|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
This is part of the fish-to-mammals aficionados' compulsion. Many of these people are atheists and they think they have found the scientific justification for their beliefs. Instead, what they have done is given a grossly over-extrapolated view of evolution. Evolution should be taught in schools, naive children need to be prepared to understand how drug-resistance evolve and why cancer treatments fail. Instead, they are indoctrinated into this mythological belief system and have no real understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution.
So you want to replace evolution as the mechanism by which species originate with....what?dad writes: Why would a belief need replacement? The evolving we see is here today. In the past, you don't really know how evolution worked or what evolved from what or where it started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
No, you dumb cluck. Not everybody, just the fish-to-mammals aficionados.
Aren't you the arrogant one.ringo writes: The arrogant one is you, who thinks you're right and everybody else is wrong.Kleinman writes:
Not everyone you dumb cluck. At least Taq was able to figure out that it takes 3e9 replications for each possible substitution to occur. And one or more of those substitutions can be beneficial. You can't even do that simple calculation.
Not all my students have difficulty with the mathematics of evolution.ringo writes: You've made it pretty clear that you think everybody in THIS class is stupid.Kleinman writes:
So fish evolving into mammals isn't your only delusion.
It's only the fish-to-mammals aficionados that are having a problem with this math.ringo writes: That would be everybody.Kleinman writes:
What a surprise, a fish-to-mammals aficionado who has to be spoon-fed mathematics in order to learn the subject. Didn't your teacher teach you how to read? Things haven't changed much for you since your high school days.
So you blame the teacher for your inability to learn mathematics?ringo writes: You're not paying attention. I DID learn mathematics - the same material, in the same year, but with a different teacher. It was only that one teacher who failed to teach it.Kleinman writes:
Your problem is that you have to be spoon-fed to learn anything. And you don't have the intellect to examine this instruction for its veracity. Your indoctrination has made you a zealot.
It is a poor student that blames the teacher when they can't pass an examination.ringo writes: ONE examination in sixteen years? You seem to be the one having problems with probability here.Kleinman writes:
You are the one with the beam in your eye, you don't understand introductory probability theory yet you judge my math is wrong. Even Straggler acknowledges that this math is correct for explaining the evolution of drug-resistance Message 1849:
You are the one that quoted the "beam in your own eye". Do you really think that Jesus is telling us never to judge?ringo writes: He told us not to judge with a beam in our eye. That includes not blaming your students before you've looked at your own shortcomings.Straggler writes:
Straggler's problem is that he can't present any real, measurable, and repeatable example of evolution that doesn't obey this math.
It’s of pactical interest to medics and immunologists but of little worth beyond that.Kleinman writes:
It didn't take me that long to figure out the physics and mathematics of evolution. The evidence is clear and repeatable on that subject.
You see, there is a big difference between you and me. When I first started looking at the subject of evolution 20 years ago....ringo writes: I started more than fifty years ago. I started by trying to prove that the Flood really happened.Kleinman writes:
It served a purpose, I figured out how to write the conclusion for my next paper.
I would much rather debate this subject with someone who understands introductory probability theory....ringo writes: Then why don't you go and do that? Why come here at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Small population? You need to do a better job with your homework:
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.Straggler writes: So these things (minus the malaria resistance) have evolved in the last 10,000 years or so in a relatively small population.How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? 99% of people that have ever lived have lived in the last 10,000 years. And instead of trying to figure out how each trait somehow evolved, you should try to do the accounting for the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees in less than a million generations with much smaller populations. Kleinman writes:
That's true! That doesn't leave you with very many replications for adaptive mutations before that period. You have just made my argument that there is no rational way that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. You simply don't have the population sizes necessary for these kinds of evolutionary transformations.
And there have been about 100 billion people who have lived.Straggler writes: But with population growth nearly all the people that have ever existed did so well after the mesolithic era.Straggler writes:
Clearly, this is not nearly a large enough population for the transformation to occur due to selection. Perhaps you want to claim that humans and chimps simply drifted from a common ancestor. That's an awful lot of fixations by drift you need to account for. Do you care to show us the math for that?
What is the probability, according to your model, of this combination of traits evolving when they did? (I.e when only a few billion people had ever existed)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's essentially the same as your claim "But with population growth nearly all the people that have ever existed did so well after the mesolithic era."
According to your own link only 0.4% of the humans that have ever lived had existed by the point that the traits in question evolved. And we are talking about a geographically separate subset of that population.Straggler writes:
Why don't you do the math yourself? Count the number of mutations required for each trait and determine the number of replications necessary for all these mutations to accumulate on some lineage. The math really isn't that hard. If you are having trouble doing this more complex case, start with the computation of the number of replications necessary for just a single trait occurring such as the mutation for malaria resistance. Isn't it about time that you fish-to-mammals aficionados start quantifying DNA evolution yourselves?
I am asking you what the probability of those traits in that combination evolving in that population is according to your model.Straggler writes:
I don't accept common descent as you accept this notion, i.e., simple replicator in the primordial soup + time = Straggler. What I do accept as common descent as what can be measured. Here is a video of common descent and a phylogenetic tree that I do accept, from the Kishony experiment: I know you don't accept common descent. We have established that. So I am not sure why you are talking about chimpanzees. I am trying to establish whether your probability model is even consistent with the forms of evolution you presumably do accept. Namely the traits associated with Europeans that evolved in the mesolithic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8&t=1s At about 1:45 in the video, they draw in the phylogenetic tree from this DNA evolutionary process and the accumulation of the mutations necessary for adaptation. Each node where the adaptation mutation occurs is a colony of about a billion members. The flaw in your argument is that you think these phenotypic variations somehow must have evolved after humans first appeared on earth and that the only way that they could appear is by mutation. There have been more than enough replications of humans over time for there to be lots of diversity in the population gene pool. Some of those mutations are beneficial in some environments, others are detrimental, and others are neutral. Not everyone has a mutation that gives resistance to malaria, not everyone has the correct alleles for blue eyes, or for fair skin, lactase persistence or alcohol tolerance. The environment will select for particular traits, Darwin's finch example demonstrates that and the same principles are demonstrated with subpopulations of humans in different environments. Web sites such as ancestry.com demonstrate that DNA analysis can determine what subset of the ancestral population you descended from because of the unique genetic characteristics of those subsets. But why can't this be done with human and chimpanzee DNA? The answer is quite simple. There are far too many genetic differences between the two species and not nearly enough replications to do the accounting for these differences, especially when you look at how similar the DNA is within each member of the same species. Surely, since 99% of the human population lived in the last 10,000 years, you would have to expect that most of the evolutionary change occurred in the same time period. You have a major accounting problem with your notion of common descent.
Straggler writes:
My mathematical microscope has more than one lens. I've shown you how the high magnification mathematical lens works for a single mutation. The math doesn't get better for your view as you go to a lower magnification.
Forget chimpanzees for a moment and try to focus...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You live in a very small frozen wasteland.
Not everybody, just the fish-to-mammals aficionados.ringo writes: That is everybody, except you.Kleinman writes:
Is this your way of claiming that you understand introductory probability theory? Because you certainly haven't demonstrated that. And just because you have been indoctrinated into the fish-to-mammals clique, do you really think you understand anything about evolution? If so, explain the mathematics of the Kishony evolutionary experiment.
What a surprise, a fish-to-mammals aficionado who has to be spoon-fed mathematics in order to learn the subject.ringo writes: I was pointing out that you were wrong when you said I couldn't learn mathematics. It was only ONE teacher who failed to teach me. You, on the other hand, have failed to teach ANYBODY on this forum.Kleinman writes:
Have your distant cousins, the bananas taught you anything?
Didn't your teacher teach you how to read?ringo writes: My brother taught me how to read before I started school.Kleinman writes:
So what did learn from your teachers that indoctrinated you that you are a distant cousin to bananas? Did they explain to you how drug-resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail?
Your problem is that you have to be spoon-fed to learn anything.ringo writes: On the contrary, I have no trouble learning from a teacher who knows what he/she is doing.Kleinman writes:
You are making an incorrect assumption here. I did not start this debate because I wanted to teach the fish-to-mammals aficionados how evolution works. I started this debate because I had writer's block on how to write the conclusion for my next paper. The strategy worked perfectly and I actually learned a little more detail on the Markov chain models of DNA evolution. It's too bad you haven't learned anything from this discussion and if it makes you feel better to blame me, that's all right. Maybe my problem is that I'm only 6'4" and not 6'6".
You are the one with the beam in your eye, you don't understand introductory probability theory yet you judge my math is wrong.ringo writes: You're not paying attention. I haven't judged that your math is wrong. We've been talking about your inability to teach. The evidence shows that you haven't been able to teach ANYBODY on this forum. We also have to wonder why you're vainly trying to teach people on this forum when you could be saving lives with your wonderful breakthrough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you think that everyone on the Internet is fish-to-mammals aficionados? You fish-to-mammals aficionados have a habit of making gross over-extrapolations from your very small frozen wastelands. We are still waiting for you to present one empirical example of DNA evolution that contradicts the math I've presented. You have failed at that.
You live in a very small frozen wasteland.ringo writes: But we're connected to the rest of the world by something called the Internet.Kleinman writes:
We know, those seeds fell on rocky ground. But the fish-to-mammals seeds, that found fertile soil in your mind. How about that verse "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"? Did the fish-to-mammals aficionado teach you that math?
And just because you have been indoctrinated into the fish-to-mammals clique....ringo writes: I was indoctrinated into the God-created-the-heavens-and-the-earth clique.Kleinman writes:
Is that what bananas tell you, "we are distant cousins"? Do you speak bananaese? Or do you have to put what they say into Google Translate?
Have your distant cousins, the bananas taught you anything?ringo writes: I can trust a banana not to talk bullshit. YOU could learn a lot from a banana if only you were willing to learn.Kleinman writes:
And it is clear you have never taken a course in introductory probability theory. But bananas talk to you and tell you that they are distant relatives. You have an interesting way of continuing your education.
So what did learn from your teachers that indoctrinated you that you are a distant cousin to bananas?ringo writes: I haven't taken a biology class since high school and they didn't teach much about evolution then. What little I do know about evolution I learned from the stupidity of creationists.Kleinman writes:
Don't worry, I'm going to submit my next paper soon. And this discussion has done a lot of good for me, it enabled me to break my writer's block and write the conclusion for that paper. And people on this forum claim there are scientists who post on this forum that understand probability theory. Where are they?
Did they explain to you how drug-resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail?ringo writes: They explained to me that when somebody has a great scientific breakthrough (like you claim to have), he should talk to SCIENTISTS about it, not blather to a bunch of laymen where he can't possibly do any good.Kleinman writes:
Since I have experience with teaching, I can tell you there are some poor students out there. Most of the time, the reason they are poor students is that they don't do their homework.
It's too bad you haven't learned anything from this discussion and if it makes you feel better to blame me, that's all right.ringo writes: I'm not "blaming" you for being a bad teacher. I'm just saying that a good teacher doesn't blame his students.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I've already done plenty of probability calculations and have gotten them peer-reviewed and published. Why are you afraid of calculating the probability of a malaria resistance mutation occurring? At some time, you fish-to-mammals aficionados need to start learning how to do the mathematics of evolution. Why don't you start right here? Taq has already given you a big hint. For a mutation rate of e-9, it takes 3e9 replications for each of the possible substitution mutations to occur at the given site. How much more of a hint do you need?
According to your own link only 0.4% of the humans that have ever lived had existed by the point that the traits in question evolved. And we are talking about a geographically separate subset of that population.Straggler writes: So - Are you going to tell us the probability of these traits occurring in that population or not? What are you afraid of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dad writes:
Why can't you use probability theory on evolution? After all, the mutation rate is simply the probability that an error on DNA replication will occur at the given site in a single replication. It is probability theory that sinks the TOE, in particular, the multiplication rule.
Probability depends on what factors are used to determine what is probable. It isn't really applicable to TOE. They use beliefs to determine what was 'probable'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Only one so far, Taq. And it took a lot of discussions to get him to do the math for the number of replications necessary for every possible substitution mutations to occur at a given site. His calculation confirmed my math. And he fully understood the consequences this has for the TOE. That's why he started to talk about recombination. His problem is that I had already published a paper on the mathematics of recombination and shown that it has very little effect on DNA evolution. There have been none on this forum that demonstrate any understanding of the Markov chain models of DNA evolution. Only some moron who claims to understand the model but can't even tell us what the initial conditions for the model is.
And people on this forum claim there are scientists who post on this forum that understand probability theory. Where are they?ringo writes: You've spoken to some of them. You should be able to spot them.Kleinman writes:
I'll try to be more diplomatic then telling them they are "blithering idiots and you are doing the math incorrectly", but no matter how I say this, it is going to be very upsetting to a lot of "fish-to-mammals" aficionados. After all, even if you don't understand the math, do you think that cherry-picking some gene from an entire genome, ignore the rest of the genome that you can get any kind of an accurate idea how closely related the two species are? That idea is so ludicrous that you could look for a gene in a banana that is similar to your gene and by that logic you are related. If the genes are exact matches, your parents are bananas by that logic.
Don't worry, I'm going to submit my next paper soon.ringo writes: How many times are you going to mention "fish-to-mammals aficionados" in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The mathematics is complete, the paper is written, the only thing remaining is the last case study for the simulation of two drugs simultaneously for the Kishony experiment. That calculation on my computer system (an older I3 Intel chip running at about 1GHz) can only do 1.5 trillion replications/day. It will take about 200 trillion replications to get the one double beneficial mutation. Right now the calculation is at 60 trillion replications and I'm probably going to stop at 100 trillion replications because it is clear where the solution is converging and I don't think it's worth running the calculation for another 2-3 months. Solving Markov chain calculations can take huge amounts of computer time. All the other cases comparing the standard Jukes-Cantor model with the stationary transition matrix with the non-stationary transition matrix (with selection) are done. The non-stationary model accurately simulates the Kishony experiment. In addition, I've been invited by a good statistics journal that publishes papers on Markov chain models to submit a paper. It will probably happen by the end of summer. I assume the peer-review process will take some time because I expect there to be controversy surrounding this paper. What I don't expect is that there will be a problem with the math. I've published too many mathematical papers and when the math is correct and correlates correctly with the empirical evidence, everything seems to harmonize. And this is one of those cases.
it is going to be very upsetting to a lot of "fish-to-mammals" aficionados.ringo writes: We had a guy on here a few years ago who was going to publish that one paper that would bring the whole ToE crashing down. One paper, mind you, against thousands.We're still waiting for that paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You should do a little more research on the subject, canines and felines already do eat grass. Why can't you use probability theory on evolution?dad writes: The same reasons that we can't say it is not probable that wolves will eat grass and lions will eat grass one day soon. The basis for what is probable cannot be this present world and nature. For the past this holds true also.Why Do Dogs Eat Grass | VCA Animal Hospital http://www.animalplanet.com/pets/why-do-cats-eat-grass/ DNA evolution is no different that any other type of stochastic process such as coin tossing, dice rolling, card drawing, etc. That's why when you do the math properly, you can predict the evolutionary process and do DNA identification. Do you doubt the validity of DNA identification because this is done based on the rules of probability theory. Kleinman writes:
You have to play the hand your are dealt. The only real examples of evolution we have available which can be measured and repeated are experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
After all, the mutation rate is simply the probability that an error on DNA replication will occur at the given site in a single replicationdad writes: Genetics do not appear to be the same as now in the future in the bible. The changes to animals will be fast, lightning fast. The changes to mankind also will be. They will live a thousand years again for example. It is not the mutation rate that will be responsible for this. It sounds more like a new set of laws working on animals and man and the world will be responsible. Nothing random about it.dad writes:
You can only say with certainty how genetics works right now. Why would you think that genetics worked differently in the past and will work differently in the future?
The same holds true of the past. The way genetics worked was simply not the same and not under the current laws. We cannot use the way things now work in this temporary nature as the basis for what was or will be probable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
This calculation isn't that large. And I don't think these types of Markov chain calculations would benefit because each transition step must be done sequentially. These calculations are simple matrix multiplications. The one base problem is a 1x4 vector times a 4x4 matrix and the two base problem is a 1x16 vector times a 16x16 matrix for each transitional step. That ends up being 4 equations to evaluate for the 1 base Jukes-Cantor model and 16 equations for the 2 base Jukes-Cantor model. The Jukes-Cantor model has some symmetry that can be taken advantage of to reduce the 2 base case to just 4 equations but these 4 equations have to be evaluated before the system can take the next transition. All this math is simple additions and multiplications and requires very little computer memory, the rate of calculation is clock rate limited. There are some 5GHz computers available which could cut the computation time down to less than a month but I decided its not worth the money and effort. By time I got the faster computer and got the appropriate computer programs set up and running properly would take about a week and this would just be for this one task. The computers I have now work fine for all that I do. I actually wanted more time to think about this paper before I submit it anyway. You should be able to see why based on the response to these discussions. But thanks for your advice anyway. Once this calculation is complete, I don't think it will be necessary to go on to the three base Jukes-Cantor system. Actually, this paper already predicts that behavior (as well as the two base system):
The mathematics is complete, the paper is written, the only thing remaining is the last case study for the simulation of two drugs simultaneously for the Kishony experiment. That calculation on my computer system (an older I3 Intel chip running at about 1GHz) can only do 1.5 trillion replications/day. It will take about 200 trillion replications to get the one double beneficial mutation.ringo writes: Have you ever considered grid computing? I used to be hooked up to the World Community Grid and they had my computer working in its spare time on protein folding. You could hypothetically have thousands of computers working on your problem and returning their results.The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Dig a little deeper: You should do a little more research on the subject, canines and felines already do eat grass.dad writes: The issue is that lions and wolves will eat plants rather than being carnivorous. Not whether some dog may eat a little grass. Missing that is missing the forest for the trees.Get Your Paws on These Vegan Dog and Cat Food Products | PETA Kleinman writes:
And you can't assume that things worked differently in the past unless you have some evidence to do so. With scientific analysis, you work with what you have available and you test your assumptions. So far, every experiment known validates probability theory. If you have experimental evidence which invalidates the theory, you should present it.
DNA evolution is no different that any other type of stochastic process such as coin tossing, dice rolling, card drawing, etc. That's why when you do the math properly, you can predict the evolutionary process and do DNA identification. Do you doubt the validity of DNA identification because this is done based on the rules of probability theory.dad writes: We can predict things based on the processes in place that we observe. You cannot assume those same processes existed in the past and that what is now probable was also probable in the past. If we predict that a group of people that were relocated, for example, to a hot place in Africa would see inherited skin colour change is say, 3000 years, based on how fast DNA changes and adaptation and etc work, that is only true as long as it is the same for that time. To apply probability based on observed features of the present nature to life way back in Adam or Noah's day iis to assume that all things were and remained the same. Unless you know they did, you cannot use probability.Kleinman writes:
Are you talking about abiogenesis or the TOE? Because both are shown to be mathematically irrational theories by probability theory.
You have to play the hand your are dealt. The only real examples of evolution we have available which can be measured and repeated are experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.dad writes: The issue with the theory of the evolution of life has to do with the hand God dealt animals and people and nature long ago, not what hand we are dealt now.Kleinman writes:
But if you think that things worked differently in the past, you need to present your evidence.
You can only say with certainty how genetics works right now. Why would you think that genetics worked differently in the past and will work differently in the future?dad writes: Right, you can only speak to how things work now. Science cannot say that either things were the same or not, and whether things will be the same or not. So as far as science goes all we can say is we don't know.dad writes:
If you honor the Bible, why don't you capitalize the word?
As far as the bible goes, we know all kinds of animals on earth were in one place on one boat something like, say 4500 years ago. There is no way all the millions of species could have adapted from one kind of each animal that long ago if the present nature had been in place. Nor any way plants could grow hyper fast, or people live 1000 years etc. Similarly, in the future spoken of in the bible, we could not have the present nature in place. One example is that animals will change from carnivorous, to cud chewers and vegetarians, and this will happen in a very short time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
No, what I am saying is there is evidence today that carnivores can survive on non-meat diets. Where is your evidence from the past or future that says carnivores can only survive on meat?
Dig a little deeper:Get Your Paws on These Vegan Dog and Cat Food Products dad writes: If you are claiming that special diets for carnivores is fulfilling what the bible says about lions eating grass, then you have no respect for Scripture. Seriously? We are told serpents will no longer be dangerous, lions will lay with the lamb and play with toddlers safely etc. Obviously this requites very fundamental changes in nature.Kleinman writes:
Why not, you do it all the time. You just did it with the diets of canines and felines. What evidence do you have that they can only survive on meat in the past or the future. We do have evidence that they can survive on a vegetarian diet today.
And you can't assume that things worked differently in the past unless you have some evidence to do sodad writes: And you can't assume that things worked the same in the past unless you have some evidence to do so. Nor can you use recent scientific experiments about how things now work, and apply this to an unknown future or past.Kleinman writes:
Do you think there was a time when the multiplication rule of probabilities did not apply in a stochastic process?
Are you talking about abiogenesis or the TOE? Because both are shown to be mathematically irrational theories by probability theorydad writes: The TOE. (abiogenesis is such a total fable it doesn't matter) If all evolving started with the first man and woman and animals, then how could we run math on that? If adapting was as fast as the timeframe Scriptre indicates, there is no way modern rates applied. So using modern evolving rates and realities as a basis for the numbers to run math is not possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Because that is how drug-resistant bacteria evolve and the reason cancer treatments fail. And the reason that combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv is the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Do you think there was a time when the multiplication rule of probabilities did not apply in a stochastic process?dad writes: "Stochastic - Wikipedia Stochastic refers to a randomly determined process.." I see no reason to claim that adaptation depended on anything random in the former nature. Why should I?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024