Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

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

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.

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.

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.

Science says it was the same and that the present is the key to the past. How this works is you better prove it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?