|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What have we accomplished? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why doesn't the fish-to-mammal aficionado from a frozen wasteland allow his brain to thaw out? The multiplication rule of probabilities is not a mantra, it is a mathematical fact of life.
There is plenty more to say to the tin-foil hat wearing fish-to-mammals aficionados.ringo writes: More to say? That's rich, coming from the guy who keeps repeating the same childish mantra over and over again.ringo writes:
You mathematically incompetent ding-dong fish-to-mammals aficionados can't even explain the mathematics of direct descendants correctly. So instead, you banana-pick your genes to do your DNA phylogenetics to show you are related to bananas. This is the kind of stupidity that causes drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
And at least try to get it right: it isn't fish to mammals. Fish and mammals are distant cousins. They have a common ancestor, not a direct line of descent. Fish-great-great-great... grandpa was also mammal-great-great-great... grandpa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Oh boy, the tangled mind is now going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of evolution. He going to do that by presenting the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments. NOT!
I'd post more about math and physics but you were not indoctrinated into those scientific disciplines.Tangle writes: You're very fond of making assertions about things on which you have no information aren't you?Kleinman writes:
Don't confuse your delusions with actually seeing things. You fish-to-mammals aficionados definitely haven't presented the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And actually, my abacus is made primarily from silicon. And what it says is your notion of fish evolving into mammals is mathematically irrational. What's worse is that your delusions contribute to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. You should really stop indoctrinating naive school children with your mathematically irrational mythology. It is harming people. Can't any of you atheists do math?
retreat back into your pseudo-scientific delusional world that you use to justify your atheism.Tangle writes: I'm here, anytime you want to come out from behind your plastic abacus and talk about what you're really here for. Don't be shy, we've seen it all before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Your faith is blind. Worse than that, your faith is delusional and harmful. You believe that fish evolve into mammals and yet can't explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You aren't a scientist, you are an atheist zealot with a tangled view of evolution. So, what do you want to discuss, your mythical stories about Kiwi birds? Try taking an introductory course in probability theory so that you could learn something about stochastic process such as DNA evolution. High school students can understand that subject.
Don't confuse your delusions with actually seeing things. You fish-to-mammals aficionados definitely haven't presented the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And actually, my abacus is made primarily from silicon. And what it says is your notion of fish evolving into mammals is mathematically irrational. What's worse is that your delusions contribute to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. You should really stop indoctrinating naive school children with your mathematically irrational mythology. It is harming people. Can't any of you atheists do math?Tangle writes: Like I say, anytime you're ready, let's start talking about your faith and my atheism. Stop hiding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Sure, I've said it many times. In your faith, you believe that fish evolve into mammals while at the same time you can't explain the simplest evolutionary experiments (Kishony and Lenski experiments). Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in these experiments?
Your faith is blind. Worse than that, your faith is delusional and harmful.Tangle writes: Well ok, that's a start of sorts. Can you tell me what my faith is? Try not to make assertions based on no knowledge if you and. If you can't, give it your best shot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Oh? So you don't believe that fish evolve into mammals?
Sure, I've said it many times. In your faith, you believe that fish evolve into mammalsTangle writes: That's not a great start; that's neither my faith nor my belief, nor is it relevant to what I may or may not believe.Tangle writes:
My faith tells us to count, that is math. Are you telling us that your faith says you shouldn't count? That's explains why I find it so hard to believe you when you say you are a scientist.
Maybe it's better if you talk about what you actually know. How about what it is that you believe and see if you can do it without mentioning evolution or - I know this is hard for you - maths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you think that's a matter of science? What science is that?
Oh? So you don't believe that fish evolve into mammals?Tangle writes: Of course not, that's not a matter of belief.Kleinman writes:
That's right. So why is your faith devoid of math? You have a blind faith.
My faith tells us to count, that is math. Are you telling us that your faith says you shouldn't count?Tangle writes: Maths is not a faith kleinman.Kleinman writes:
What was it that you claimed? Didn't you say you had a couple of degrees in the sciences? They must have been very soft sciences without any mathematics. Did they do any kind of accounting in your studies?
That's explains why I find it so hard to believe you when you say you are a scientist.Tangle writes: I'm not a scientist kleinman, I've told you this three times now.Tangle writes:
There is a pattern in evolution. If you studied some mathematics, you might understand that pattern. Evolution is very easy to understand once you recognize the patterns demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
Can you see a pattern here? You're not listening to what people say. Instead you project what you want them to have said.Tangle writes:
I have, you just are not listening. One of the things my religion tells us to do is count. Do you want me to show you the Bible verses? So, why does your religion tell you not to count?
But never mind all that, tell us about your faith beliefs - your religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Don't be stupid, I totally get your point. You are stating that it takes many transitions to genetically transform fish into mammals, millions if not billions of genetic transformations. Why are you so mathematically incompetent that you can't explain the mathematics of a single one of those genetic transformations? And you stop spreading your mathematically irrational nonsense.
Oh? So you don't believe that fish evolve into mammals?kjsimons writes: No one believes this, so why do you keep repeating it. As it's been noted several times, fish and mammals are distant cousins not that mammals are decedents of fish. Stop spreading lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you say you are qualified to be a scientist, you just aren't paid to be one? What makes you think that you are qualified to say that fish evolve into mammals? You aren't a scientist. Do you believe everything that is said to you. If you do, you are very naive.
What was it that you claimed? Didn't you say you had a couple of degrees in the sciences?Tangle writes: Having qualifications in scientific subjects does not make people scientists. I do not earn a living as a scientist.Kleinman writes:
You must think I'm a Christian for the same reason I think you are an atheist. And I do accept that evolution occurs and based on my scientific training and experience, I write papers explaining the physics and mathematics of the phenomenon, something you should learn about if you think that fish evolve into mammals. What does your religion have against counting? Because that is what you must do to understand evolution. What makes you think that evolution works any different on the microbial level than with more complex replicators? Isn't adaptation by DNA evolution simply the accumulation of specific mutations that improve fitness for those replicators to the environmental selection conditions and it doesn't matter whether it is a lineage of bacteria or a lineage of fish? I have, you just are not listening.Tangle writes: Ok, I must have missed that. I assume you are a Christian? What flavour? You appear to accept evolution as a fact at microbial level but I don't understand your position beyond that. It sounds like you're some form of creationist so you could start by telling us how old you think the earth is? And I've never done any scientific study on the age of the earth. Sorry, I'm not trained or paid to be a speculator. I leave that kind of work to the fish-to-mammals aficionados.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What scientific qualifications do you have to claim that fish evolving into mammals is a scientific fact? What physical laws, what mathematical principles substantiate your claim?
So you say you are qualified to be a scientist, you just aren't paid to be one?Tangle writes: No, I don't say that. I just say I have some science qualifications.Kleinman writes:
You would be if you wanted to understand how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You just want to blame God for everything wrong in the world.
What makes you think that you are qualified to say that fish evolve into mammals? You aren't a scientist.Tangle writes: I don't say that kleinman, you say that and I'm not interested in it.Kleinman writes:
What makes you think that someone quoting from the Bible is Christian? Lots of atheists (and those who rebel from God) like to quote from the Bible. Their favorite verse is the "judge not" verse. And you aren't interested in fact, otherwise, you would attempt to understand the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
You must think I'm a Christian for the same reason I think you are an atheist.Tangle writes: I don't know what that means - if anything. I think you're a Christian because you've mentioned that you're prepared to quote from the bible. Am I wrong? I'd rather work from fact than conjecture.Tangle writes:
Then why do you blame God for all the evil in the world? Perhaps in your twisted logic, evil has a selective advantage? Oh, that's right, you aren't interested in evolution.
And you don't have to wonder about whether I'm an atheist or not, I am. And my atheism has nothing to do with evolution.Kleinman writes:
Sorry, I haven't really thought about that question. I've put my thought time into understanding how evolution works. And the scientific explanation of evolution is completely different than that presented by the fish-to-mammals aficionados. And the fish-to-mammals aficionados' explanation not only is wrong, but it is also harmful leading to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And that isn't conjecture, that is fact.
And I've never done any scientific study on the age of the earth. Sorry, I'm not trained or paid to be a speculator. I leave that kind of work to the fish-to-mammals aficionados.Tangle writes: I didn't ask that, I just ask whether you think the earth is young or old. It's quite a simple question to answer. I think it's old, what do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Sure it does. Remember when you said this Message 181?
You just want to blame God for everything wrong in the world.Tangle writes: I'm an atheist...blaming god doesn't really work for me.Tangle writes:
The Bible says nothing like this. Of course, if you think it does, you would point out the verse(s).
Fat chance, according to your book he's an evil bastard that makes Pol Pot look like an amateur.Kleinman writes:
I'm not the one changing the subject. I started my discussions on this forum debating the physics and mathematics of evolution. It is you who doesn't have either the scientific or mathematical training to discuss this subject and is trying to change the subject. I really don't blame you for doing this because if you actually tried to discuss and debate evolution, it would reveal how ignorant you are of the topic. Do all atheists believe that counting is of no consequence? Because in my faith, we are told to count.
What makes you think that someone quoting from the Bible is Christian? Lots of atheists (and those who rebel from God) like to quote from the Bible. Their favorite verse is the "judge not" verse. And you aren't interested in fact, otherwise, you would attempt to understand the Kishony and Lenski experiments.Tangle writes: Again, am I supposed to not notice you changing the subject and avoiding a direct question? I really don't care if you're a lapsed pagan; I'm just asking what your beliefs are - if any.Kleinman writes:
So, who do blame for the evil in the world? Did you ever consider yourself?
Then why do you blame God for all the evil in the world?Tangle writes: You are terribly confused about this. How do you think an atheist can blame god for anything?Kleinman writes:
Whether you think it is disingenuous or not, it's a fact. I have not done any kind of scientific study on the age of the earth. And I am a scientist, it just happens that my area of study is the physics and mathematics of evolution. So, do you think that fish evolving into mammals is an opinion of yours or is it a scientific fact? And if you think it is a scientific fact, what is the science behind your claim? Now don't change the subject!
Sorry, I haven't really thought about that question.Tangle writes: That's an incredibly disingenuous answer. I don't believe it for a minute. You seriously have no opinion about whether the earth is billions of years old or 6,000? Really? I was under the impression that you thought yourself a scientist?Tangle writes:
Don't be silly. I've told you lots about my religious beliefs. For example, my religion tell us to count. And I've applied those principles to evolution and published papers explaining DNA evolution and the mathematics governing that phenomenon. It is you who doesn't explain how fish evolve into mammals. In fact, you can't even explain correctly a single base evolutionary transition. Exactly what areas of science are you qualified in?
So despite all your words, you've told me nothing about your religious beliefs, nor answered my question about speciation. Why so shy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
The multiplication rule of probabilities is the reason you fish-to-mammals aficionados are wrong.
The multiplication rule of probabilities is not a mantra, it is a mathematical fact of life.ringo writes: The mantra is "fish-to-mammal aficionado".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I didn't make that one up. But it does a really good job describing those who think that fish evolve into mammals (or even that fish and mammals (and bananas) are distant relatives).
The multiplication rule of probabilities is the reason you fish-to-mammals aficionados are wrong.ringo writes: Thay's not an excuse for you to keep repeating that silly, childish mantra.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
In case you didn't notice, I quoted you exactly as you wrote it. And what makes you think that you don't deserve what those got in the flood?
Sure it does. Remember when you said this Message 181?Tangle writes: As you pointed out, but did not register, I said according to your book... It's not my book, you do understand the difference? I was pointing out that the god in the book is a genocidal murderer and gave the example of him flooding the earth and killing pretty much everything on it. I did not say that I believed it. But I am wondering if you did. Do you?Kleinman writes:
This thread is about goals and accomplishments. Message 1 I'm not the one changing the subject. I started my discussions on this forum debating the physics and mathematics of evolution.Tangle writes: And you'll notice that this thread is not about that. You seem to want to say the same stuff in every thread you enter regardless of its topic.Ben! writes:
My goal being here is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution (the subject of this web site) and I've published multiple papers on the subject. Now, you want to change the subject and talk about the age of the earth. At least you know that you need a lot of time for your silly theory to have any reasonable probability of being true. Since you can't tell us how long it takes for the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary processes to work, perhaps you want to calculate for us the amount of time necessary for fish to evolve into mammals?
Decided to revisit the old forum, to poke around and see how well diversity of thought has been supported here.Things seem fairly similar to 15 years ago when I joined, so wished to ask the question: what are the aims of people here, and has it worked? Interested to hear stories from anybody who wishes to share, about:
Kleinman writes:
But you to believe, whoops, think it is a scientific fact that fish evolve into mammals. Why are you so shy? Why don't you tell us what your scientific training is?
So, who do blame for the evil in the world? Did you ever consider yourself?Tangle writes: I don't believe in evil - it's a religious concept and I'm an atheist. But you're deflecting again.Kleinman writes:
You can't explain the physics and mathematics of evolution so you resort to silly claims. If you think I've done scientific studies on the age of the earth, where are these publications on that subject. This is just your lame atheistic way of trying to change the subject from the physics and mathematics of evolution, a subject which you are ignorant of.
Whether you think it is disingenuous or not, it's a fact. I have not done any kind of scientific study on the age of the earth.Tangle writes: Oh, it's definitely disingenuous and you know it. No one comes to this forum without an opinion on that. Had you genuinely not thought about it and being a real scientist you'd simply say that the scientific consensus is that the earth is old so until something comes along to point out anything different I'll go with that. But nope you're in full shields up mode.Kleinman writes:
That's not a subject of this thread. The subject of this thread are goals (mine is to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of evolution) and accomplishments (I've published numerous papers on the subject in the last 7 years and more to come). So, tangled mind, what are your goals and what have you accomplished?
Don't be silly. I've told you lots about my religious beliefs.Tangle writes: Well I must have missed something, humour me, tell me again. Are you a Christian? If so which sort? If not what faith group do you belong to?Tangle writes:
So you think this web site is not about evolution and this thread is not about goals and accomplishments. Has anyone ever told you that you have some difficulty with comprehension? What is your goal with believing (or thinking it is scientific fact) that fish evolve into mammals and what scientific work have you accomplished to verify this belief?
This thread is not about evolution or maths, but I would like you to answer my question about speciation because it might help me understand where you're coming from. Why haven't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
How can I make my answers any more straight. My goal is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution and I've accomplished this by having numerous papers peer-reviewed and published on this topic including the correct mathematical description of the Lenski and Kishony evolutionary experiments. I understand that your pseudo-scientific indoctrination doesn't allow you to believe this but if you think I'm wrong, please point to the specific errors either in the physics, the mathematics or both.
In case you didn't notice, I quoted you exactly as you wrote it. And what makes you think that you don't deserve what those got in the flood?Tangle writes: I wonder, will you ever answer a straight question with a straight answer? Your reply is the usual repetitive deflection and evasion. I'm forced to conclude that you are a Young Earth Christian, a special creationist and that you believe that the flood was a real event.Tangle writes:
I have tried to correct your confusion on the physics and mathematics of evolution but you persist on wanting to change the subject. You really should try to stay on topic, you might learn something.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why have you lost interest in discussing the physics and mathematics of evolution? Is it that you can't justify your beliefs?
How can I make my answers any more straight.Tangle writes: By answering them. They're really simple questions that do not involve mathematics or science. They're about your beliefs.Kleinman writes:
I've posted in very few threads, only about 5. And the reason why I joined the discussion on this thread is that you accused Phat of not understanding science. Message 75 My goal is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution and I've accomplished this by having numerous papers peer-reviewed and published on this topic including the correct mathematical description of the Lenski and Kishony evolutionary experiments.Tangle writes: Or how about you do that in one of the many other threads you're posting in and leave this one to talk about other things? Is that possible for you?Tangle writes:
I think it is you who does not properly understand science. The facts have changed and you don't have the capability to change your mind. That's why you continue to try to change the subject. Answer this question and it is on topic. What is your scientific explanation for fish evolving into mammals?
I don't think you and your kind properly understand science. Well actually I know you don't.Kleinman writes:
Well duh. Everyone knows you have no scientific understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution. None of you fish-to-mammal aficionados have demonstrated any qualifications on this subject. I wonder why you have lost interest in discussing science. Come one, tell us why your kind think that fish evolve into mammals? Oh, that's right, you aren't qualified. Is there someone on this forum that is qualified?
I have tried to correct your confusion on the physics and mathematics of evolution but you persist on wanting to change the subject. You really should try to stay on topic, you might learn somethingTangle writes: I'm not interested in your physics and mathematics of evolution, I'm not qualified to participate - others are, I'll leave it to them. Here I'm trying to talk to you about beliefs. And you're avoiding it. I have to wonder why.Tangle writes:
Ok Tangle, prepare yourself, I'm going to give you a straight answer. I am not a fish-to-mammals aficionado. That would be scientifically and mathematically irrational. Are there any atheists with some proficiency with math on this forum?
So you don't deny that you are a special creationist YEC and a biblical literalist. OK, that explains quite a lot, thank you I think.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024