Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
44 online now:
a servant of Christ, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,570 Year: 9,318/23,288 Month: 333/1,544 Week: 47/561 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2371
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 1636 of 1774 (878165)
06-26-2020 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1635 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 12:50 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

Why should I do your job?

Well, I don't think you are qualified to hand out job assignments. I understand your scheme though, you're planning to steal our solution and claim the Nobel Prize for yourself, well I'm onto you.

Kleinman writes:

I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.

You continue to overlook your error.

Kleinman writes:

The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.

I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.

Kleinman writes:

Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens

I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.

Kleinman writes:

or join AZPaul3 on the Faith and Belief forum where your pseudo-scientific beliefs belong.

Hold on Mathboy, your pseudoscientific training is showing. I have shared no beliefs with you here, so your attempts at character assassination, clearly demonstrate the weakness of your knowledge.

The thing I've noticed over the years with guys like you, is that universally you alienate the only people on the planet that could appreciate your work and apply it in their own work, if it is valid. I suspect their will be few citations of your work until you correct the error in you hypothesis.

I know you like to pretend you are a scientist, but you sure don't sound like one.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1635 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 12:50 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1637 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 3:00 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 386
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1637 of 1774 (878170)
06-26-2020 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1636 by Tanypteryx
06-26-2020 1:57 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

Why should I do your job?

Tanypteryx writes:

Well, I don't think you are qualified to hand out job assignments. I understand your scheme though, you're planning to steal our solution and claim the Nobel Prize for yourself, well I'm onto you.


If I were to assign this job to someone, it certainly wouldn't be you. And Edward Tatum has already won the Nobel Prize for this in 1958. He talked about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. The only thing I've done is put mathematics to his idea. And any student that has taken high school level probability theory can do this math. I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this.
Kleinman writes:

I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.

Tanypteryx writes:

You continue to overlook your error.


Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't.
Kleinman writes:

The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.

Tanypteryx writes:

I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.


Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.
Kleinman writes:

Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens

Tanypteryx writes:

I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.


It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.
Kleinman writes:

or join AZPaul3 on the Faith and Belief forum where your pseudo-scientific beliefs belong.

Tanypteryx writes:

Hold on Mathboy, your pseudoscientific training is showing. I have shared no beliefs with you here, so your attempts at character assassination, clearly demonstrate the weakness of your knowledge.


Like I say, the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance and vulgarity. To boot, you want me to do your job.
Tanypteryx writes:

The thing I've noticed over the years with guys like you, is that universally you alienate the only people on the planet that could appreciate your work and apply it in their own work, if it is valid. I suspect their will be few citations of your work until you correct the error in you hypothesis.


I suppose the error in my hypothesis is my claim that fish don't evolve into mammals and reptiles don't evolve into birds. The correct hypothesis is that evolution takes place in tiny steps and those tiny steps add up to big steps. Well, that hypothesis is half right. Evolution does occur in tiny steps but these steps don't add up because DNA evolution is a stochastic process. These steps are linked to each other by the multiplication rule of probabilities because they are joint random events, not the addition rule of probabilities. And I've shown you how to do the math correctly. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. But if you want to understand DNA evolution correctly, you had better take it. And so should anyone involved in treating infectious diseases and using targeted therapies for treating cancers if you want to play that game of chance.
Tanypteryx writes:

I know you like to pretend you are a scientist, but you sure don't sound like one.


I don't know what you think a scientist should sound like. Perhaps you should try talking with and listening to people outside your mutual admiration society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1636 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 1:57 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1639 by ringo, posted 06-26-2020 3:57 PM Kleinman has not yet responded
 Message 1642 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 4:22 PM Kleinman has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1638 of 1774 (878172)
06-26-2020 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1578 by Kleinman
06-24-2020 4:56 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Looking for fossils that fit your theory is not how you explain evolution.

No. No. No.

The key fundamental point you are missing is that Tiktaalik was not just found and inserted into the evolutionary model.

Tiktaalik was only discovered because evolutionary theory combined with geology predicted exactly where Tiktaalik should be found.

K writes:

That's not correct. My mathematical model is in conflict with your interpretations of reality.

No. For someone so mathematically clever you are bewilderingly foolish when it comes to understanding the nature of scientific prediction and discovery.

Your mathematical model says that a transitional between fish and tetrapods is too improbable to exist.

A fossil that was discovered as a direct result of the power of prediction, the gold standard of any scientific theory, says that you are wrong.

How do you deal with that head to head, theory vs theory fact?

You can't. So you simply deny. Or claim ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1578 by Kleinman, posted 06-24-2020 4:56 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1640 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 4:10 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 1657 by dad, posted 06-28-2020 7:36 PM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18322
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1639 of 1774 (878174)
06-26-2020 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1637 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 3:00 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

And Edward Tatum has already won the Nobel Prize for this in 1958. He talked about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. The only thing I've done is put mathematics to his idea.


And did Edward Tatum agree with your conclusions about created kinds?

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1637 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 3:00 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 386
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1640 of 1774 (878176)
06-26-2020 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1638 by Straggler
06-26-2020 3:45 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
Kleinman writes:

Looking for fossils that fit your theory is not how you explain evolution.

Straggler writes:

No. No. No.

The key fundamental point you are missing is that Tiktaalik was not just found and inserted into the evolutionary model.

Tiktaalik was only discovered because evolutionary theory combined with geology predicted exactly where Tiktaalik should be found.


What an incredible prediction. You found the fossil of a fish in river sediments.
Kleinman writes:

That's not correct. My mathematical model is in conflict with your interpretations of reality.

Straggler writes:

No. For someone so mathematically clever you are bewilderingly foolish when it comes to understanding the nature of scientific prediction and discovery.

Your mathematical model says that a transitional between fish and tetrapods is too improbable to exist


I've never said that it is too improbable find a fossil of fish. But perhaps you will answer this question:
If I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?
Straggler writes:

A fossil that was discovered as a direct result of the power of prediction, the gold standard of any scientific theory, says that you are wrong.

How do you deal with that head to head, theory vs theory fact?

You can't. So you simply deny. Or claim ignorance.


If the best prediction you have to offer is that you found the fossil of a fish in river sediments, I'm not impressed. Maybe the members of your clique see something profound with that kind of prediction, I'm not impressed. So, tell us what coding and regulatory genes are needed to make a non-limbed replicator produce limbs, and the selection pressure(s) needed to select for this type of evolutionary transformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1638 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2020 3:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1641 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2020 4:21 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10312
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 1641 of 1774 (878179)
06-26-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1640 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 4:10 PM


Re: If We Throw The ToE Away, What Will Replace It?
No. Again you either are ignorant or feign ignorance.

A transitional was found in the exact geological space predicted by evolution.

Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land.

So a transitional was predicted to exist around 375 million years ago. Searching in the geology associated with the prediction resulted in the discovery.

Voila. Explain that.

What new species has your research led to the discovery of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1640 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 4:10 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2371
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1642 of 1774 (878180)
06-26-2020 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1637 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 3:00 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this.

Interesting, I didn't know I had a clique. I work with other scientists in my field and we like to party together too. Mexican food and Negra Modelo beer. You would be very surprised by their achievements, but you wouldn't understand them.

Kleinman writes:

Kleinman writes:

I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.

Tanypteryx writes:

You continue to overlook your error.


Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't.

Well of course I won't, that's your job. I don't give a shit (GAS) about the Kishony experiment.

And YOU continue to overlook YOUR error. You are another poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect, well done!

Kleinman writes:

Kleinman writes:

The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.

Tanypteryx writes:

I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.


Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Damn it, I was shooting for subtle vulgarity! In science we tend not to try and prove things, but rather try to make tentative conclusions based on the evidence.

Kleinman writes:

Kleinman writes:

Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens

Tanypteryx writes:

I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.


It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.

OK go for it, we're waiting. And while you are at it, you might quote my specific blunders, please.

Kleinman writes:

Like I say, the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance and vulgarity. To boot, you want me to do your job.

Tanypteryx writes:

The thing I've noticed over the years with guys like you, is that universally you alienate the only people on the planet that could appreciate your work and apply it in their own work, if it is valid. I suspect their will be few citations of your work until you correct the error in your hypothesis.

Well, unlike you, I recognize that ignorance is a condition that can be modified, rather than a character flaw.

I guess you missed it earlier when I said that I don't recognize you as having any authority to make job assignments, especially when it is glaringly obvious that you have a massive error in your hypothesis.

Kleinman writes:

I suppose the error in my hypothesis is my claim that fish don't evolve into mammals and reptiles don't evolve into birds.

Are you daft? Why would you think that happens?

Kleinman writes:

Take it or leave it, it's up to you. But if you want to understand DNA evolution correctly, you had better take it. And so should anyone involved in treating infectious diseases and using targeted therapies for treating cancers if you want to play that game of chance.

Well, I'm not involved in treating infectious diseases or cancer.

Kleinman writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

I know you like to pretend you are a scientist, but you sure don't sound like one.


I don't know what you think a scientist should sound like. Perhaps you should try talking with and listening to people outside your mutual admiration society.

Well, I'm going to pass on joining your self-admiration society.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1637 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 3:00 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1643 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 4:59 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 386
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1643 of 1774 (878187)
06-26-2020 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1642 by Tanypteryx
06-26-2020 4:22 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this.

Tanypteryx writes:

Interesting, I didn't know I had a clique. I work with other scientists in my field and we like to party together too. Mexican food and Negra Modelo beer. You would be very surprised by their achievements, but you wouldn't understand them.


Why should that surprise me? There are lots of very talented people in the world. Some of them have been my teachers and co-workers.
Kleinman writes:

I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution.

Tanypteryx writes:

You continue to overlook your error.

Kleinman writes:

Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't.

Tanypteryx writes:

Well of course I won't, that's your job. I don't give a shit (GAS) about the Kishony experiment.

And YOU continue to overlook YOUR error. You are another poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect, well done!


Whatever
Kleinman writes:

The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.

Tanypteryx writes:

I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.

Kleinman writes:

Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Tanypteryx writes:

Damn it, I was shooting for subtle vulgarity! In science we tend not to try and prove things, but rather try to make tentative conclusions based on the evidence.


Unless that evidence is the Kishony experiment. Maybe the Lenski experiment more fits your taste? Either experiment should since they both use e coli.
Kleinman writes:

Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens

Tanypteryx writes:

I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.

Kleinman writes:

It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.

Tanypteryx writes:

OK go for it, we're waiting. And while you are at it, you might quote my specific blunders, please.


I already have, pay attention. It's in your hypothesis. Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events. Did anyone ever tell you are boring?

Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1642 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 4:22 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1644 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 6:14 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 1649 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2020 7:46 AM Kleinman has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2371
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1644 of 1774 (878191)
06-26-2020 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1643 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 4:59 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

Kleinman writes:

The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar.

Tanypteryx writes:

I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity.

Kleinman writes:

Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Tanypteryx writes:

Damn it, I was shooting for subtle vulgarity! In science we tend not to try and prove things, but rather try to make tentative conclusions based on the evidence.


Unless that evidence is the Kishony experiment. Maybe the Lenski experiment more fits your taste? Either experiment should since they both use e coli.

I never said I was unaware of a couple microbiology experiments, but I am not a microbiologist. Your hypothesis fails to model biology beyond your very narrow focus (basically 2 experiments).

Kleinman writes:

Kleinman writes:

Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens

Tanypteryx writes:

I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance.

Kleinman writes:

It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math.

Tanypteryx writes:

OK go for it, we're waiting. And while you are at it, you might quote my specific blunders, please.


I already have, pay attention. It's in your hypothesis. Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events.

What hypothesis? I have not proposed an hypothesis. Your hypothesis is incorrect. After all this time you still don't get any of the basic concepts of evolution. Sad.

Kleinman writes:

Did anyone ever tell you are boring?

Nope. How many times have people told you you're wrong?


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1643 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 4:59 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1645 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 7:14 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 386
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1645 of 1774 (878194)
06-26-2020 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1644 by Tanypteryx
06-26-2020 6:14 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

Did anyone ever tell you are boring?

Tanypteryx writes:

Nope. How many times have people told you you're wrong?


That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society. And you are boring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1644 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 6:14 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1646 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 7:19 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 1650 by ringo, posted 06-27-2020 9:37 AM Kleinman has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2371
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1646 of 1774 (878195)
06-26-2020 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 7:14 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society. And you are boring.

And we have a new champion!


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 7:14 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1647 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 7:58 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 386
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1647 of 1774 (878196)
06-26-2020 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1646 by Tanypteryx
06-26-2020 7:19 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Tanypteryx writes:

And we have a new champion!


yawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1646 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2020 7:19 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1648 by jar, posted 06-26-2020 8:25 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32654
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 1648 of 1774 (878198)
06-26-2020 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1647 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 7:58 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

yawn


Yay! Maybe the little kiddie learned a new word?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1647 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 7:58 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16316
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1649 of 1774 (878207)
06-27-2020 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1643 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 4:59 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
quote:
Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events.

I’ll note that Kleinman made a similar argument earlier.

And the most common erroneous argument made on this subject is that a series of microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change. Microevolutionary changes are not linked by the addition rule. Mutations are random events so the joint probability of these events are linked by the multiplication rule. You won't understand this because you don't understand the theorems and axioms of probability theory

Kleinman’s idea that I didn’t understand basic probability theory was another of his blunders - failing to recognise the correct answer.

Yet, when I proved that I did understand basic probability theory rather than going on to elaborate he failed to reply.

As written, however Kleinman’s claim is vague - as usual for him - although the argument appears to be far from the slam dunk he needs to back up his claim of a “blunder”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1643 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 4:59 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1652 by Kleinman, posted 06-27-2020 12:24 PM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18322
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1650 of 1774 (878213)
06-27-2020 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Kleinman
06-26-2020 7:14 PM


Re: A question about Tiktaalik
Kleinman writes:

That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society.


Speaking of which, I see that you're a longtime member of the Evolution Fairy Tale forum. Me too!

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Kleinman, posted 06-26-2020 7:14 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1651 by Kleinman, posted 06-27-2020 11:44 AM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020