|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What have we accomplished? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
i've gleaned enough to know that you're on to something. the mathematical models to prove evolution must be astronomical. you've exposed that the randomness they claim is a myth because they believe that the eyeball came from a single cell.
they are more predeterminate than immanuel kant going on his daily walk however, the way these topics are broached, is broken. you may be a mathematically brilliant, but the way you present your ideas is in obfuscated language, and the evolutionist-idiots are the only ones willing to even try to understand what you're writing about here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hey, Kleinman. I think you found yourself a girlfriend.
Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
a servant of Christ writes:
You would be surprised how simple the mathematics of evolution is. It simply a variation of the coin tossing problem. Most people are very confused by random processes but they are actually very simple. For example, I can't tell you the outcome for any particular coin toss but if you toss the coin many times, about half the time you will get heads and half the time you will get tails. That's because this random process is symmetric (equal probabilities of outcomes). The random mutation problem is identical but is highly asymmetric, that is most of the time the mutation does not occur on replication. The frequency of that random process is the mutation rate. That's why it takes so many replications for just a single occurrence of that beneficial mutation. Once you understand the rules of probabilities, the rest of the math is quite straight-forward.
i've gleaned enough to know that you're on to something. the mathematical models to prove evolution must be astronomical. you've exposed that the randomness they claim is a myth because they believe that the eyeball came from a single cell.a servant of Christ writes:
I had to look up Kant to try to get an idea of what you are trying to say here and it looks like some form of legalism.
they are more predeterminate than immanuel kant going on his daily walka servant of Christ writes:
It's not hard to get a sense of who understands this subject and who doesn't. Taq understands exactly what the consequences of this math is and how it affects the theory of evolution. That's why he brought recombination into the debate when talking about DNA evolution. And that's also the reason why he has bailed out of this discussion. I also think that Straggler gets it. The rest of the fish-to-mammals aficionados are simply blowing smoke and haven't figured out that their titanic theory of evolution has hit a massive mathematical and empirical iceberg.
however, the way these topics are broached, is broken. you may be a mathematically brilliant, but the way you present your ideas is in obfuscated language, and the evolutionist-idiots are the only ones willing to even try to understand what you're writing about here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
And still no substantive answer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
None that someone who thinks they descended from a banana would understand. But I do thank you for helping me write my conclusion to my next paper.
And still no substantive answer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
No a direct descendant. Distant cousins. Go publish a paper showing you are a direct descendent of bananas."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You can't even explain DNA evolution with direct descendants such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Of course, if you want to explain the bananas-to-ringo evolutionary process, we would find that very amusing. And then you can give us your moral justification for cannibalizing one of your cousins every time you eat a banana split. Go publish a paper showing you are a direct descendent of bananas.ringo writes: No a direct descendant. Distant cousins. And if you pick the correct genetic loci with only one base difference between you and a banana, plug that into the Jukes-Cantor model, you can show you are a direct descendant to a banana. I guess you would call that banana-picking. If you want to prove that you are a direct descendant to a cherry, you would have to cherry-pick that gene.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If you were had read and understood
Models of DNA Evolution And
Jukes Cantor Model of DNA Substitution you wouldn’t have needed my help. Odd that someone would presume to call a model wrong without understanding it or what it models.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Sometimes I need a little help and you did just fine on providing it. And you don't know where the Jukes-Cantor and derivative models are wrong. I've given you all kinds of hints to where the problem is and why it doesn't predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment correctly. And if you actually understood the Jukes-Cantor model, you would find that when using a mutation rate of e-9, it takes 3e9 replications for the model to reach equilibrium. And you can do that calculation without assuming a Poisson's distribution. All you have to do is understand how to calculate Markov chain mathematics directly. But you don't know how to do that math. But I really want you to publish your paper where you show you are a direct descendant of bananas. Just banana-pick the correct gene.
But I do thank you for helping me write my conclusion to my next paper.PaulK writes: If you were had read and understood Models of DNA Evolution And Jukes Cantor Model of DNA Substitution you wouldn’t have needed my help. Odd that someone would presume to call a model wrong without understanding it or what it models.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And still you persist in your misunderstanding. Too bad for you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You've been so helpful in my misunderstand until now. Could you please give us a bit more help and show us how you banana-pick a gene from a banana, banana-pick one of your own genes, put that data into the Jukes-Cantor model and show us how you are a direct descendant to a banana?
And you don't know where the Jukes-Cantor and derivative models are wrong. I've given you all kinds of hints to where the problem is and why it doesn't predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment correctly.PaulK writes: And still you persist in your misunderstanding. Too bad for you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Kleinman writes: Could you please give us a bit more help and show us how you banana-pick a gene from a banana, banana-pick one of your own genes, put that data into the Jukes-Cantor model and show us how you are a direct descendant to a banana? Could you please give us an example of where anyone other than you has ever made a claim of humans being direct descendants of bananas? Of course you can't because it is only jesters and snake-oil salesmen like you who ever suggest such claims. You did provide comedy relief at first but now you are simply inane and boring. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Edited by jar, : -z Edited by jar, : fools ---> jesters Keep the Fhrer happy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I’m sorry that I’m not a better teacher then. But until you understand that Jukes-Cantor models neutral evolution - because that is the dominant form of DNA evolution - you will remain hopelessly wrong on the subject.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It appears that jar doesn't understand how the bananas-to-Paulk aficionados do DNA phylogenetics. The first thing you have to do is banana-pick the correct gene to compare. We hope you are sober enough to understand the following: Could you please give us a bit more help and show us how you banana-pick a gene from a banana, banana-pick one of your own genes, put that data into the Jukes-Cantor model and show us how you are a direct descendant to a banana?jar writes: Could you please give us an example of where anyone other than you has ever made a claim of humans being direct descendants of bananas? Of course you can't because it is only jesters and snake-oil salesmen like you who ever suggest such claims. You did provide comedy relief at first but now you are simply inane and boring.How do scientists build phylogenetic trees? | The Tech Interactive Allison Zhang, Stanford University writes:
And we certainly don't want to compare apples to oranges. We want to compare bananas to PaulK, or if you like, to jar. The first thing to do is align the two DNA sequences together that you’re going to compare. Make sure you’re comparing the same gene! (Or other sequence.) Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. And tell us, do you drink your snake oil from a jar?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And so as expected you cannot provide a single example of anyone but you suggesting any banana to humandirect descent.
You are a classic example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. (use peek mode)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024