Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

quote:

---

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?

---

Animals that eat grass usually are ruminants. In fact the bible says they will grass like the ox. So there is no mystery here. Unless you claim that wolves and lions will develop dual stomachs in a matter of weeks, your attempt at diversion is overthrown.

[/quote] False, I do not assume I live as long as Noah, or that trees grow in weeks, nor that spirits marry women. I assume we are in this present nature where realities are different.

quote:

---

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

---

"Stochastic - Wikipedia

Stochastic refers to a randomly determined process.."

I see no reason to claim that adaptation depended on anything random in the former nature. Why should I?

Kleinman writes: Do you think there was a time when the multiplication rule of probabilities did not apply in a stochastic process? dad writes: "Stochastic - Wikipedia Stochastic refers to a randomly determined process.." I see no reason to claim that adaptation depended on anything random in the former nature. Why should I?

Because that is how drug-resistant bacteria evolve and the reason cancer treatments fail. And the reason that combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

How anything adapts and evolves over the course of decades or years or months has nothing to do with the far past and how things adapted then. You are trying to base what is probable on ignorance.

Kleinman writes: 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?

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 writes: 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.

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?

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

And we have it, whether you understand it or not.

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

As I've told you more than once, try RAZD's threads on correlations. So far, you haven't shown anything there.

You posted nothing of interest or value there. Why pretend. I think the thread is still active, you should dredge up some item there you think was unfairly treated or valuable, etc.

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

dad writes: You posted nothing of interest or value there. Why pretend. I think the thread is still active, you should dredge up some item there you think was unfairly treated or valuable, etc.

Are you talking to yourself? YOU are the one who's trying to overthrow the status quo in science. Do you really think you can do that with nothing but denial?

quote:

---

YOU are the one who's trying to overthrow the status quo in science.

---

Why would I need to overthrow a religion? They are entitled to believe whatever they like. When you claim that specific aspects of the models of the past that science uses are more than a belief, you must provide real evidence and a reasoned case.

Edited by dad, : No reason given.

dad writes: Why would I need to overthrow a religion?

Why else are you here?

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.

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?

Straggler writes: 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.

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.

Straggler writes: 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?

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.

As a beacon of truth and light.

dad writes: ringo writes: Why else are you here? As a beacon of truth and light.

A beacon of light and truth has a purpose, a goal. What's yours?

Well, offering an opinion that kids should no longer be taught lies in school, but the truth seems to be about all one could do here.