|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 106 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You’ve messed the quote up. That’s not me you are quoting.
Easily done. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Do you see what I mean? Generations aren't the random trial for the beneficial mutation, it's replications. Go to the back of the class.
I have enough work on my hands teaching the mathematically incompetent the mathematics of DNA evolution.AZPaul3 writes: Run away as fast as you can, Mr. Billion Generations per Mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Larni writes:
So you mean someone else by the name of Larni posted that quote?
You’ve messed the quote up. That’s not me you are quoting.Easily done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So tell us, big thinker, what were the mechanisms of evolution that Darwin wrote about in his book "On the Origin of Species"?
That's not my job.Straggler writes: The evolution you have mathematically modelled is a blinkered small minded form of evolution that tells us nothing about the origin of species. It’s of pactical interest to medics and immunologists but of little worth beyond that.Straggler writes:
I doubt you understand what Darwin wrote about. But feel free to post a quote from his book which you think encompasses what he was trying to say. If you have trouble doing that, I can help you. And you can't do DNA phylogenetics based on fossil tea-leaf reading and you can't do DNA phylogenetics by cherry-picking a portion of the genome.
It’s hardly a replacement for the grand overarching underpinning of all biology that started with Darwin and which has extended to phylogenetics today.Straggler writes:
And when are you going to present a real, measurable, and repeatable example of evolution that doesn't follow the mathematics I've presented? You won't. And Newton had to invent calculus to do the mathematics for his physical model. Probability theory was already a well developed mathematical discipline that I simply applied to DNA evolution. You should study the subject if you want to understand evolution.
You say you have successfully provided thr mathematics to evolution. But if it’s not any sort of evolution that matters outside the narrow confines of one or two specific special case experiments, if it has no bearing on the origin lf species, then you aren’t the Newton you think you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Your billion-generations-per-mutation math proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is impossible. So what takes its place? Where did this all come from?
Still afraid to answer the question?Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
No silly. That billion-replications-per-beneficial mutation explains how evolution works. And if you really want to know where it all came from, ask your fossil tea-leaf reader. Just don't expect them to tell you the correct explanation of how evolution works.
Your billion-generations-per-mutation math proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is impossible. So what takes its place? Where did this all come from?Still afraid to answer the question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It's just a general observation. It's a poor workman who blames his tools and a poor teacher who blames his students. Instead of telling us how stupid we are, maybe check for a beam in your own eye and adjust your teaching methods. That is, if you're really sincere about wanting people to learn your lesson. ringo writes:
And you know this because.... When the students don't learn it's often the teacher's fault."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
ringo writes:
You should read and quote the entire sentence and then you might learn something. And the reason you are so stupid is that you are lazy, you don't read the book, and you don't do your homework. So don't blame me for your failure to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. Blame yourself. And it always amuses me when atheists quote their favorite and only verse they know from the Bible.
When the students don't learn it's often the teacher's fault.Kleinman writes: And you know this because....ringo writes: It's just a general observation. It's a poor workman who blames his tools and a poor teacher who blames his students. Instead of telling us how stupid we are, maybe check for a beam in your own eye and adjust your teaching methods. That is, if you're really sincere about wanting people to learn your lesson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
We fish-to-man aficionados blame common descent thru evolution for this affair. The fossil-tea leaf readers say fish-to-man.
You say your billion-generations-per-mutation is indeed the way evolution works. But you also say your billion-generations-per-mutation makes common descent thru evolution impossible. So the gospel according to Kleinman is that common descent does not happen and fish-to-man did not happen. So in the gospel according to Kleinman what did happen?Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 318 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So you want to replace evolution as the mechanism by which species originate with....what?
The evolution you have modelled can account for nothing more than some minor changes relating to drug resistance and suchlike. It barely qualifies as evolution as most people understand it. Do we even need to go as far as species origin - Is your model even consistent with recently evolved Human traits? What does your model say about the probability of adaptations for living in high altitudes? The probability of developing resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria)? Fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence or alcohol tolerance? These are all known recent developments. According to your model what is the probability of these having evolved?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
What the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate is how DNA evolution by common descent works. And each evolutionary step takes a billion replications. You fish-to-man aficionados need to learn the difference between generations and replications. The reason this distinction is so important is that if you want to understand a stochastic process, the first thing you need to recognize is what the random trial is for that stochastic process. For example, if you are considering a card drawing problem, the random trial is not the deck of cards, the random trial is the draw of the card. Populations can have all different kinds of growth each generation. The number of replications each generation can be constant, exponentially growing, growing at a linear rate, declining... But the replication will always be the random trial for the beneficial mutation. And I would say having a correct understanding of evolution is good news. It gives you the correct framework for developing strategies to prevent drug-resistant infections and more durable cancer treatments.
We fish-to-man aficionados blame common descent thru evolution for this affair. The fossil-tea leaf readers say fish-to-man.You say your billion-generations-per-mutation is indeed the way evolution works. But you also say your billion-generations-per-mutation makes common descent thru evolution impossible. So the gospel according to Kleinman is that common descent does not happen and fish-to-man did not happen. So in the gospel according to Kleinman what did happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 588 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I think you don't have any idea what Darwin was talking about. Here's what Darwin said from his work on the origin of species:
So you want to replace evolution as the mechanism by which species originate with....what?Darwin writes:
Darwin is talking about two distinct physical processes, competition, and adaptation. You probably don't even know that competition slows adaptation.
For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist.Straggler writes:
What understanding of evolution do you have? These are real, measurable, and repeatable examples of Darwinian evolution, the Lenski experiment is an example of adaptation in a highly competitive environment and the Kishony experiment is an example of adaptation in a minimally competitive environment. Whatever your understanding of evolution is based on something from your imagination, not on real examples of evolution.
The evolution you have modelled can account for nothing more than some minor changes relating to drug resistance and suchlike. It barely qualifies as "evolution" as most people understand it.Straggler writes:
Our bodies will produce more red blood cells if we live in lower oxygen concentration environments. And malaria resistance such as sickle cell trait, thalassemia, etc are examples of single point mutations and humans have had more than enough replications for those events to occur. Remember, with a billion replications and a mutation rate of e-9, you will have on average every possible base substitution in some member of that population. And there have been about 100 billion people who have lived. The problem that you don't seem to get is getting malaria resistance, fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence, alcohol tolerance... all into one lineage. The accumulation of those mutations requires a billion replications of each variant at each evolutionary step. With 100 billion replications to work with, the best you can come up with is 100 adaptive mutations in some lineage.
Do we even need to go as far as species origin - Is your model even consistent with recently evolved Human traits? What does your model say about the probability of adaptations for living in high altitudes? The probability of developing resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria)? Fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence or alcohol tolerance?Straggler writes:
It is like it is for the Kishony experiment. In his initial colony of a billion members, he is going to have a variant with a ciprofloxacin beneficial mutation and a trimethoprim beneficial mutation (and likely to many other antibiotics). The particular antibiotic used reveals which of these mutations are beneficial. The problem for his bacteria when two drugs are used requires exponentially more replication for the two beneficial mutations to occur on a single individual. These are all known recent developments. According to your model what is the probability of these having evolved?Here's how you do the math for this evolutionary process: The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
As I said, it's a poor teacher who blames his students.
... the reason you are so stupid is that you are lazy, you don't read the book, and you don't do your homework. Kleinman writes:
I was practically born in church and I could literally quote Bible verses before I could read them. And it always amuses me when atheists quote their favorite and only verse they know from the Bible. We have a lot of Bible-related topics. Feel free to show us how much you know over there."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And it always amuses me when Christians, particularly "Biblical Christians" claim that they have read the Bible or are even capable of reading the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 106 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
quote:Incorrect. The renowned and respected dwise1 posted what you claim I posted. To clarify: I was replying to his post about Dr Adequate. I quoted him in my post and then you attributed that to me (for reasons unknown). Like I said, easily done and not a problem.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024