|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I stand corrected. So, is the correct phylogenetic tree for carnivores? Bananas=>Venous Fly Trap=>Tiktaalik =>t Rex? Of course, there are a couple of transitional nodes left out. Is it true that t Rex was green because it still retained the ability to produce chlorophyll?
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?kjsimons writes: Well if we didn't think you were a crank before, this nails it! The foods in your Peta link are not something a carnivore could find in the wild, so yeah, carnivores can't live on naturally available plants and need meat, as they are, as you know, carnivores.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Tell us how many mutations are required for each trait and I'll show you how to compute the probability. We can do the same thing with tiktaalik. Tell us how many mutations required to produce a tetrapod from some replicator that doesn't have legs and I can tell you the probability as a function of the population size and mutation rate, either in best case scenario or in the case when multiple mutations are needed in order to improve fitness. The math is difficult, you should learn it.
You seem to have missed it so let’s try again.I need you to tell me the probability of fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence and alcohol tolerance all having evolved during the mesolithic (i.e when the total number of humans that had ever lived was about 400 million according to your link). You do it. It’s your calculation. Straggler writes:
Who's stalling? I already told you it will take about a billion replications just to get a malaria beneficial mutation because we know what that mutation is. For the other traits, you have to specify the number of mutations for each of those traits. Under the best of circumstances, if you want all those traits in a single lineage, it is going to take about a billion replications for each evolutionary step. It really isn't any different than the Kishony and Lenski lineages accumulating their mutations to improved fitness in their environments. I'm surprised you are having so much difficulty understanding this. It really isn't much different than the coin tossing problem, only highly asymmetric.
You were desperate to show how bewilderingly impossible evolution was earlier when talking about chimpanzees and whatnot. Let’s see what your calculations say about the likelihood of relatively recent human traits. Why are you stalling?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I certainly haven't argued that evolution shouldn't be taught in school. But I also think that alchemy shouldn't be taught as chemistry and that is what the fish-to-mammals aficionados are doing with the teaching of evolution. Every biology student should understand the simple evolutionary experiments. And that means they must understand the mathematics of stochastic processes. Would you expect an engineering student to be able to describe the motion of a bridge or building in an earthquake but not be able to describe the motion of a mass and a spring or a pendulum? But that's what you expect from biology students. Biology students are being taught dogma, not science.
It's a null topic, of course both evolution and religion should be taught in schools. Evolution is an established and basic part of biology. Religion is an important part of global history and culture.But why pick on evolution? Is geology ok? And why restrict religious education to, presumably Christianity? And to dogma and practice rather than history and comparative religious study?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Phat writes:
I thought I had summarized my point in the previous post. Message 1927 So without derailing this topic, which admins wont allow...summarize your point. It seems to me that your point is that evolution itself is being incorrectly taught. Which is darn near off topic. It seems to be a view unique to you and a few others.Kleinman writes:
You and Tangle have something in common. Neither of you understand the science of evolution. And neither do the fish-to-mammals aficionados. If any of you did, you could explain the mathematical behavior of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. Evolution is not some mysterious process that is too complicated to comprehend. All the tools necessary to measure this process are readily available and have been applied in detail to the Lenski experiment and less so to the Kishony experiment. The population sizes have been measured, the mutations are identified, the rates of accumulation of these mutations are known and they accumulate in a mathematically predictable pattern if you correctly identify the variables in the evolutionary process. The Lenski experiment has been around for more than 30 years and the Kishony experiment for about 5 years. Where are the fish-to-mammals aficionados' papers which correctly describe these evolutionary process in either of these experiments? They don't exist. Yet they think they can describe the evolution of fish to mammals by saying they are distant relatives. If they think that, it has to be by the same evolutionary process that the Kishony and Lenski experiment follow, a billion replications for each adaptive mutation for every variant on that evolutionary trajectory and that's for the best of circumstances of only a single selection pressure acting at a time. So biology students aren't being taught science, they are being taugth mathematically irrational dogma about evolution. At least Tangle was honest enough to say that he doesn't understand this science. The rest of the fish-to-mammals aficionados should be so honest. This earth is not flat and fish don't evolve into mammals.
Every biology student should understand the simple evolutionary experiments. And that means they must understand the mathematics of stochastic processes. Would you expect an engineering student to be able to describe the motion of a bridge or building in an earthquake but not be able to describe the motion of a mass and a spring or a pendulum? But that's what you expect from biology students.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Actually, you can turn lead into gold by nuclear transmutation. Can you explain how your so-called distant relatives, fish, evolved into mammals?
But I also think that alchemy shouldn't be taught as chemistryTangle writes: Good, but luckily there's seems to be no religious objection to alchemy and it's not science so we're all clear.Kleinman writes:
It's one thing to take a course in probabilities and statistics, it is quite another to understand how to apply the prinicples correctly, especially to evolution. And I know something about rocket science since that's what I was paid to do as an engineer and have published in that field.
And that means they must understand the mathematics of stochastic processes.Tangle writes: Luckily, statistics is part of every science degree that has any interest in research - which is pretty much all of them even social science these days - so you're not going to get any arguments. Rocket science it ain't.Kleinman writes:
I've talked to many biologists and biology students over the years and not one could explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. The best explanation of evolution they can come up with is that fish are distant relatives of mammals. When are they going to learn how evolution works with direct relatives? Obviously, any training in statistics doesn't give you the capability to do the math.
Biology students are being taught dogma, not science.Tangle writes: And then you go and drop our pants and reveal yourself as a religiously motivated clown again. Evolution is core curriculum for biology and will be for ever.Tangle writes:
Edward Tatum already gave the correct explanation of evolution in his 1958 Nobel Laureate lecture. I just put the math to his explanation.
Or until you stand on the Nobel podium. I literally can't wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dad writes:
So this topic is only about teaching 19th century concepts about evolution? Why doesn't it bother you about how evolution is taught? Don't you think that biology students should be taught how bacteria evolve resistance to drugs and why cancer treatments fail? Or do you think that biology students only need to be indoctrinated with the notion that fish are their distant relatives? I think this upsets you because you are one of those mathematically incompetent fish-to-mammals aficionados.
What can be taught is how bacteria or whatever now adapt and evolve. To teach more IS religion.Phat writes: This argument has now been presented. This topic is not specifically about your claims regarding modern evolution. Please stop with this point which is off topic for this particular thread.I will be handing out one day suspensions for subsequent off topic violations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
vimesey writes:
I publish my papers in journals where they understand mathematics. That doesn't include the fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine. But if any of your "scientific" journals published a paper explaining the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments, why don't you point us to those links? You won't.
He's been banging the same (very small) drum in informal websites like these for 13 years at least. And in all that time, he's not had the guts to publish his anti-evolutionary theory claims with any degree of honesty in any respected peer reviewed scientific journal. 13 years. The very epitome of a coward.vimesey writes:
I leave the speculation to those who are experts on this, the fish-to-mammals aficionados. And you asked him how old he thought the earth was didn't you ? And he didn't have the guts to reply openly. Coward again. Hey Phat, is the age of the earth question on topic? How about the shape of the earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Who's denying evolution? Aside from Taq giving us the 3e9 number of replications for a particular mutation to occur, I'm the only one on this forum giving any correct mathematics. Well, maybe AZPaul3 thinks that some number between 1 and indeterminant is his idea of mathematics.
It's odd isn't it?Evolution denying has become a thing like holocaust denial and antivax. That's all mad enough but I really don't get religion denying. That's supposed to be against everything they're supposed to believe. Tangle writes:
I can't justify it to you, you don't have the mathematical and scientific skills to understand the justification. You should take a course in introductory probability theory, you would have a much better understanding of this discussion.
I suppose they find a way to justify it to themselves but only them and their god knows how.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
From Message 1 So this topic is only about teaching 19th century concepts about evolution?Phat writes: Evidently you claim that it is. I see no major problem with the school system in regards to their teaching of biological,sociological,anthropological and mathematical concepts. The topic was more focused on what brand of sacred studies or religious studies should be added to the curriculum.extent writes:
What's more sacred than the truth? Is it true that fish are our distant relatives? If so, how did this happen?
How can we teach both evolution and religion in school when they seemingly conflict so much with one another?Kleinman writes:
So you think an incorrect explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolution is the correct way to go?
Don't you think that biology students should be taught how bacteria evolve resistance to drugs and why cancer treatments fail? Or do you think that biology students only need to be indoctrinated with the notion that fish are their distant relatives? I think this upsets you because you are one of those mathematically incompetent fish-to-mammals aficionados.Phat writes: You really like to push that point that *we* all are mathematically incompetent, don't you? The facts which I see are that1) Your view is a minority view pushed by extremists. I see that students are taught quite well in our system. And by the way, how did *you* learn your math and how did *you* learn about drug resistance and better cancer treatments? My basic gripe with you is that you are taking this topic in directions it need not go. Kleinman writes:
What they will know is the correct physics and mathematics of evolution. And you think that stamping their feet and saying that the theory of evolution is true is not rehashing their argument? It isn't even an argument, they can't even explain the simplest evolutionary experiments. And sometimes the majority is wrong.
I've talked to many biologists and biology students over the years and not one could explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments.Phat writes: OK lets assume that they knew what you know. For the bloody sake of argument. What now will happen in the field of study? To me, all that I see is a bunch of students who think like you do. And i'm not sure that would be any better for the teaching profession than what they currently have. OK. We are done with your rabbit trail. Don't rehash your arguments again. This topic *will* remain on course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Other than Taq who correctly computed the number of replications required for a beneficial mutation to occur (3e9), I'm the only one on this forum who has given a correct explanation of the mathematics of evolution. And what does the age of the earth have to do with evolution? Other than the association that fish-to-mammals make with their dogma, the age of the earth has nothing to do with the physics and mathematics of evolution (which you have admitted you don't understand). In addition, I have never made a statement about the age of the earth. The reason I haven't is that I don't know.
Who's denying evolution?Tangle writes: That would be you kleinman, you're a young earth creationist.Kleinman writes:
Your mind reading skills are no better than your mathematical skills. You could do something about your incompetence in mathematics.
I can't justify it to you, you don't have the mathematical and scientific skills to understand the justification.Tangle writes: I'm not interested in your mathematics, my comment had nothing to do with your mathematics. Sometimes normal people talk of other subjects. I was wondering how you reconcile denying your beliefs whilst being a Christian. It's another version of lying for Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I've spent plenty of years in school and that's what was taught at that time. With all the social promotions, need for remedial courses in colleges, kids leaving college with huge debts and unable to find jobs, who knows what is being taught now.
Is it true that fish are our distant relatives? If so, how did this happen?ringo writes: You seem to think that's what's being taught in schools. If you've been to school, you ought to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why not? None of the fish-to-mammals aficionados explained it then other than they said it takes a long, long time. And your explanation is no better. They also didn't explain how drug resistance evolves or why cancer treatments fail. They and you actually don't explain anything about evolution. Is that what you think should be taught about evolution is schools?
I've spent plenty of years in school and that's what was taught at that time.ringo writes: Then you shouldn't need to ask us, "how did this happen?"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024