|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You forgot to use the multiplication rule in your development of the 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.ringo writes: I think computers were designed using the same scientific principles used to formulate the Theory of Evolution. They're brothers. You can't have one without the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
If you're telling the truth you should be able to show us all of the papers you've written about your successful treatments.
Screw the math. Show us the results. Edited by ringo, : No reason given."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
So how did scientists invent the computer if they're as brainless as you claim?
"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I recently read a good article that I wanted to share. There is a Spirituality to Mathematics That Most People Do Not Understand
Several thoughts jumped out at me (Phat) from this article. All thoughts are by the author of the article: Sunil Singh Singh writes:
While on his deathbed in 1920, Ramanujan wrote a letter to his mentor, English mathematician GH Hardy outlining several new mathematical functions never before heard of. In his own words While asleep, I had an unusual experience. There was a red screen formed by flowing blood, as it were. I was observing it. Suddenly a hand began to write on the screen. I became all attention. That hand wrote a number of elliptic integrals. They stuck to my mind. As soon as I woke up, I committed them to writing. In the last 90 years, nobody understood what his theorem was, but they knew it was something tremendous. Only in 2010 did they find out that this theorem describes various behaviors of black holes. Ninety years ago, no one was talking about black holes, the term did not even exist, but Ramanujan made a mathematical impression for it sitting on his deathbed and he said ‘my Devi’ gave it to me. When Ramanujan says, ‘Devi gave it to me’, for him Devi is the doorway. Below is an excerpt of an article I found on Quora about him:Singh writes: Thus, "In The Beginning...Math or "In The Beginning...Chemicals" makes less sense to me than "In The Beginning...God."
Devi is God. Ramanujan firmly believed that he was only communicating the ideas of God. Judging by how far ahead he was in the field of mathematics, especially with his atypical, rural upbringing, the conclusion of him being a conduit to a higher power cannot be ruled out. Both Krumholtz and Ramanujan overcame initial hardships with the environments for mathematics. While nobody would ever accuse an actor with someone like Ramanujan, they both were grasping for a spiritual terminus for mathematics. Singh writes: Personally, I am not a religious person(more mathematically spiritual), but humanizing the life of Pascal is symbolic of humanizing mathematics in general. Food for thought. The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo writes:
There are lots of papers out there that show the benefit of combination therapy. You can start with all the papers on hiv, then you find lots of papers that show the benefit of combination herbicides for impairing the evolution of drug-resistant weeds, combination pesticides for impairing the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects,... I'm just giving the correct explanation of why it works and applying the same principles in my medical practice. The results are there if you want to see it but you don't.
If you're telling the truth you should be able to show us all of the papers you've written about your successful treatments.Screw the math. Show us the results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo writes:
There are lots of clever people out there. It is just that the people who push the theory of evolution are not as clever as they think they are.
So how did scientists invent the computer if they're as brainless as you claim?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Phat writes:
I wouldn't necessarily attribute spirituality to mathematics any more than any other language has spirituality. I think mathematics is the most precise language there is. It is one thing to say there is cause and effect. That is qualitatively understood but not quantitatively defined. When you write down Newton's laws, you put precision in your language. If there is any spirituality in the language, whether it is mathematics or any spoken language, it is in the way you use it. So, when it says in the Bible, "as you sow so shall you reap", the spiritual component may or may not be apparent to the reader. The same can be said about math. If you overload the tires on your car, you might get a flat tire or worse.
I recently read a good article that I wanted to share. There is a Spirituality to Mathematics That Most People Do Not Understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
k writes: It is just that the people who push the theory of evolution are not as clever as they think they are. And you apparently are cleverer than all of them......? Reading some of the comments from biologists on other sites you have participated in suggests that the followng is why they aren’t quaking in their boots at the power of your intellect. Kleinman’s model of mutation is simple enough. Mutations are independent and have a particular frequency. He models the probability of at least one particular mutation happening in a population of constant size in some number of generations. He doesn’t consider the probability of more than one such mutation occurring, and he doesn’t consider changes in frequency (or absolute number) due to selection, though he thinks he does. Your model seems to be fine a few highly specific cases but misapplied to anything more complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1358 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
And the Popsicle you suck on. So? What does this have to do with origins or creation or evolution or the distant universe or the nature on earth in the past, etc? Did you really think saying the word computer over and over would help your religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
They may not be quaking in their boots but they also aren't giving the correct mathematical explanations of the simplest evolutionary experiments, ie the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Some people are totally content in their ignorance. You know that old saying "ignorance is bliss". Well, it isn't for my patients with drug-resistant infections (or for that matter any kind of infection).
It is just that the people who push the theory of evolution are not as clever as they think they are.Straggler writes: And you apparently are cleverer than all of them......? Reading some of the comments from biologists on other sites you have participated in suggests that the followng is why they aren’t quaking in their boots at the power of your intellect.Straggler writes:
There are multiple errors in that statement, but you can't recognize them. We can start with that all mutations are not all independent. Some mutations are dependent. But you have to be able to recognize under what conditions that occur because it affects how you use the multiplication rule. You have to know when to use the multiplication rule for independent events or for conditional probabilities. "Kleinman’s model of mutation is simple enough. Mutations are independent and have a particular frequency. He models the probability of at least one particular mutation happening in a population of constant size in some number of generations. He doesn’t consider the probability of more than one such mutation occurring, and he doesn’t consider changes in frequency (or absolute number) due to selection, though he thinks he does." Then, in my original derivation, I did assume a constant population size over generations simply as a convenience. But if you look at the probability graphs, they are not a function of population size, they are a function of the total number of replications over generations. I could have written the total number of replications as a summation over all generations, or as an exponentially growing population size, or a linearly growing population size, but ultimately the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the total number of replications, not the rate at which the replications are occurring. Then, your writer complains that I am not taking into account the probability of more than one such mutation occurring. My first paper on this subject considers the simplest case of DNA evolution when only a single mutation is needed to improve fitness. My second paper addressed the more complex case and extended the concepts of the first paper when more than one mutation must occur to improve fitness. Those two papers also address the differences when the mutations are independent and dependent. With regards to fitness, there is a lot of confusion on the part of the members of the fish evolve into mammals clique. If you are going to consider competition between different variants in a population, then you need to consider relative fitness. If you are going to consider adaptation to selection conditions, it is the absolute fitness (the ability to replicate, the total number of replications) that determines the probability of that variant to be able to adapt to the environmental selection condition. The math that I presented includes the total number of replications as a variable. If you can't distinguish the difference between competition and adaptation (the two components of Darwinian evolution), you will never understand the mathematics of evolution because they are two entirely different physical phenomena with two entirely different mathematical behaviors and the writer of your quote doesn't understand the difference.
Straggler writes:
Complexity doesn't help your argument. Each additional selection pressure on a population in a given environment introduces another instance of the multiplication rule. That makes the evolutionary trajectory for those selection conditions markedly more difficult for a population to follow. Equation 11 from this paper gives the general equation for the probability of adaptation to any number of selection pressures:
Your model seems to be fine a few highly specific cases but misapplied to anything more complex.The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance If you have trouble understanding that paper, read and understand this paper first: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection If you want to see how to use the mathematics of adaptation in a competitive environment (the Lenski experiment), read this paper: Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment And in my next paper, I'm going to show you members of the fish evolve into mammals clique the correct way to formulate the Markov Process DNA evolution models. And how you use it to predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment. Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
As I said, science gets results. You keep saying that science knows nothing, yet it managed to produce the computer you say it on. Don't you understand how silly you sound? Do you think you're doing your God a favour by making His followers look like idiots? What does this have to do with origins or creation or evolution or the distant universe or the nature on earth in the past, etc?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Or the people who denigrate evolution aren't as clever as THEY think they are. Creationism is dead. There are a few crackpots still trying to resurrect it but they don't have a leg to stand on. It is just that the people who push the theory of evolution are not as clever as they think they are."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
That isn't what I asked you. I asked for YOUR papers. It seems a little odd that you'd be on a fairly obscure forum ranting about evolution when you supposedly could be showing physians how successful your method is compared to theirs.
There are lots of papers out there that show the benefit of combination therapy. Kleinman writes:
The point is: bring the results HERE. The results are there if you want to see it but you don't."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why don't you post your thoughts instead of giving us a reading assignment? Food for thought."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Who is ranting? I'm explaining the physics and mathematics of evolution to the fish evolve into mammals clique and you are the one whining.
There are lots of papers out there that show the benefit of combination therapy.ringo writes: That isn't what I asked you. I asked for YOUR papers. It seems a little odd that you'd be on a fairly obscure forum ranting about evolution when you supposedly could be showing physians how successful your method is compared to theirs.Kleinman writes:
Do the following searches: The results are there if you want to see it but you don't.ringo writes: The point is: bring the results HERE.combination+therapy+hiv => 78,800,000 hits combination+antibiotics+resistance => 49,500,000 hits combination+herbicides+resistance => 10,300,000 hits combination+pesticides+resistance => 15,700,000 hits And you want me to write another paper on the clinical use of combination antibiotics and drug-resistance? Why? So you will get 49,500,001 hits when you do that search? I'd rather write the mathematical paper that explains the empirical observation of random mutation and natural selection. Try this search: mathematics+random+mutation+natural+selection you only get 9,450,000 hits
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024