|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You only think you do.
So you think you have the ability to tell what is good and evil?ringo writes: We define good and evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You can't even explain how evolution works.
So you think you have the ability to tell what is good and evil?vimesey writes: Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Here's some mathematical brilliancy from PaulK. This quote is from the thread "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" Message 237:
Kleinman is very likely a troll. In Message 228 he wrote:
So, according to Jukes-Cantor calculation, if you compare a single gene from two different species with a single base difference between them and a mutation rate of e-8, you get 50,000,000 generations separating the two species. So, ding-dong, what if you compare a collection of 10 equivalent genes at the same time, each with only a single base difference, that means 500,000,000 generations separating the two species. Now humans and chimps have more than 20,000 coding genes and very few exactly match. So, even if they differ by a single base at each coding genetic locus, you now have 20,000*50,000,000 generations separating the two species. And that is just 1.5% of the genome that you are comparing. Now, include the regulatory portion of the genome in your analysis which is a much larger portion of the genome. How many generations separating humans and chimpanzees?
This is total nonsense. Either he is telling idiotic lies or he has no understanding of the mathematics. Either way he is not worth listening to.PaulK writes:
I don't expect the mathematically incompetent to understand the mathematics of evolution. Perhaps if we get a high school student to tutor you PaulK, you might make some progress.
So the expected length of the gene would be 1/0.75 bases. Let’s generously round up and say two. Not exactly plausible is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Very impressive source for your wisdom. Too bad you aren't a reasonably intelligent enough chap to understand high school level mathematics. Otherwise, you would smell the crap from this notion that you evolved from some simple replicator that spontaneously occurred in some mythical primordial soup. I’m not a scientist, so I wouldn’t presume to try to any level of detail, when we have several scientists on this thread who can explain it perfectly well.I am, however, a reasonably intelligent chap, and a fan of Frasier, and one of the many lines I really enjoy is one uttered by one of Frasier’s guests at a cocktail party he threw: I’m no farmer, Crane, but I can smell manure from a mile away. And where are these mythical scientists? PaulK? You have to be kidding. Taq started a little bit of debate and got the 3e9 replications for each beneficial mutation right but then bailed out. You should try to expand your philosophical foundation beyond silly American sitcoms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
PaulK is now going to explain the mathematics of evolution. Not! Hey PaulK, why don't you write a book explaining DNA phylogenetics? You could show how you are descended from bananas.
Oh, look Kleinman is spouting nonsense again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Do you think it is disrespectful if someone says your opinion is wrong and then shows you why?
Oh the sources of my wisdom are far wider than sitcoms. I listen, read and learn. I am a sceptic, but not a cynic - a respecter of differing opinions, where the holders of those opinions are themselves respectful and receptive.vimesey writes:
This is a thread about teaching evolution and religion in school. My argument is that the fish evolves into mammals clique does not teach evolution, they teach a mythological interpretation of the phenomenon. And it doesn't amuse me at all because I have to deal with drug-resistant infections. Biological evolution is not that difficult to understand if you are willing to let go of your preconceived notions about the phenomenon. When you do, it becomes obvious why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary transitional step.
Frasier is simply one of many sources of entertainment and laughter in my life.vimesey writes:
Hmmm
You are another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It's easy with you and your understanding of good and evil. I'm just putting the blame on this one where it belongs.
And it doesn't amuse me at all because I have to deal with drug-resistant infections.
vimesey writes: Trying to occupy the moral high ground now eh ?vimesey writes:
You got me on that one. I have an ulterior motive. When it became clear that I got the mathematics for Markov chain DNA evolution correct, I don't have any problem explaining the math or the results you get from the math. The Kishony experiment clearly shows this mathematical behavior. So, when I got to the "conclusion" portion of the paper, I hit writer's block and couldn't see how to write the conclusion. That's when I decided to start this discussion here and it worked perfectly. PaulK's posts on DNA phylogenetics were particularly helpful. It became quite clear how to write a conclusion. You see, I respect the opinions of the fish evolves into mammals cliques, even if it is wrong.
In that case, pray tell, why are you wasting your time on here, rather than persuading the scientific community, the drug companies and governments of your genius and the ignorance of 99+% of the scientific community ? I mean, come on, it would surely do more for the health of your patients with drug-resistant infections, wouldn’t it ?vimesey writes:
I'll soon be submitting this paper for peer-review and publication. The only thing remaining is the data for the Kishony experiment if he were to use 2 drugs (or the step increase in drug-concentrations requires two mutations) instead of one. Markov chain calculations can be very computation-intensive (lots of matrix multiplications). For the mutation rate of 1e-9, that calculation takes over 100 trillion transitions and my computer can only do about 1.5 trillion transitions/day. That solution is nicely converging on the solution I obtained using the "at least one rule" in my previous publication on the subject. It's always nice to see that you get consistent results using different mathematical approaches to the same physical problem and those results correlate correctly with the experiment.
Unless, of course, there was some reason why not ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
vimesey writes:
vimesey is no farmer but apparently has lost his sense of smell when he can't smell the manure piled right under his nose by that wider scientific community. That's why he's part of the problem of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. The English education system has really gone downhill since the time of Newton and Darwin.
And there you go again, you ego-filled poster child for hubris - desperately trying to impress anyone with your supposed genius.I’m not one of the people you need to persuade. This forum isn’t the community you need to persuade. Persuade the wider scientific community that evolution is wrong, and you’ll persuade me. Until then, I’ll stay rational and listen to that wider scientific community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You in the fish evolves into mammals clique really have trouble paying attention. Read my explanation to vimesey in Message 1811 why I'm here. And why should anyone believe that you write scientific papers? I put links to my papers. You just babble. The problem is that the fish evolves into mammals clique don't understand how to do high school level mathematics.
Why are you here Kleinman? I write scientific papers for scientific publications - nothing to do with what we discuss here - the very last thing I would do is take my reseach to a place like this.Tangle writes:
I'll get heard on this paper on Markov process mathematics models of DNA evolution because the model I've formulated predicts real empirical examples of evolution. I won't bungle the math like the fish evolve into mammals clique has.
You're a no-hope crank aren't you? Can't get heard where you should get heard so you come to places like this and troll?Tangle writes:
Do you mean those critics who think that your ancestors spontaneously occurred in some medieval primordial soup and evolved into people who claim they are scientists without ever proving it? Even someone who isn't a farmer can smell that pile of manure. I just look at the fish evolve into mammals clique's mathematics, find the blunders and correct the math. And I do want to thank PaulK's muddling in this discussion. It helped me make headway in writing the conclusion for my next paper.
Oddly, there are people here that could help you - obviously you have some training and ability but equally obviously you've lost your way. If you actually listened to your critics you might make some headway.Tangle writes:
No bother. In fact, all the squealing we are getting from the fish evolves into mammals clique confirms that the target has been hit. But we would all like to see one of your papers. Has it been published in a fossil tea-leaf reading journal or has it been published in a real scientific journal where they do hard mathematical science?
Don't bother replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle writes:
What makes you think you were ever in? All you have done is bragged about something you won't prove and squeal about the physics and mathematics of evolution which you don't understand. You are the troll and a crank and you harm people with your ignorance of evolution and deceive naive school children with your mythology. ir sin dios
A troll and a crank. I'm out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
We all know that you know nothing about stochastic processes. That's the mathematics of random events for those living in AZPaul3land. AZPaul3, stay away from Las Vegas before you lose everything you have. But I do thank you for helping me to write the conclusion to my next paper. When are you going to use Markov Chain mathematics and DNA phylogenetics to prove that you descended from bananas?
Hey, AZPaul3, have you figured out what random means? Is it somewhere between 1 and indeterminant?AZPaul3 writes: You missed out on the discussion, again. Either that or you are lying because, well, that's what cracked pots do. Message 16 The question I answered, correctly BTW, was not about random anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
If the fish-to-mammal aficionados had gotten something out of their dumbbell math courses perhaps it would get a better reception in the fossil tea-leaf journals. On the other hand, this math can be understood by any high school student who passed an introductory probability theory course and this may be the reason why the fish-to-mammal aficionados' refuse to accept this math. The Kishony and Lenski experiments (and all the real, measurable, and repeatable examples of DNA evolution) and their associated mathematical behavior reveals the fish-to-mammal aficionados delusions. AZPaul3, you have blindly bought into an irrational belief system. This is the biggest scientific blunder since the flat-earth argument.
We all know that you know nothing about stochastic processes.AZPaul3 writes: Of course, Mr Math Man, it's quite apparent from the reception of your ideas in the community that *you* certainly don't understand the math involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Me and the peer-reviewers, editor and publishers of my papers, the librarians at the National Library of Medicine where you can find my papers and why don't you check out the people at the bottom of this link where I was asked to explain this math to people like you that haven't even studied high school level mathematics: On the other hand, this math can be understood by any high school student who passed an introductory probability theory course and this may be the reason why the fish-to-mammal aficionados' refuse to accept this math.AZPaul3 writes: You're the only one on the planet to know this. Everyone else has been wrong, deluded, recruited into a conspiracy.Page not found - Stats & Data Science Views I don't expect the fish-to-mammal aficionados to understand this math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed the librarians at the National Library of Medicine where you can find my papersTanypteryx writes: Really? The librarians reviewed and accepted your papers?The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PMC Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed You simpleton fish-to-mammal aficionados really need to expand your reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine if you want to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. People are being harmed by your stupidity. Kleinman writes:
And the mathematically incompetent such as the fish-to-mammal aficionados such as you. Clearly, the explanation went over your head. It appears we need a high schooler to explain this math to you.
I was asked to explain this math to people like you that haven't even studied high school level mathematics:Tanypteryx writes: Ahh, so you were asked to explain it to middle schoolers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it.
Still here? Still declaring everyone here too stupid to appreciate your standing on the shoulders of giant scientific breakthrough.Straggler writes:
Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory. I don't expect the institutions operated by the fish-to-mammals aficionados will accept these mathematical and empirical facts of life. They disrupt their delusions.
And now proclaiming that various academic institutions accept your claim that you have falsified common descent. I mean do they know that’s what they have signed up to?Straggler writes:
Wrong headline (and why should we be surprised?). The headline will read "The Mathematics of Evolution Correctly Explained". That headline will not be seen in any fish-to-mammals aficionado journals or Mad magazine.
We await the Evolution Falsified headlines with bated breath. I’m sure the National Library of Medicine will be the first to sign up to that particular conclusion......Straggler writes:
I'm showing you how common descent works. Each evolutionary step on an evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness in common descent takes a billion replications. And I understand how difficult it is for you fish-to-mammals aficionados to grasp this math so I'll keep it as simple as possible. It is because of mutation rates of e-9 and if you throw in the multiplication rule, you have the mathematics of common descent. See how easy it is to see when you are standing on the shoulders of giant? Your problem is you are standing on the shoulders of the delusional.
Or maybe your much (self) vaunted papers don’t falsify common descent in the way you think they do. Maybe you should explicitly point out that particular extrapolated conclusion to the National Library of Medicine and let us know how they react. I’d love to know.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024