|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 50 (9220 total) |
| |
foresthealth | |
Total: 920,774 Year: 1,096/6,935 Month: 377/719 Week: 19/146 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What have we accomplished? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
There is nothing wrong with my claim and all you can do is lie about your claim that you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You can't even tell us whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid liar.
I certainly know what the initial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and I know whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix and you don'tPaulK writes: But you don’t know what’s wrong with your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You don't even know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid and harmful liar.
There is nothing wrong with my claimPaulK writes: Then you don’t understand Jukes-Cantor. What’s even worse is that I already explained the problem to you. And you still don’t understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Whatever abuse I throw on you is nothing compared to the harm you fish-to-mammals aficionados cause with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And you should tell the peer-reviewers, editors, publishers, and librarians at the National Library of Medicine where my papers can be found that I can't handle the math. And at least I know whether the initial condition of the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix, you big dummy.
Obviously all you can do is throw abuse.You certainly can’t handle the math
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution.
Whatever abuse I throw on you is nothing compared to the harm you fish-to-mammals aficionados cause with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.PaulK writes: So you tell worse lies. Big deal.Kleinman writes:
Oh really? What evidence you moron? You are the one that doesn't know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix.
And you should tell the peer-reviewers, editors, publishers, and librarians at the National Library of Medicine where my papers can be found that I can't handle the math.PaulK writes: That would only be possible if they were your papers. The evidence of this thread - and the others you are participating in here - indicates that you aren’t capable of having written them.PaulK writes:
Earlier in our discussion, you said something that made me think you might get what the correction needs to be in the Jukes-Cantor model so that it would correctly predict the Kishony experiment. Go back and think about what you said, watch the YouTube videos that I gave links to that talk about how to do Markov chain computations, study the Wikipedia page on DNA evolution, in other words, do your own homework you silly jerk.
But if you are capable of handling the math, if you aren’t just blowing smoke let’s discuss your corrections to Jukes-Cantor. And the problems you don’t see. So, describe the form of your model. Do you model the changes to each base as a Markov chain as Jukes Cantor does?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Oh, you mean those evolutionary scientists that can't correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. The fish-to-mammals aficionados are having a difficult time explaining the simplest evolutionary experiments.
Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution.PaulK writes: No, I just don’t believe your accusation that evolutionary scientists are to blame. An accusation made without evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
PaulK really has to expand his reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine.
More evasion. You can’t describe your model because you don’t have one or know how to build one.The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance And coming soon to you in a real scientific journal near you, "The Kishony Experiment, a Markov Chain Process".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
But you do know that fish evolve into mammals and you are descended from bananas. Knowledge just gushes out of you.
I’ve read those papers. I’m not sure you have. You certainly didn’t read those web pages about the Jukes-Cantor model. Let alone any more authoritative source. Nobody writing a scientific paper relating to that model could be as ignorant of it as you were,Which is how I know you aren’t writing a paper and don’t have a model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The 3 base version of the non-stationary Jukes-Cantor model and a mutation rate of E-9 will take over 1e26 replications (not generations, you dodo) for each successful evolutionary step (and that is not equilibrium). For a mutation rate of e-5 (about that of hiv), it will take about 1e15 replications for each evolutionary step. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. You see, when you write the correct transition matrix for DNA evolution, you get the same results as what you get from this model:
If you had a model you could talk about it. You could show that I was wrong. But you don’t because I’m right.(And you really think that a 2 base Jukes-Cantor would be worth worth doing and a 3 base version isn’t? Message 1891. Oh dear, oh dear.) The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
a servant of Christ writes:
Those computations were done years ago. The mathematics of abiogenesis is even more irrational than the mathematics of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis and the TOE are the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. And the fish-to-mammals aficionados think that selection makes the mathematics more rational for the TOE. The only problem is that they don't do the math.
what's the computation for abiogenesis? in terms of probability, that matter sprang from nothing or proteins from nothing, inanimate matter to organic matter?what's the probability of abiogenesis occuring and creating reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
There's no point in discussing my model when the mathematically incompetent PaulK doesn't understand the Jukes-Cantor model and what is simulates physically. Since PaulK can't even tell us what the intial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix, (and none of the fish-to-mammals aficionados on this forum can do it as well), I guess I'll have to do it. Put your bibs on fish-to-mammals aficionados as I spoon feed you some mathematics. And remember, don't play with your food, all you do is make a mess that someone else has to clean up. So back to the Wikipedia page on Markov Chain DNA evolution models:
The 3 base version of the non-stationary Jukes-Cantor model and a mutation rate of E-9 will take over 1e26 replications (not generations, you dodo) for each successful evolutionary step (and that is not equilibrium).PaulK writes: Oh, you mean a model which requires three bases to change? In sequence? Well that isn’t very sensible. Not that the two base model would be worth doing either. Of course models of selection aren’t Jukes-Cantor or corrections of Jukes-Cantor - even if you only track one base. I’m sorry for thinking that you might at least have been considering the real problems of modelling the Kishony experiment with a Markov chain. But there is a very sensible reason why a model that uses selection might want to track three bases and not two. But you don’t know it because you don’t have a model and aren’t even trying to build one.DNA evolution as a continuous-time Markov chain Wikipedia writes:
Then go a little further down the page and find the paragraph titled "Deriving the dynamics of substitution" and you will find the vector equation: Continuous-time Markov chains have the usual transition matrices which are, in addition, parameterized by time, t. Specifically, if E1, E2 ,E3, E4 are the states, then the transition matrix (P(t)=P{ij}(t)) where each individual entry, P{ij}(t) refers to the probability that state Ei will change to state Ej in time t.E = {A,G,C,T} where A, G, C, and T are the frequencies of the particular bases at the particular site being considered. Thus, when i=0 that is time=0, the initial condition, E0 = {A0,G0,C0,T0}. The initial condition is a vector of the frequencies of the different possible bases at the given site. Understand rubberband? Now, you of little understanding, how do you compute the state of the system when i=1, that is, how do you compute E1? Let's see if your dark mind can shed a little light on this subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
a Servant of Christ writes:
You haven't taken courses in organic and biochemistry, have you? You should listen to James Tour's discussion of this subject. Here's one of his presentations: matter sprang from nothing or proteins from nothing...ringo writes: Nobody is suggesting that proteins "sprang" from nothing. They developed from something that was kinda like proteins but not quite proteins. The probability of each step in the many steps is pretty high.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg And your last sentence in that quote is quite an understatement. a Servant of Christ writes:
Viruses are replicators but need a host to do that. Do you know what the simplest self-replicating organism is and how many genes in that organism?
... inanimate matter to organic matter?ringo writes: It's not that easy to distinguish between inanimate matter and organic matter as it is. Are viruses alive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined:
|
a servant of Christ writes:
I think a central part of this debate is people trying to justify their atheism. Because if there is no god, there is no accountability. But if we were created, we have accountability to our Creator. Our hope is that our Creator is perfect in His justise and perfect in His mercy. The atheist does what is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their mind is.
It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You can start with yourself.
I think a central part of this debate is people trying to justify their atheism.Tangle writes: To whom am I justifying my atheism and why do you think it necessary for me to do so?Kleinman writes:
There are people murdering policemen now and don't think they will be held account, unless they are caught.
Because if there is no god, there is no accountability.Tangle writes: Really, trying hitting policeman, see what happens.Kleinman writes:
Don't you think you have more choices than a cockroach or a buttercup?
But if we were created, we have accountability to our Creator.Tangle writes: Why? Is a cockroach? A buttercup?Kleinman writes:
Why? Because He tells you not to murder, steal, commit adultery? Then He pays the cost of yours and my accountability?
Our hope is that our Creator is perfect in His justise and perfect in His mercy.Tangle writes: Fat chance, according to your book he's an evil bastard that makes Pol Pot look like an amateur.Kleinman writes:
Sure, and they think that whatever they do is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their minds are. And I am showing you how evolution works including a mathematical explanation and empirical evidence. It really upsets atheists when they hear this.
The atheist does what is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their mind is.Tangle writes: Have you ever met an atheist? Where is this garbage coming from? Show your workings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It didn't take much.
You can start with yourself.Tangle writes: I did that many years ago. So is that all?Kleinman writes:
You are certainly sure of yourself.
There are people murdering policemen now and don't think they will be held account, unless they are caught.Tangle writes: Well you've accidentally hit upon the point, haven't you? If you get caught hitting a policeman, you'll be held to account. If not, you got lucky, society will get you the next time. People account to themselves and society for their actions. There is no other body.Kleinman writes:
First you say "there is no other body" and then you say "any faults in the maker's product are down to the maker". So if you use a product in a way it wasn't intended, it's the maker's fault?
Don't you think you have more choices than a cockroach or a buttercup?
Tangle writes: Why is anything responsible to its maker? Any faults in the maker's product are down to the maker.Kleinman writes:
God even uses the wicked to do his will. But not every act of mass genocide is God's will.
Why? Because He tells you not to murder, steal, commit adultery?
Tangle writes: And yet he commits acts of mass genocide and tell us to do the same.Kleinman writes:
Like I said, you are certainly sure of yourself. And the price for sin is blood.
Then He pays the cost of yours and my accountability?
Tangle writes: Well he has no need to on my account, but why and how does he do it on yours?Kleinman writes:
So you know everyone who I've ever spoke to? You must work for Google and have some powerful tracking software.
Sure, and they think that whatever they do is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their minds are.Tangle writes: Liar. You've never even spoken to one have you?Kleinman writes:
What real scientists? Are you talking about the fish-to-mammal aficionados that can't explain the simplest evolution experiments? I certainly know more about evolution than them. It doesn't take much.
And I am showing you how evolution works including a mathematical explanation and empirical evidence. It really upsets atheists when they hear this.
Tangle writes: Look kleinman, nutters like you that think that they know better than all of science but can't get their ideas accepted by real scientists pass through here all the time. We listen for a while, make an evaluation and then most of us walk away. There's nothing much to be done with a delusion. No matter what you think of yourself, you can't upset an atheist by spouting such nonsense. The best you can hope for is a mild depression for the poverty of the human religious mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
It's not hard to tell how little you know about the science of evolution. You have lots of mythical stories, just no math or physics.
It didn't take much.Tangle writes: And you know that how?Kleinman writes:
Does that mean you are ready to explain the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? Let's see you do that with your mythology about Kiwi birds.
You are certainly sure of yourself.Tangle writes: I'm certainly sure that's what actually happens. I'm also sure that you have not contradicted it.Kleinman writes:
For someone so certain on this issue, you aren't doing such a good job explaining the science of evolution. And we have good experimental evidence for that issue. So, when are you going to put the wisdom of the universe to work and explain to us the physics and mathematics of evolution?
First you say "there is no other body"
Tangle writes: Sure, I'll say it again just in case you thought I didn't mean it. There is no other body.Kleinman writes:
First you say that there is no God and then you blame the evil in the universe on that God. Maybe the people who do evil should be held to account for that evil. And now you claim that the God that doesn't exist produces manufacturing defects. You really don't want to be held account for the defects you produce, whether they are in manufacturing a chair or explaining evolution.
and then you say "any faults in the maker's product are down to the maker". So if you use a product in a way it wasn't intended, it's the maker's fault?Tangle writes: And what is your problem with that? If your chair arrives with only 2 legs do you blame yourslf or who made it?Kleinman writes:
In your mind, no one deserves judgment. No one ever sins. You can't even do your own job and correctly explain the science of evolution. Think of all the people who die of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments because you don't explain evolution correctly. You have a simple explanation, the God that doesn't exist works in mysterious ways.
God even uses the wicked to do his will. But not every act of mass genocide is God's will.
Tangle writes: Sorry, you can't slime your way out of what it actually says god himself did in your book. Just to name just one genocide - The Flood.Kleinman writes:
Maybe so. Is that the hope you live by?
And the price for sin is blood.
Tangle writes: Childish nonsense.Kleinman writes:
So you think that talking with atheists is a waste of time? So, when are you going to explain the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments. Why don't you use your mythology about Kiwi birds to explain those experiments?
What real scientists? Are you talking about the fish-to-mammal aficionados that can't explain the simplest evolution experiments? I certainly know more about evolution than them. It doesn't take much.Tangle writes: If that was actually the case you wouldn't be wasting your time here now would you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025