|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Do you understand the mathematics of quality control? Let's say you are a manufacturer of millions of copies of a part for some kind of machine. And that part has to be within specific tolerances in order for the machine to work. Your customer wants to know if this part will work every time. Testing all of the millions of parts is way too costly so you sample from that pool of parts and do a statistical analysis. That's what I've done with that pool of papers and none have contradicted the math that I've presented. Now, all you have to do is find one paper that proves the math that I've presented is wrong. Start reading.
I never said I read all 78+ million papers on hiv.ringo writes: You cited them as support for your work. How could you know whether they agreed or disagreed with you without reading them?Kleinman writes:
ibid, see above
All I've said is that none of the papers contradict the math that I've presented.ringo writes: Again, how could you know that without reading them?Kleinman writes:
Yawn Either you are too stupid to find a single paper among all those millions of papers that contradicts that math, or the paper doesn't exist.ringo writes: On the contrary, you have been unable to cite a single paper among all those millions that supports your math.Combination therapies for combating antimicrobial resistance - PMC Much has been written about the need for new strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance [1—3]. The object of this perspective is to highlight one such strategy: treating infections with sets of drugs rather than individual drugs. The principle of combination therapies as they relate to drug resistance is straightforward: Imagine that the probabilities of spontaneous resistance to drugs A and B are 1 10‘6 and 1 10‘7, respectively. If spontaneous resistance to drugs A and B are independent events, then the probability of spontaneous resistance to the A+B combination will be the product of the two rates, or 1 10‘13 (for a more in-depth explanation, see [4]).
Why Do Cancer Treatments Stop Working? - NCI
Researchers believe one possible way to overcome or delay the development of resistance is to treat patients with combinations of different drugs.
https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/78/9/2419
In summary, our work demonstrates the potential for different combination therapies to combat resistance evolution in cancer.
Combination therapy - Wikipedia
Conditions treated with combination therapy include tuberculosis, leprosy, cancer, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. One major benefit of combination therapies is that they reduce development of drug resistance since a pathogen or tumor is less likely to have resistance to multiple drugs simultaneously.
Combination Approaches to Combat Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria - PMC
With the continuing rise in occurrence of drug resistant strains of bacteria, new approaches to combating infections caused by these bacteria are desperately needed, particularly for Gram-negative bacteria. The one drug-one target model has limited viability and combination therapy is the norm in the treatment of many cancers, viral infections such as HIV and tuberculosis treatment. The use of combination therapy, or other drug cocktails such as antibiotic/adjuvant combinations for the treatment of other MDR bacterial infections is an attractive alternative to the development of new antibiotics, which has been demonstrated to almost invariably lead to the emergence of resistance following a short time in the clinic.
How many papers do you want me to cite? Now get off your lazy butt and find a single paper that contradicts the math that I've presented.
Kleinman writes:
What is with you people in the fish evolves to mammals clique? Is your reading list limited to fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine? You are so ignorant of the real examples of evolution, it is pathetic.
If you read the paper I linked to, I developed the math based on a failure of two-drug therapy for treating malaria.ringo writes: I'm not interested in other people's failures. I'm asking about your successes - actual clinical studies that show your method working better - i.e. curing more patients - than the other methods. If there were any, I should think you'd know about them. So why can't you cite any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You're not listening. I don't care about contradicting the math. I'm talking about results - MEDICAL results. I want to see at least one paper documenting that more patients are cured using your math.
Testing all of the millions of parts is way too costly so you sample from that pool of parts and do a statistical analysis. That's what I've done with that pool of papers and none have contradicted the math that I've presented. Kleinman writes:
I want you to cite papers with actual medical results, not "one possible way" or "potential". Actual. Results that happened, past tense. Medical results. How many papers do you want me to cite?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You are not thinking.
Testing all of the millions of parts is way too costly so you sample from that pool of parts and do a statistical analysis. That's what I've done with that pool of papers and none have contradicted the math that I've presented.ringo writes: You're not listening.Kleinman writes:
So you think that combination therapy doesn't demonstrate actual medical results for hiv, cancer, tb, leprosy, malaria,... You need to expand your reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine.
How many papers do you want me to cite?ringo writes: I want you to cite papers with actual medical results, not "one possible way" or "potential". Actual. Results that happened, past tense. Medical results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Math does not demonstrate medicine. Only medicine demonstrates medicine. So you think that combination therapy doesn't demonstrate actual medical results for hiv, cancer, tb, leprosy, malaria,... And it's becoming pretty clear that you don't have any medical results to back up your claim."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." --John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
whatever
So you think that combination therapy doesn't demonstrate actual medical results for hiv, cancer, tb, leprosy, malaria,...ringo writes: Math does not demonstrate medicine. Only medicine demonstrates medicine. And it's becoming pretty clear that you don't have any medical results to back up your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No. Evidence is something like a fossil. Or a rock containing ratios of isotopes. Or indications continents used too be together. The beliefs are when you assume a same nature existed when fossils were made. (you see if the forces and laws of nature were not the same, we might have a situation where only a small percentage of animal types may have been able to leave remains that could fossilize). Or, if the nature was different, the speed at which a continent could separate may be different that the slow rates we see today. Or, if there were other forces in place, the processes at work in the past may not have involved radioactive decay as we now see....etc.
So, yes, we do have fossils, and no, the fossil recorrds does not need to mean what you thought it did based on beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
dad writes: The beliefs are when you assume a same nature existed when fossils were made. (you see if the forces and laws of nature were not the same, we might have a situation where only a small percentage of animal types may have been able to leave remains that could fossilize). Or, if the nature was different, the speed at which a continent could separate may be different that the slow rates we see today. Or, if there were other forces in place, the processes at work in the past may not have involved radioactive decay as we now see....etc. That's all fiction. You just made it up.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You could have run away a long time ago and saved us all a lot of time. whatever"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." --John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Is that what you think "whatever" means? Look it up.
whateverringo writes: You could have run away a long time ago and saved us all a lot of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
In other words, you believe the nature of the past was the same and can't prove it, but think anything else must be made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I suggest that this is nothing unique to your religion and belief set (you think of as science). The unique thing you are missing is the ability to predict and discover. What has creationism discovered recently? Or indeed ever?
That does not require your imaginary ages, or a godless origin. Well come back to us when your godly alternative narrative starts leading to the discovery of new species. If all you have are post hoc explanations of the new evidence discovered as a result of applying evolutionary science then you really have nothing at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
The ability of the bible to predict is unmatched. To discover anything we need more than belief based theories.
Nothing has been discovered using TOE! Any discoveries involving evolution have to do with the present time. It has to do with how things evolve now. Don't worry about what other beliefs can discover or not.Show us anything that is due to a first life form? Show us anything discovered and used in the world that is due to you being related to a flat worm?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Good grief. You are still here. Why are you wasting your time with a bunch of amateurs so obviously and clearly beneath you? Rather than focussing on persuading the Nobel prize committee of your genius? The man that overthrew evolutionary biology. The Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras of our time.
It’s almost as if you were a crank......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You can start by explaining the discovery of the example already cited.
Tiktaalik quote: Verification through prediction leading to discovery. When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I could ask you the same thing. The reason Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras are remembered is that they gave a correct explanation of physics/biology/geometry. What Darwin didn't do is correctly quantify his theory but he did recognize qualitatively the two fundamental processes of evolution, competition (what Darwin called the struggle for existence), and adaptation. Does anyone remember the most important flat-earther of all time? Because that will be like remembering the most famous fish evolves into mammals clique member.
Good grief. You are still here. Why are you wasting your time with a bunch of amateurs so obviously and clearly beneath you? Rather than focussing on persuading the Nobel prize committee of your genius? The man that overthrew evolutionary biology. The Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras of our time.It’s almost as if you were a crank...... Straggler writes:
You can start by explaining the discovery of the example already cited.Tiktaalik What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago. So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians. Straggler writes:
Do you think that finding a fossil of an aquatic animal (or some land animal that died and ended up) in river sediment is some startling discovery as unusual a specimen it might be? What exactly does this fossil tell you about the physics and mathematics of evolution? Zero, nothing, zilch, nada. If you want to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution, you have to consider real, measurable, and repeatable empirical examples of the process. And not Tiktaalik, not Australopithecus, not archidumbtrex, tell you anything about the physics and mathematics of evolution. Why can't you explain anything about DNA evolution with fossils? The reason is you can't describe what is going on at the molecular level with gross anatomy. That's like trying to explain quantum mechanics with classical physics. If you want to know how many replications it takes to make a transitional step in a DNA evolutionary process, you have to study and understand evolutionary experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And these experiments show that each transitional step (mutation) takes about a billion replications. So, if Tiktaalik is some kind of transitional form to a tetrapod, you should have vast numbers of these fossils in your riverbed and that just for a single mutational transitional step. Verification through prediction leading to discovery. When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........? So, where does that leave you? It leaves you with the argument that the DNA evolution of bacteria somehow works differently than more complex replicators. Try recombination. Taq has. Of course, Taq doesn't understand the mathematics of recombination. Try some kind of lateral gene transfer. Maybe Tiktaalik caugth a viral infection that gave it the coding and regulatory genes to produce limbs. That sounds like the kind of thing you should teach to naive school children so that they will understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. These children will be totally prepared to deal with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Maybe you fossil tea-leaf readers and you in the fish evolves into mammals clique think this is wise to teach to children. I think you are introducing insanity into our educational system and it is showing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024