I can't predict when the beam will fail without experimentally measuring the properties of the particular material I use to make that beam. In the same way, I can't predict the number of possible beneficial mutations will exist for a particular evolutionary process, but I can predict the number of replications necessary for there to be a reasonable probability of a lineage to take any evolution trajectory to improved fitness for any number possible beneficial mutations. I can do this in the same way as using Newton's 2nd law on a beam. If you say you want to carry a load X on that beam, I can tell you to find a material with a yield stress point greater than Y if you don't want that beam to fail whether that material exists or not.
PaulK writes:
It’s easy to get low probabilities from sequences of events. By making the sequence long enough you can get arbitrarily low probabilities. If you are defining the sequence in advance that is not a problem, but if you are looking at the sequence in hindsight it is usually a far more difficult problem. Consider the lottery. The probability that a particular person will win is low - if you can predict the winner, that would be impressive. But in hindsight - in the absence of other information that makes the win significant - the relevant probability would be the probability that someone wins the lottery, which is far higher. If you try extending that to sequences of wins in hindsight, the relevant probability becomes the probability of getting at least that many winners. If you multiply the probabilities of the particular winners winning or even the probability of the exact sequence of wins versus nobody winning you can get low probabilities but they aren’t worth anything.
I'm not defining anything in advance. No matter what drug Kishony uses in his experiment, it always works the same way. The reason is when you have a highly asymmetric binomial probability process such as DNA evolution, it's going to take a lot of random trials before you get the successful outcome (mutation) that improves fitness. The only difference between DNA evolution and a coin-tossing problem is your frequency of success. Your probability of calling the correct toss of a coin in a single toss is 0.5. Your probability of getting a beneficial mutation in a single replication is the (beneficial) mutation rate. You really aren't as good at this math as you think you are.
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.
PaulK writes:
Because you are looking in hindsight the problem is more complex. You should know that.
You are looking at this problem with blindsight. Why do you think the Kishony experiment works the same way no matter which drug is used? Do you think that bacteria are saying to themselves, "Hey, we saw it work this way in the last experiment, we better do it the same way in this experiment". DNA evolution works with low frequencies of success per random trial (replication). That's because DNA replication works with very high fidelity. Then when you factor in that you must multiply the individual probabilities of success to compute the joint probability of multiple beneficial mutations occurring, it becomes clear why you need large number of random trials (replications) for each evolutionary transitional step. You just don't want to accept this fundamental fact of life for this stochastic process. That's how drug-resistance evolves, that's how cancer treatments fail, that's how the Lenski experiment works, that's how all examples of DNA evolution work.
Kleinman 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.
PaulK writes:
It seems so. You’ve made the elementary error of failing to consider the differences between an a priori calculation and one made in hindsight.
I wrote the paper which predicted the behavior of the Kishony experiment before Kishony performed his experiment. You could have as well if you actually understood introductory theory. But you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1666 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2020 12:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1669 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2020 6:35 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1670 of 2073 (878343)
06-29-2020 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1669 by PaulK
06-29-2020 6:35 AM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:
That is not what I am doing
PaulK writes:
If you are going to predict that macroevolution cannot happen the calculation will work out much the same except you have to work out future conditions instead of past conditions.
I'm giving you the correct mathematics for a series of microevolutionary changes to occur. And the probabilities of these joint events occurring don't add, you must multiply these probabilities. That's why it takes on the order of a billion replications (of the particular variant) for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment, the Lenski experiment, for any DNA evolutionary process where the mutation rate is e-9. That's how you correctly do the mathematics of a series of microevolutionary changes whether you are talking about bacteria accumulating mutations to adapt to an antibiotic selection pressure, bacteria accumulating mutations to adapt to a starvation selection pressure, or for some non-limbed replicator to accumulate the coding and regulatory genes necessary to produce limbs.
Kleinman writes:
In fact, I published the governing equations for the Kishony experiment before Kishony ran his experiment
PaulK writes:
Even if that is true, it is hardly the same issue. A very simple and very special case that can’t be generalised to all evolution.
The same math applies to all examples of DNA evolution. If you have a real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution that doesn't follow this mathematical pattern, show it. You won't. The Lenski experiment obeys this math, hiv obeys this math, weeds and cancers obey this math, human DNA evolution obeys this math.
Kleinman writes:
And when you say something like this makes me think that you do not understand introductory probability theory
PaulK writes:
Which is more evidence that you don’t. You won’t get a useful number just by multiplying probabilities.
I missed your publication on the explanation of the mathematical behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. In fact, none of the fish evolve to mammals clique have correctly described the mathematics of either of these two simple evolutionary experiments. What's the matter? Is your clique having difficulty doing the math for these two "specialized experiments"?
Kleinman writes:
You are confusing two concepts. Those two concepts are the governing mathematical laws of a physical process and the physical properties of the real world.
PaulK writes:
Not at all. You can derive equations but without the numbers you can’t apply them.
The problem for you is that we now are getting the numbers and the numbers are fitting the model that I've presented, not your model. You really need to do some exercise on the effect of the multiplication rule on stochastic processes like DNA evolution. Then you will understand why the numbers fit my model and not yours.
Kleinman writes:
In the same way, I can't predict the number of possible beneficial mutations will exist for a particular evolutionary process, but I can predict the number of replications necessary for there to be a reasonable probability of a lineage to take any evolution trajectory to improved fitness for any number possible beneficial mutations
PaulK writes:
Maybe you can do that for a particular trajectory - where the trajectory is defined by the sequence of beneficial mutations. But you still have to know how many trajectories are possible and how many populations fail to successfully follow any trajectory.
Simply multiplying probabilities is not nearly enough.
Sure, lots of variants fail to successfully follow an evolutionary trajectory, that's called extinction. But any lineage that doesn't go extinct, the joint probability of each mutational evolutionary step will be calculated by multiplying the individual probabilities. Otherwise, you are simply getting divergence of the population.
Kleinman writes:
The only difference between DNA evolution and a coin-tossing problem is your frequency of success. Your probability of calling the correct toss of a coin in a single toss is 0.5. Your probability of getting a beneficial mutation in a single replication is the (beneficial) mutation rate. You really aren't as good at this math as you think you are.
PaulK writes:
The beneficial mutation rate will be variable, depending on conditions. For instance the mutations in the Kishony experiment are beneficial because of the presence of the antibiotic. So good luck working it out.
You still don't get it, the mutation rate is a minor factor in the DNA evolutionary process. The multiplication rule is the dominant factor. hiv has a mutation rate of about e-5 yet it still can't evolve efficiently to just 3 selection pressures targeting only two genetic loci. The reason is that three instances of the multiplication rule is being applied to the virus at each evolutionary step. Each additional selection pressure on a replicator imposes another instance of the multiplication rule on each evolutionary step. It takes very large populations to adapt to a single selection pressure. Each additional selection pressure forces the population size to go up exponentially in order to have a reasonable probability of adaptation to those selection conditions. I'll start going over the mathematics for that in the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?" thread today.
PaulK writes:
It’s looking as if this is just a rephrasing of your assertion that it will take too many replications. But writing the same argument in different terminology really does nothing to help you.
I'm telling you how many (not too many) replications it takes for a mutational step on an evolutionary trajectory. And we have the numbers for example, with humans:
How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? | PRB
There have been about 110 billion people that have ever lived. 98% of those people have lived in the last 10,000 years. What kind of adaptive evolutionary trajectory could have been followed by humans in the last 10,000 years? And what kind of adaptive evolutionary trajectory could have been followed for those 1.2 billion that ever lived before that time? You can get some evolutionary divergence but you don't have the population sizes necessary to do any type of evolutionary adaptation.
Kleinman writes:
You are looking at this problem with blindsight. Why do you think the Kishony experiment works the same way no matter which drug is used?
PaulK writes:
Because antibiotic resistance typically requires a very narrow set of mutations and resistance to the higher doses tends to require a sequence of such mutations. And because the drug is fatal to non-resistant bacteria. The conditions do matter.
And the coding and regulatory genes to make limbs require any kind of mutation you can imagine? And in case you didn't know, that's what selection pressures do, kill or impair the replication of some or all members of a population. It doesn't matter whether it is an antibiotic, thermal stress, starvation, you name the selection pressure. That's what these stressors do to populations. And unless any of the survivors of these stressors can replicate sufficiently, they will have a low probability of getting another adaptive mutation. It is all about the multiplication rule. Go back to your probability theory textbook and read about it.
Kleinman writes:
Then when you factor in that you must multiply the individual probabilities of success to compute the joint probability of multiple beneficial mutations occurring, it becomes clear why you need large number of random trials (replications) for each evolutionary transitional step.
PaulK writes:
Which still requires knowing the numbers. You can come up with equations but conclusions are going to require numbers.
We have plenty of information on population sizes of different replicators that are alive today. Take a look at the numbers from this page:
Along With Humans, Who Else Is In The 7 Billion Club? : The Two-Way : NPR
So, unless you think that drift in some small population can cause legs to appear in some legless replicator, you are going to have a hard time coming up with the population sizes necessary for adaptive evolution to operate and do this kind of genetic transformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1669 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2020 6:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1671 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2020 11:16 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1674 of 2073 (878361)
06-29-2020 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1673 by ringo
06-29-2020 11:29 AM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
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.
ringo writes:
You're not making any sense. It isn't mathematics that treats infections and cancer. And the treatments that DO work are not discovered by mathematics.
It is mathematics that relates the variables involved in evolutionary processes and if you don't understand this math, it will increase the risk that the selection pressures used to treat infectious diseases and cancers will fail. Now the simple-minded muddlers in your fish evolve into mammals clique might recognize that using two selection pressures will be more likely to drive these infections and cancers to extinction. However, with this kind of vague understanding of evolution, you won't understand when and why more than a single selection pressure has to be used to achieve a successful treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1673 by ringo, posted 06-29-2020 11:29 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1676 by dad, posted 06-29-2020 3:37 PM Kleinman has not replied
 Message 1677 by ringo, posted 06-29-2020 4:07 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1679 of 2073 (878403)
06-29-2020 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1678 by ringo
06-29-2020 4:14 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
dad writes:
Real science is based on evidence.
ringo writes:
Yes, and you have no evidence for your claims.
But I do, you can start with the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And then you can go on to every real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution. The only evidence that you have is what your fossil tea-leaf readers give you and that tells you absolutely zilch how evolution works. It is you and the rest of your fish evolve into mammals clique that has no real evidence. And you harm people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments with your ignorance of the mathematics and science of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1678 by ringo, posted 06-29-2020 4:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1686 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 5:25 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1683 of 2073 (878468)
06-30-2020 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1682 by Taq
06-30-2020 1:23 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
dad writes:
My claim IS that science has no evidence for it's claims and basis for the claims.
Taq writes:
Your claim is that you will invent fantasies in order to avoid evidence.
Is that why you have to contrive some exceptional recombination scenario to deal with the 3e9 replications for each evolutionary step to explain fish evolving into mammals? It's the multiplication rule Taq. And that is the reality you refuse to accept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1682 by Taq, posted 06-30-2020 1:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1684 by Taq, posted 06-30-2020 4:37 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1685 of 2073 (878487)
06-30-2020 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1684 by Taq
06-30-2020 4:37 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Kleinman writes:
Is that why you have to contrive some exceptional recombination scenario to deal with the 3e9 replications for each evolutionary step to explain fish evolving into mammals? It's the multiplication rule Taq.
Taq writes:
Do you have mental problems?
None when it comes to the mathematics of evolution. But I know these people that when they look at fossils, they have these delusions that they are seeing fish evolving into mammals. These people really need help, combination therapy is called for, mathematical and empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1684 by Taq, posted 06-30-2020 4:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1689 of 2073 (878498)
06-30-2020 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1688 by ringo
06-30-2020 5:29 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
dad writes:
My claim IS that science has no evidence for it's claims and basis for the claims.
ringo writes:
Science produced the computer you're looking at.
I think what dad is talking about is that you have no evidence for your theory of evolution. Of course, if you think that the computer he is looking at evolved from fingers is evidence explains why they are called digital computers. Does that mean watches evolved from dogs because there are watchdogs? Did chestnuts evolve from horses or did horses evolve from chestnuts? What came first, the chestnut or the horse. Oh, what does it matter, they both evolved and now we both horse-chestnuts and chestnut horses. The theory of evolution explains so much!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1688 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 5:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1694 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 7:16 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1690 of 2073 (878499)
06-30-2020 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1686 by ringo
06-30-2020 5:25 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Kleinman writes:
It is you and the rest of your fish evolve into mammals clique that has no real evidence
ringo writes:
And yet they are the ones that can use their science for practical purposes and you can't.
Wrong on that one ringo. I use my mathematics when treating drug-resistant infection (and they are all too common thanks to the fish evolve into mammal clique). And the principle is quite simple. Don't use single-drug therapy when there is a high risk for selecting resistant variants. Understand rubberband?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1686 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 5:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1691 by Straggler, posted 06-30-2020 6:08 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 1693 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 7:13 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1692 of 2073 (878504)
06-30-2020 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1691 by Straggler
06-30-2020 6:08 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Straggler writes:
You keep referring to the fish evolve into mammal clique. But it’s nor a clique is it? It’s nearly every biologist, indeed scientist, on the planet that you are claiming superior knowledge to.
clique
/kl—k,klik/
noun
a small group of people, with shared interests or other features in common, who spend time together and do not readily allow others to join them. "the old-school clique"
There was a time when nearly every scientist said the earth was flat. And why hasn't your clique explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments? You have had over 30 years to figure out the Lenski experiment. What is taking so long?
Straggler writes:
You still have no alternative explanation for the origin of species. And it’s not like your model has led to the discovery of new species or indeed the discovery of anything of note at all.
I've given the correct explanation for DNA evolution, isn't that enough. After all, it explains how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You in the fish evolve into mammal clique are awfully demanding since you have had over a century to correctly explain the mathematics of Darwinian evolution, but haven't done it. What's your excuse?
Straggler writes:
Let us know when the Nobel prize arrives...
You in the fish evolve into mammals clique are really slow. I already told you that Edward Tatum already got the Nobel Prize. I just put the mathematics to his idea. Your clique could have done it but I guess math is not emphasized in your discipline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1691 by Straggler, posted 06-30-2020 6:08 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 1695 of 2073 (878510)
06-30-2020 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1693 by ringo
06-30-2020 7:13 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Kleinman writes:
I use my mathematics when treating drug-resistant infection
ringo writes:
I don't think anybody believes you on that.
It doesn't surprise me when members of fish evolve into mammals clique say that. After all, you think that increasing the number of selection pressures on a population accelerates evolution when what it really does is increase the probability that you will drive the population to extinction. And even if it doesn't drive the population to extinction, it impairs the DNA evolutionary process as well demonstrated by the use of combination therapy to treat hiv.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1693 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 7:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1697 by ringo, posted 06-30-2020 7:49 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024