Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
77 online now:
jar, PaulK, Pollux (3 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,282 Year: 11,030/23,288 Month: 282/1,763 Week: 249/390 Day: 69/69 Hour: 2/6

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 528
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1891 of 1960 (879374)
07-15-2020 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1888 by ringo
07-15-2020 12:10 PM


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

The mathematics is complete, the paper is written, the only thing remaining is the last case study for the simulation of two drugs simultaneously for the Kishony experiment. That calculation on my computer system (an older I3 Intel chip running at about 1GHz) can only do 1.5 trillion replications/day. It will take about 200 trillion replications to get the one double beneficial mutation.

ringo writes:

Have you ever considered grid computing? I used to be hooked up to the World Community Grid and they had my computer working in its spare time on protein folding. You could hypothetically have thousands of computers working on your problem and returning their results.


This calculation isn't that large. And I don't think these types of Markov chain calculations would benefit because each transition step must be done sequentially. These calculations are simple matrix multiplications. The one base problem is a 1x4 vector times a 4x4 matrix and the two base problem is a 1x16 vector times a 16x16 matrix for each transitional step. That ends up being 4 equations to evaluate for the 1 base Jukes-Cantor model and 16 equations for the 2 base Jukes-Cantor model. The Jukes-Cantor model has some symmetry that can be taken advantage of to reduce the 2 base case to just 4 equations but these 4 equations have to be evaluated before the system can take the next transition. All this math is simple additions and multiplications and requires very little computer memory, the rate of calculation is clock rate limited. There are some 5GHz computers available which could cut the computation time down to less than a month but I decided its not worth the money and effort. By time I got the faster computer and got the appropriate computer programs set up and running properly would take about a week and this would just be for this one task. The computers I have now work fine for all that I do. I actually wanted more time to think about this paper before I submit it anyway. You should be able to see why based on the response to these discussions. But thanks for your advice anyway. Once this calculation is complete, I don't think it will be necessary to go on to the three base Jukes-Cantor system. Actually, this paper already predicts that behavior (as well as the two base system):
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1888 by ringo, posted 07-15-2020 12:10 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1892 of 1960 (879381)
07-15-2020 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by AZPaul3
07-15-2020 1:03 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
The evidence is that we have no evidence nature was the same or, therefore genetics was working the same. Your fail to produce any is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2020 1:03 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1894 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2020 3:58 PM dad has responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1893 of 1960 (879384)
07-15-2020 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1890 by Kleinman
07-15-2020 1:47 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
quote:
You should do a little more research on the subject, canines and felines already do eat grass.
The issue is that lions and wolves will eat plants rather than being carnivorous. Not whether some dog may eat a little grass. Missing that is missing the forest for the trees.

quote:
DNA evolution is no different that any other type of stochastic process such as coin tossing, dice rolling, card drawing, etc. That's why when you do the math properly, you can predict the evolutionary process and do DNA identification. Do you doubt the validity of DNA identification because this is done based on the rules of probability theory.

We can predict things based on the processes in place that we observe. You cannot assume those same processes existed in the past and that what is now probable was also probable in the past. If we predict that a group of people that were relocated, for example, to a hot place in Africa would see inherited skin colour change is say, 3000 years, based on how fast DNA changes and adaptation and etc work, that is only true as long as it is the same for that time. To apply probability based on observed features of the present nature to life way back in Adam or Noah's day iis to assume that all things were and remained the same. Unless you know they did, you cannot use probability.

quote:
You have to play the hand your are dealt. The only real examples of evolution we have available which can be measured and repeated are experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.
The issue with the theory of the evolution of life has to do with the hand God dealt animals and people and nature long ago, not what hand we are dealt now.

quote:
You can only say with certainty how genetics works right now. Why would you think that genetics worked differently in the past and will work differently in the future?

Right, you can only speak to how things work now. Science cannot say that either things were the same or not, and whether things will be the same or not. So as far as science goes all we can say is we don't know.

As far as the bible goes, we know all kinds of animals on earth were in one place on one boat something like, say 4500 years ago. There is no way all the millions of species could have adapted from one kind of each animal that long ago if the present nature had been in place. Nor any way plants could grow hyper fast, or people live 1000 years etc. Similarly, in the future spoken of in the bible, we could not have the present nature in place. One example is that animals will change from carnivorous, to cud chewers and vegetarians, and this will happen in a very short time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1890 by Kleinman, posted 07-15-2020 1:47 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1901 by Kleinman, posted 07-16-2020 10:02 AM dad has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5244
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1894 of 1960 (879394)
07-15-2020 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1892 by dad
07-15-2020 2:35 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
That's not the way this works.

YOU said the nature was different. That DNA and chemistry worked differently.

That is YOUR contention.

Now give acceptable evidence or retract your errant claim.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1892 by dad, posted 07-15-2020 2:35 PM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1895 by dad, posted 07-15-2020 4:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1895 of 1960 (879397)
07-15-2020 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1894 by AZPaul3
07-15-2020 3:58 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
Science says it was the same and that the present is the key to the past. How this works is you better prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1894 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2020 3:58 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1896 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2020 5:25 PM dad has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5244
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1896 of 1960 (879402)
07-15-2020 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1895 by dad
07-15-2020 4:40 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
So you have nothing to evidence your contention that the laws of nature were different long ago. Conveniently different so that your religious fairy tales would come true.

Without such evidence we reject your "other different" nature bull and call your fairy tale stories delusional.

Science says it was the same and that the present is the key to the past.

Yes it does. You want to try and prove this wrong then have at it ... idiot,

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1895 by dad, posted 07-15-2020 4:40 PM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1899 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 3:26 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14289
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1897 of 1960 (879408)
07-15-2020 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1391 by dad
05-29-2020 2:39 AM


Re: bogus claim on the age of the earth being in the bible
Any truth claim made in the forum---especially in the science forums...needs reasonable evidence. Belief cannot enter the picture in a science forum.
Dear Dad:

Basically what you are doing is this:
Premise: God exists.
Premise: The Bible is Gods revealed truth to humanity.
Conclusion: The book says there was a flood. Therefore there was a flood.

Dads basic defense: None of you were around in those times and can thus not invalidate anything that my belief says.

But again...this is a science forum. Assertions and beliefs cannot be used as an argument here.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by dad, posted 05-29-2020 2:39 AM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1898 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 3:24 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1898 of 1960 (879416)
07-16-2020 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1897 by Phat
07-15-2020 11:51 PM


get to er
My point also. Any science claim that uses a basis of a same nature in the past ads true and valid needs reasonable evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1897 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 11:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1902 by ringo, posted 07-16-2020 12:27 PM dad has responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1899 of 1960 (879417)
07-16-2020 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1896 by AZPaul3
07-15-2020 5:25 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
quote:
So you have nothing to evidence your contention that the laws of nature were different long ago.

So you have nothing to evidence your contention that the laws of nature were the same long ago. Got it. It is not my contention that science knows, that would be your contention. I am happy to go with the records of the past we do have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1896 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2020 5:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1900 by AZPaul3, posted 07-16-2020 7:41 AM dad has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5244
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1900 of 1960 (879423)
07-16-2020 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1899 by dad
07-16-2020 3:26 AM


Re: Impossible is not probable
We know the laws of nature are consistent through time as well as through space. This is long settled science that requires no new justification especially to a religious crackpot.

It is not my contention that science knows, that would be your contention.

Well ... you said something right. I cannot disagree.

And since the scientific consensus on this is long settled and you are a lone religious lunatic howling at the internet, the science wins.

I am happy to go with the records of the past we do have.

Record of the past? You mean the old embellishments of ancient oral histories written and sloppily rewritten in a millennia-old game of "telephone" by a wandering tribe of goat herders and a string of delusional religious zealots? Complete with talking snake?

Compelling.

Not.

Science wins again.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1899 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 3:26 AM dad has not yet responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 528
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1901 of 1960 (879427)
07-16-2020 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1893 by dad
07-15-2020 2:52 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
Kleinman writes:

You should do a little more research on the subject, canines and felines already do eat grass.

dad writes:

The issue is that lions and wolves will eat plants rather than being carnivorous. Not whether some dog may eat a little grass. Missing that is missing the forest for the trees.


Dig a little deeper:
Get Your Paws on These Vegan Dog and Cat Food Products | PETA
Kleinman writes:

DNA evolution is no different that any other type of stochastic process such as coin tossing, dice rolling, card drawing, etc. That's why when you do the math properly, you can predict the evolutionary process and do DNA identification. Do you doubt the validity of DNA identification because this is done based on the rules of probability theory.

dad writes:

We can predict things based on the processes in place that we observe. You cannot assume those same processes existed in the past and that what is now probable was also probable in the past. If we predict that a group of people that were relocated, for example, to a hot place in Africa would see inherited skin colour change is say, 3000 years, based on how fast DNA changes and adaptation and etc work, that is only true as long as it is the same for that time. To apply probability based on observed features of the present nature to life way back in Adam or Noah's day iis to assume that all things were and remained the same. Unless you know they did, you cannot use probability.


And you can't assume that things worked differently in the past unless you have some evidence to do so. With scientific analysis, you work with what you have available and you test your assumptions. So far, every experiment known validates probability theory. If you have experimental evidence which invalidates the theory, you should present it.
Kleinman writes:

You have to play the hand your are dealt. The only real examples of evolution we have available which can be measured and repeated are experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

dad writes:

The issue with the theory of the evolution of life has to do with the hand God dealt animals and people and nature long ago, not what hand we are dealt now.


Are you talking about abiogenesis or the TOE? Because both are shown to be mathematically irrational theories by probability theory.
Kleinman writes:

You can only say with certainty how genetics works right now. Why would you think that genetics worked differently in the past and will work differently in the future?

dad writes:

Right, you can only speak to how things work now. Science cannot say that either things were the same or not, and whether things will be the same or not. So as far as science goes all we can say is we don't know.


But if you think that things worked differently in the past, you need to present your evidence.
dad writes:

As far as the bible goes, we know all kinds of animals on earth were in one place on one boat something like, say 4500 years ago. There is no way all the millions of species could have adapted from one kind of each animal that long ago if the present nature had been in place. Nor any way plants could grow hyper fast, or people live 1000 years etc. Similarly, in the future spoken of in the bible, we could not have the present nature in place. One example is that animals will change from carnivorous, to cud chewers and vegetarians, and this will happen in a very short time.


If you honor the Bible, why don't you capitalize the word?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1893 by dad, posted 07-15-2020 2:52 PM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1904 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 1:38 PM Kleinman has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18511
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1902 of 1960 (879431)
07-16-2020 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1898 by dad
07-16-2020 3:24 AM


Re: get to er
dad writes:

Any science claim that uses a basis of a same nature in the past ads true and valid needs reasonable evidence.


It's been done. Nobody owes you your own private explanation.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1898 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 3:24 AM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1903 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 1:26 PM ringo has responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1903 of 1960 (879439)
07-16-2020 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1902 by ringo
07-16-2020 12:27 PM


Re: get to er
Any science claim that uses a basis of a same nature in the past ads true and valid needs reasonable evidence.

Post where you claim it was done and it will be shown to be basically belief based religious fable telling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1902 by ringo, posted 07-16-2020 12:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1911 by ringo, posted 07-17-2020 12:22 PM dad has responded

  
dad
Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1904 of 1960 (879440)
07-16-2020 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1901 by Kleinman
07-16-2020 10:02 AM


Re: Impossible is not probable
quote:
Dig a little deeper:
Get Your Paws on These Vegan Dog and Cat Food Products
If you are claiming that special diets for carnivores is fulfilling what the bible says about lions eating grass, then you have no respect for Scripture. Seriously? We are told serpents will no longer be dangerous, lions will lay with the lamb and play with toddlers safely etc. Obviously this requites very fundamental changes in nature.

quote:
And you can't assume that things worked differently in the past unless you have some evidence to do so

And you can't assume that things worked the same in the past unless you have some evidence to do so. Nor can you use recent scientific experiments about how things now work, and apply this to an unknown future or past.

quote:
Are you talking about abiogenesis or the TOE? Because both are shown to be mathematically irrational theories by probability theory

The TOE. (abiogenesis is such a total fable it doesn't matter) If all evolving started with the first man and woman and animals, then how could we run math on that? If adapting was as fast as the timeframe Scriptre indicates, there is no way modern rates applied. So using modern evolving rates and realities as a basis for the numbers to run math is not possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1901 by Kleinman, posted 07-16-2020 10:02 AM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1905 by Kleinman, posted 07-16-2020 2:29 PM dad has responded

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 528
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1905 of 1960 (879444)
07-16-2020 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1904 by dad
07-16-2020 1:38 PM


Re: Impossible is not probable
Kleinman writes:

Dig a little deeper:
Get Your Paws on These Vegan Dog and Cat Food Products

dad writes:

If you are claiming that special diets for carnivores is fulfilling what the bible says about lions eating grass, then you have no respect for Scripture. Seriously? We are told serpents will no longer be dangerous, lions will lay with the lamb and play with toddlers safely etc. Obviously this requites very fundamental changes in nature.


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?
Kleinman writes:

And you can't assume that things worked differently in the past unless you have some evidence to do so

dad writes:

And you can't assume that things worked the same in the past unless you have some evidence to do so. Nor can you use recent scientific experiments about how things now work, and apply this to an unknown future or past.


Why not, you do it all the time. You just did it with the diets of canines and felines. What evidence do you have that they can only survive on meat in the past or the future. We do have evidence that they can survive on a vegetarian diet today.
Kleinman writes:

Are you talking about abiogenesis or the TOE? Because both are shown to be mathematically irrational theories by probability theory

dad writes:

The TOE. (abiogenesis is such a total fable it doesn't matter) If all evolving started with the first man and woman and animals, then how could we run math on that? If adapting was as fast as the timeframe Scriptre indicates, there is no way modern rates applied. So using modern evolving rates and realities as a basis for the numbers to run math is not possible.


Do you think there was a time when the multiplication rule of probabilities did not apply in a stochastic process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1904 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 1:38 PM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1906 by dad, posted 07-16-2020 5:04 PM Kleinman has responded
 Message 1909 by kjsimons, posted 07-16-2020 9:57 PM Kleinman 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