|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So the mathematics being the same is nothing to do with your assertions that neutral drift needs to wait for a beneficial mutation or that it takes a billion replications to get a neutral mutation. It’s funny how often your correct statements have little to do with the actual arguments.
quote: Which has nothing to do with the question of when the differences would have started to evolve.
quote: Obviously the dievergence between separated populations will grow by drift while those connected by gene flow will remain more similar. Also, there is at least one significant bottleneck in relatively recent human ancestry - which is why humans have a relatively low genetic diversity.
quote: Will it? If it does it is certainly not because it would take a billion replications to get a particular mutation. Anyone who claims that fails to understand probability theory.
quote: But we aren’t disputing your claims about that. We are talking about your assertions regarding common ancestry. And there you are making plenty of mistakes.
quote: Of course that’s just your usual diversionary tactic. I never claimed that there were errors in those papers - and from what I have seen they are in agreement with evolutionary theory anyway. So no, I won’t be diverted from attacking the errors I can identify. So, can you please stop trying to use this trick? It’s getting boring.
quote: No, I just think that the correct mathematics would do stuff like account for the number of changes introduced by drift.
quote: I’m waiting for you to show that magic would be needed. So far you’ve only managed to illustrate the limits of your understanding. Neutral drift doesn’t have to wait for a beneficial mutation, or does it take a billion replications to get a neutral mutation. Somebody must have fooled you very badly to make you think that,
quote: And how many other neutral differences will accumulate? That’s the real issue. But you somehow miss that. I guess you just don’t understand.
quote: And the reason you resort to this condescending diversion is that you can’t answer my point. I’m sure it works sometimes but it doesn’t work on me.
quote: In other words you can’t explain this alleged blunder. Fine by me. I’m happy to win a point be default.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It's not that difficult. My papers were peer-reviewed and published by people expert in probability theory. And I'm not being vague at all, here's how you apply the multiplication rule to DNA evolution. It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class.dwise1 writes: We did learn it in our probability classes. What we're not sure of is whether you had learned it. Or whether you have any understanding of how it would apply in biology. Of course, that begs the question of whether your vague "multiplication rule" (which you repeatedly invoke by name, but which I have not seen you explain) is the same thing that we had learned. Your insistence on applying it in cases where what we had learned is not appropriate makes us wonder whether you know what you are talking about.Just a moment... If you think I've done the math incorrectly, feel free to point out any error. You won't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Try to answer the question.
Are you seriously claiming that your mathematical model overthrows the entirety of the evidence for common ancestry and evolution? Fossils. Geology. Genetic code. Etc. And the predictions and discoveries (the gold standard test of any scientific theory) that this has led to. E.g. Tiktaalik. This thread is about what should be taught in schools. So I will ask again - Your position regarding what should be taught about the origins of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles etc. is what? That it’s a mystery because your stats say so? I think you can’t/won’t answer that explicit question because even you can see how delusionally conceited that sounds when you spell it out like that. The whole world is wrong. Except you... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I’ve followed your ramblings on a site with other mathemetical modellers. They challenged you to apply your theory in an actual side by side simulation to show specifically where your model would diverge from accepted science.
You were challenged to identify a well specified question, answerable with a simulation, where your model and the scientifically accepted model would give different results that could then be compared to observable results. As far as I can see you ran away from that challenge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I'm only correcting the incompetent job that biologists have performed in describing the physics and mathematics of evolution. And what I think naive school children should be taught is the correct physics and mathematics of evolution so they would have some understanding of how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You certainly haven't given us the correct mathematics which describes the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
Try to answer the question.Are you seriously claiming that your mathematical model overthrows the entirety of the evidence for common ancestry and evolution? Fossils. Geology. Genetic code. Etc. And the predictions and discoveries (the gold standard test of any scientific theory) that this has led to. E.g. Tiktaalik. This thread is about what should be taught in schools. So I will ask again - Your position regarding what should be taught about the origins of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles etc. is what? That it’s a mystery because your stats say so? I think you can’t/won’t answer that explicit question because even you can see how delusionally conceited that sounds when you spell it out like that. The whole world is wrong. Except you...Straggler writes:
Really? That's a mystery to me. I challenge Felsenstein to do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment but he refused: I’ve followed your ramblings on a site with other mathemetical modellers. They challenged you to apply your theory in an actual side by side simulation to show specifically where your model would diverge from accepted science.You were challenged to identify a well specified question, answerable with a simulation, where your model and the scientifically accepted model would give different results that could then be compared to observable results. As far as I can see you ran away from that challenge.Sandwalk: Contingency, selection, and the long-term evolution experiment Felsenstein writes:
Felsenstein neglects to mention that his model of DNA evolution also doesn't take into account natural selection. What he doesn't get is that the mathematics of the evolutionary trajectory is not dependent on natural selection. It only depends on the ability of a particular variant to replicate. On top of that, he did the Markov Chain mathematics for his model incorrectly based on an incorrect assumption. But since Felsenstein couldn't do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment, I took up the gauntlet and did the math myself. Here's how the mathematics of that experiment works: I am not going to do some long study of the LTEE, but I thought I should document my assertion that Alan Kleinman's work ignores natural selection.Just a moment... I'll correct Felsenstein's math in my next paper. Anything else you think I'm running from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How does your model explain the existence of Tiktaalik?
Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik quote: What does your theory say about the existence of transitionals such as Tiktaalik?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Straggler writes:
What my model explains is the mathematic of the evolutionary trajectory. It explains how many replications are necessary for a particular DNA evolutionary process for a given mutation rate. It is simply a different approach to the math than the Markov chain models such as the Jukes-Cantor, Kimura, or Felsenstein models. The biggest difference is that I've done the math correctly and like I said in another thread that I've looked at these Markov chain models and I know where they make their error in these Markov Chain models. I will submit for publication that paper toward the end of summer. The computer calculation time for the different cases is taking quite a bit of time.
How does your model explain the existence of Tiktaalik?Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik Straggler writes:
What this model shows is that for every transitional step (beneficial mutation) it takes about a billion replications. You haven't looked at the Kishony (or the Lenski) experiment yet, have you. When you understand both of those experiments, you will understand how DNA evolution operates in a non-competitive environment (the Kishony experiment) and a competitive environment (the Lenski experiment). So, if you think Tiktaalik is some transitional form, you better produce vast numbers of fossils because there are about 50 complete t Rex specimens and it is highly unlikely there were billions of t Rex (large apex predator and all).
What does your theory say about the existence of transitionals such as Tiktaalik?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Kleinman writes: What magic do you think applies to evolution to make reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? You have repeated this question multiple times, erroneously implying that biology, and the theory of evolution conclude that mammals evolved from fish. Since you repeat it multiple times I assume you must be able to document that. Lying about your opponent's position is not persuasive.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
I'm not lying about this. You can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search.
What magic do you think applies to evolution to make reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?Tanyptertx writes: You have repeated this question multiple times, erroneously implying that biology, and the theory of evolution conclude that mammals evolved from fish. Since you repeat it multiple times I assume you must be able to document that. Lying about your opponent's position is not persuasive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Just because Kleinman has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and is an MD and is licensed in both! Neither of which is evidence of his expertise in science, but rather increase the likelihood that he is hostile towards science in general and evolution in particular. Refer to one of the standard creationist list (or any of the many variations derived from it) of "scientists who are creationists". While there are a small number of creationists with doctorates in an actual science, most of them are engineers -- there are also a number of "scientists" with doctorates in theology, bible studies, religion, or religious education (eg, Kent Hovind, though his PhD is bogus) or in other unrelated fields such as "food science" (which turns out to be a valid area of study, but is still not relevant). I'm a retired software engineer, but I spent most of my career working alongside engineers in more rigorous fields plus I took some EE courses at university (for fun and in order to round out my technician training). I repeatedly encountered negative attitudes towards scientists and the practice of science. In university department newletters, I would see several jokes in which scientists, mathematicians, and engineers would tell "Polish jokes" about the other fields (see one below). In one EE lecture in particular, we were taught about the delta function which you would use to slam a system (a linear circuit, in our case) with an instantaneous pulse of infinite amplitude in order to analyze its response -- the pulse has an area under the curve (ie, its integral) of 1, such that as you shrink its Δt to zero, its amplitude increases towards infinity. Our professor, a practicing EE, was very proud of that delta function. As he told it, it was engineers (MEs most likely) who came up with it and used it with great success, but it took those stupid mathematicians 100 years to figure out why it worked. And the professor stood there gloating over the superiority of engineers over mathematicians. And that's a lot of the attitude I would see from engineers in my 35-year career. MDs are only a little bit better than engineers, but having not worked closely with them I don't have many examples. I have noticed that "biological scientists who are creationists" tend to be MDs. An infamous example of an anti-evolution MD was Michael Denton who wrote a book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- that book led to him becoming part of the Discovery Institute. What he learned from conversations after he published that book was that he knew a helluva lot less about evolution than he had thought he did. He is quoted as saying that if he were to write that book again, it would be completely different, but he had no intention of ever rewriting to correct it. One of his mistaken ideas in particular involved protein comparisons. He applied Ladder of Life reasoning (basically that each "previous stage" had stopped evolving once the daughter species had arisen) and declared that protein comparisons do not support evolution -- of course not, when you have the entirely wrong idea about evolution. Then he tried grouping the organisms in a nested clade manner and suddenly everything fit to a T, but he stuck with his Ladder of Life false view. He presented those nested clades in Venn diagram form, but an article translated that to a phylogenetic tree format, exactly what we see all the time. I have presented that several times, most recently at Message 210 in What would a transitional fossil look like? . Just because Kleinman is an engineer and an MD (assuming he's telling the truth about that -- he is a creationist, after all) doesn't mean that he knows anything about evolution. This is a joke that a math professor told us in order to make fun of those stupid engineers. The topic we were covering was inductive reasoning in which you make a series of observations (AKA steps) in order to find a general rule or pattern, whereupon you "take the inductive step" of stating that general rule. Related here from memory (from about 30 years ago):
There was an engineer who used inductive reasoning to prove that all odd numbers are prime. He tested all the odd numbers up to 13 and found them all to be prime, so he then took the inductive step that all odd numbers are prime. Welll ... 9 is not prime, but statistically speaking in a sampling of that size you would expect at least one bad data point, so he just threw that one out.
We had some foreign students in the class -- Chinese, I think -- who take their studies very seriously and for good reason. They were taking notes throughout the joke, not realizing that it was a joke, and they ended up sitting there completely bewildered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
PaulK writes: Kleinman writes:
Obviously the dievergence between separated populations will grow by drift while those connected by gene flow will remain more similar. Also, there is at least one significant bottleneck in relatively recent human ancestry - which is why humans have a relatively low genetic diversity. Let's assume you have 10 million years to account for the drift of humans and chimps from the common ancestor. Tell us why humans are genetically similar, chimps are genetically similar, and yet there are humans and chimps differ by 10s of millions of mutations. Aren't humans and chimps diverging from their common human and chimp ancestors? And how does he propose to explain human Chromosome 2, which is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are still present in other apes such as chimpanzees? From that link:
quote: We should ask Kleinman to present us with the exact mathematics of that. Edited by dwise1, : had left out a question mark Edited by dwise1, : Added your attribution to the outer qs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Why do I owe you a mathematical explanation for something like this? Do you think that long ago, somewhere in the Shire that one of the hobbits had a fusion of two chromosomes? Did that fusion occur in a male or female hobbit? And how did all future hobbits end up with this fusion chromosome?
And how does he propose to explain human Chromosome 2, which is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are still present in other apes such as chimpanzees?. . . We should ask Kleinman to present us with the exact mathematics of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Why do I owe you a mathematical explanation for something like this? Because you keep demanding mathematical explanations from everybody else for things that are not subject to mathematical explanations. What'sa matta, you? Can't take what you dish out?
Do you think that long ago, somewhere in the Shire that one of the hobbits had a fusion of two chromosomes? Did that fusion occur in a male or female hobbit? And how did all future hobbits end up with this fusion chromosome? Typical POS creationist! OK, so skip that math. Explain human Chromosome 2 in light of your denial of any relationship between humans and chimpanzees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
What'sa matta? I'm the only one dishing out mathematics here. You just want me to dish out more? My mistake thinking that dwise people out there could actually do some of their own math. It appears you are not sowise.
Why do I owe you a mathematical explanation for something like this?dwise1 writes: Because you keep demanding mathematical explanations from everybody else for things that are not subject to mathematical explanations. What'sa matta, you? Can't take what you dish out?Kleinman writes:
Oh no dsimple1, let's do the math for your problem. You claim that Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes. Fusions are mutations, right? Now, there are several questions you can ask about this mutation, Is this mutation beneficial, neutral, or detrimental? So, are fusions beneficial? Let's see what is written about these kinds of mutations: Do you think that long ago, somewhere in the Shire that one of the hobbits had a fusion of two chromosomes? Did that fusion occur in a male or female hobbit? And how did all future hobbits end up with this fusion chromosome?dwise1 writes: Typical POS creationist! OK, so skip that math. Explain human Chromosome 2 in light of your denial of any relationship between humans and chimpanzees.Fusion gene - Wikipedia Wikipedia writes:
Well that doesn't sound like beneficial. Let's try chromosome abnormality and see if we get any good news there about fusion mutations. Fusion genes have been found to be prevalent in all main types of human neoplasia [1] .Chromosome abnormality - Wikipedia There's no good news there, all they do is list a bunch of genetic diseases. Let's try fertility and see what we get: Genetics of infertility - Wikipedia Wikipedia writes:
That doesn't look beneficial! Is there any evidence that a fusion mutation is beneficial anywhere? Perhaps dsimple1 would present that evidence. Genetic factors including aneuploidies and single-gene mutations are also contributed to the male infertility. So, in order to do the mathematics of fixation, we need to know if this fusion mutation is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. And all the evidence appears that fusion mutations are detrimental so if fixation is to occur, it is going to be by drift. But what about an improvement in fitness? What must this fusion mutation variant do to get an offspring with a beneficial mutation? Nothing to it! All that fusion mutation variant must do is replicate 3e9 times and you will get an offspring with a beneficial mutation. And the fusion mutation variant doesn't even have to fix in the population. The halfling with the fusion mutation can live happily with its human and chimpanzee relatives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So - To cut a long story short - Your theory dictates that transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik can’t exist.
But they do. Read the Tiktaalik example again. This wasn’t just found by aimlessly digging around. Knowledge of geology and evolutionary common ancestry were combined to PREDICT where such a fossil would exist. Then it was found. As predicted. How does your theory account for the predictive power of evolution with regard to transitionals whilst simultaneously proclaiming transitionals to be impossible? The It’s too unlikely argument has been comprehensively demolished multiple times. Not least by the physical evidence showing evolution to have occurred. Yours is just a mathematically long winded way of making that same mistake.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024