|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What have we accomplished? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The issue was only about the apologists. Of course we DO have evidence that the apologists are liars: the Bible.
it is evident to me that jar has no evidence that his interpretation of the plain reading of the Bible coupled with his judgement of the message of mainstream apologetics is any more likely to be the way that life will ultimately play out. Phat writes:
That the apologists are lying. Why can't you keep track of the plot?
Evidence for what? Phat writes:
"Biblical Christians" have nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to defend the Bible and decent human behaviour against your attacks.
It makes one wonder why you are so spiteful towards Biblical Christians. Phat writes:
The lies about exclusivity are disgusting, yes.
The aura of exclusivity? Phat writes:
I've answered that question for you before. We need to do what's right, not just blindly follow some alien overlord. The god you make up is worth no more to me than the satan you make up is worth to you. If God was actually like the God that the apologists market, would you obey Him or would you oppose Him? Why or why not?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Don't any of you fish-to-mammal aficionados read anything beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine? Of course, you won't find any papers explaining the physics and mathematics of evolution in Nature and NEJM. That's why drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments continue to be a problem. If we had to depend on the fish-to-mammal aficionados to explain the physics and mathematics of evolution it would never happen. You are just too blind to see it.
... the ignorance and delusions of the fish-to-mammal aficionados is harming people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.AZPaul3 writes: Really? How so? Can you point to the studies in the discipline, other than your own, that detail this harm and its cause? Can you show us independent evidence, not from you since you are a known crackpot, where the modern theory of evolution harms people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments? Some studies from Nature and NEJM would be nice. Got any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Kleinman writes: fish-to-mammal aficionados Man, you are boring!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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Of course, you won't find any papers explaining the physics and mathematics of evolution in Nature and NEJM. That's why drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments continue to be a problem. So no one with any intellect and specific knowledge on the subject shares your delusions. Like we have been saying, the rest of the world rejects your silly math manipulations and your errant conclusions. That means you are a crackpot. But, we already knew that. Here's the math to prove it:
Pr(Xn+1=x | X1=x1, X2=x2, , Xn=xn) = Kleinman is a crackpot Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you think that the fish-to-mammal aficionados are the ones with the intellect? Where's the fish-to-mammal aficionados' mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Where are all the fish-to-mammal aficionados with any mathematical skills? Why don't you show your mathematical expertise and use the Markov chain mathematics and show that you are related to a banana?
Of course, you won't find any papers explaining the physics and mathematics of evolution in Nature and NEJM. That's why drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments continue to be a problem.AZPaul3 writes: So no one with any intellect and specific knowledge on the subject shares your delusions. Like we have been saying, the rest of the world rejects your silly math manipulations and your errant conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Why don't you show your mathematical expertise and use the Markov chain mathematics and show that you are related to a banana? From my Message 1821 earlier this morning:
quote: Like Tanypteryx said in Message 93 you're getting boring. Bookmark this message. When you feel compelled to ask this same inane thing yet again just refer to this message for your answer.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
So no one with any intellect and specific knowledge on the subject shares your delusions. Like we have been saying, the rest of the world rejects your silly math manipulations and your errant conclusions. Funny how peer review works isn't it? The crackpots never understand that part.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The crackpots never understand that part. But you didn't say that in Markov Chain or Kishony and Lenski so it can't be true.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The papers written by Alan Kleinman have none of the lunacy posted by Kleinman.
You won’t find stuff like:
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? ( Message 228 ) Nor will you find anything supporting this assertion:
The problem with the Markov Chain models given in the Wikipedia link above is that they are assuming the transition matrix is stationary and that the evolutionary process goes to equilibrium (that is the distribution of bases goes to equilibrium). What this means is the frequency of A, C, G, and T's go to 0.25. That certainly isn't happening in either the Kishony or Lenski experiments. My next paper will explain how to correct these models so that they predict DNA evolution. ( Message 94 ) Since it’s based on a failure to understand DNA evolution or how the models are used (and it isn’t to predict DNA evolution). Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The papers written by Alan Kleinman have none of the lunacy posted by Kleinman.You won’t find stuff like: Kleinman writes: 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?PaulK writes:
( Message 228 ) Nor will you find anything supporting this assertion:Kleinman writes: The problem with the Markov Chain models given in the Wikipedia link above is that they are assuming the transition matrix is stationary and that the evolutionary process goes to equilibrium (that is the distribution of bases goes to equilibrium). What this means is the frequency of A, C, G, and T's go to 0.25. That certainly isn't happening in either the Kishony or Lenski experiments. My next paper will explain how to correct these models so that they predict DNA evolution.PaulK writes:
Your problem PaulK is that you have neither the mathematical training not the skills to recognize the mathematical relationship between the Markov chain models of DNA evolution and the "at least one" solution which was published here:
( Message 94 ) Since it’s based on a failure to understand DNA evolution or how the models are used (and it isn’t to predict DNA evolution).The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection And I'm not going to explain that mathematical relationship to you here. You will have to wait until that paper is published. I've given you more than enough hints for you to figure it out yourself if you had the slightest skills in probability theory but you don't. But if you want, you can use the Jukes-Cantor model to show how closely related to bananas you are, we would be amused by that claim. None of the fish-to-mammals aficionados will be skeptical of that claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Think what you like about my mathematical ability. My understanding is quite sufficient to see that both the claims I quoted are obviously false and will not be published in a peer reviewed paper. If you are even writing such a paper. Whether you refuse to defend those claims because you know that they are false or you fear exposing your own lack of ability doesn’t matter either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You've shown what your mathematical capabilities are, you have none. That's why you think you are related to bananas.
Your problem PaulK is that you have neither the mathematical training not the skills to recognize the mathematical relationship between the Markov chain models of DNA evolution and the "at least one" solution which was published herePaulK writes: Think what you like about my mathematical ability. My understanding is quite sufficient to see that both the claims I quoted are obviously false and will not be published in a peer reviewed paper. If you are even writing such a paper.PaulK writes:
I defend my mathematical claims with empirical evidence. You can start with the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You prove your claims of the mathematics of Markov chains show you are related to bananas. That's strong empirical evidence you are presenting. Are all you fish-to-mammals aficionados so mathematically incompetent? At least Taq could figure out that it takes 3e9 replications for every possible substitution to occur on average once in every site of a genome for a mutation rate of e-9. Why stop there? You fish-to-mammals aficionados might actually learn something about DNA evolution.
Whether you refuse to defend those claims because you know that they are false or you fear exposing your own lack of ability doesn’t matter either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well let’s see the empirical evidence that supports this nonsense, shall we?
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? ( Message 228 ) Explain how Jukes-Cantor leads to the conclusion that 1 base difference in a gene requires 50,000,000 generations and how you extrapolate that to 500,000,000 generations to get 1 base difference in each of 10 genes. Or don’t bother because the mathematics is quite enough to show that it is nonsense. And if you have the competence you claim you know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
I've posted the links multiple times which explain the Jukes-Cantor model. Here's the one which explains how you derive the Jukes-Cantor model and that for a mutation rate of e-8, it takes 50,000,000 generations for just a single base in a single gene:
Explain how Jukes-Cantor leads to the conclusion that 1 base difference in a gene requires 50,000,000 generations and how you extrapolate that to 500,000,000 generations to get 1 base difference in each of 10 genes. Or don’t bother because the mathematics is quite enough to show that it is nonsense. And if you have the competence you claim you know that.Jukes Cantor Model of DNA substitution They do a step by step derivation of the Jukes-Cantor, Markov chain model. Then go down in the link and find this line: Floyd Reed writes:
You get this plot:
If we plug in realistic mutation rates, like 10^{-8} we get this kind of curve. Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
For the benefit of anyone actually interested in understanding the model. I’ll answer. But thanks for proving your incompetence.
quote: Wrong. It takes 50,000,000 generations to get to the equilibrium state, which is not a single mutations. To quote from the article:
... at equilibrium the distance between two sequences, that began as identical, is 75%. In other words, just by chance of the sites will happen to match because there are four nucleotides to choose from quote: Wrong. That is the probability of a base being different from the original state, accounting for the fact that it could mutate back. And it applies to all bases, not just one.
quote: No, it isn’t wrong in that either. If you understood the model you would know that,
quote: No, the probability never rises above 0.75, as can be clearly seen if you look at the graph. See the quote from the article above.
quote: In the model all bases are mutating independently at the same time, so after 50,000,000 generations each base is at equilibrium and has a 0.75 probability of being different from the original state. The idea that all but one base will remain the same is vanishingly unlikely. Feel free to do the calculation if you really feel like it.
quote: That’s why it clearly takes much less time than that. Though it will depend on the genome size.
quote: Indeed - don’t be like Kleinman who didn’t study it and got it all wrong
quote: By which you mean that your assertions are only valid in such a case. But that is obviously not what Jukes-Cantor is modelling. Failing to understand what the Jukes-Cantor model is actually modelling is bad enough. But the mathematical errors are also severe and fatal. Too bad you don’t understand the mathematics of Markov chains. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024